The evolution of evolution theory

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-08-18 07:16am

Ok, ignore the pun for a moment.

Is there a website or a book which summarises the changes in our knowledge of evolution down the ages. For example AFAIK Darwin discussed mainly natural selection, he didn't realise the part mutations played in evolution which we discovered later. Along the way the Lamarkian theory of evolution was dismissed when his proposed mechanism was found to be false.

Other developments I am thinking about included gradualism vs punctuaism, how newer genetic and molecular tests have helped increased our knowledge etc.

Any help would be appreciated.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-08-18 08:17am

I know the original Darwinism theory of evolution("theory of evolution by natural selection") was dropped shortly after for bigger better verisons

The classical Darwinism hasn’t been seriously considered by the scientific community for almost a century now(Origin of Species, was published ~1860 or so), this is the nature of scientify theories.

mr friendly guy · Post by **mr friendly guy** » 2005-08-18 08:22am

Having not read the origin of species (yet) what do you mean by classical Darwinism. I was under the impression Darwin only discussed the natural selection part of evolution's mechanism and he wasn't aware of the part played by mutations.

Thinkmarble · Post by **Thinkmarble** » 2005-08-18 10:43am

He did ,as far as I know, knew about natural selection and sexual selection.
He also knew that the offspring is slightly different from the parents, but he did not now about the mechanism.
Afterall he was an proponent of common descent, and for that you need change.

Kettch · Post by **Kettch** » 2005-08-18 11:39am

Check your local library. I pulled two books in the last two years about the history of evolution. Unfortunately I can't remember the names of the first one, & the second was titled. Evolution but I can't remember the author. (Note I'm in CT USA, your milage may vary, especially out in KS USA)

The Guid · Post by **The Guid** » 2005-08-18 01:50pm

Can I point out that the Theory of Evolution was created by Intelligent Design and that your title has made us all confused and Godless?

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-08-18 02:33pm

There isn't a webpage, as far as I know, but there is a book.

The Science of Discworld III: Darwin's Watch deals with not only the background to and result of Darwin's voyage, but also the development of evolutionary theory pretty much up to modern understanding.

Xon · Post by **Xon** » 2005-08-18 02:47pm

mr friendly guy wrote:Having not read the origin of species (yet) what do you mean by classical Darwinism. I was under the impression Darwin only discussed the natural selection part of evolution's mechanism and he wasn't aware of the part played by mutations.

Classical Darwinism can best be described by the phrase; "survival of the fittest", were fittest is defined as the mostlikely to survive and continue surviving.

Evolution isnt remotely that simple.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-08-18 04:47pm

ggs wrote:I know the original Darwinism theory of evolution("theory of evolution by natural selection") was dropped shortly after for bigger better verisons

No, it's been expanded upon and clarified. The original mechanism he identified for turning natural variation into separate species is still sound; he just didn't know where natural variations came from. Now we know.

Vendetta · Post by **Vendetta** » 2005-08-18 06:06pm

ggs wrote: Classical Darwinism can best be described by the phrase; "survival of the fittest", were fittest is defined as the mostlikely to survive and continue surviving.

Evolution isnt remotely that simple.

Darwin wasn't that simple either.

Charles Darwin wrote: I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another, and including (which is more important) not only the life of the individual, but success in leaving progeny.

"Survival of the fittest" is a bit of an oversimplification.

Justforfun000 · Post by **Justforfun000** » 2005-08-18 08:15pm

In a poll about people who believe either Creationism or Evolution, a few people were trying to argue creationism with the typical arguments that simply belied their lack of science understanding.

One person posted a very impressive handy dandy list of all recent and updated evidences for evolution particulary including DNA samples between species, chimpanzees and humans particulary, geological samples and transitional fossils, etc.

I posted this afterwards and I really wish I could get even come up with the way a creationist would answer me. They always manage to do it while I'm shaking my head with my mouth open because I can't believe they could actually think of something stupid enough to respond to me.

Of course even this well researched list of examples will STILL not convince the ardent believer. They will bitch and moan about one part or another being "not proven" all the way, or something questionable because of some irrelevant factor that in their mind disqualifies it, or some other silly claim.

Of course the whole purpose of WHY God would have such a motive as to make it look like every facet of creation has evidence showing the way it formed, when it formed and KEEPS forming is NOTHING like creationISM is what I would find the most important question to ask a fundie.

They would believe that he would have some sensible reason for passing sporadic messages and selective miracles through an ancient group of people that had next to no scientific understanding of the world and very little critical thinking capability. On top of this, we are expected to believe that there is a good reason that absolutely NOTHING has happened in this day and age that could actually be captured on camera or videotape, audible recording, or even live satellite feed to every major nation on EARTH, some kind of sign? Some evidence that he is actually there? Maybe Jesus come again to explain to everybody exactly what the true message was so that we could actually record word for word so we have it PERFECTLY and no distortions could even be possible.

Amazing that this is something that does not happen. Apparently God wishes us to believe in him and his religion filtered through many-times-over-told second hand stories that are as old as the hills instead of really caring if the modern person doesn't see the sense in this and condemning them to an eternity of hell for refusing to throw logic and common sense out the window?

I have to stop because at this point I'm actually chuckling out loud at the absurdity of this and don't want to think how spooky it really is that many people really think this is the way life is.

Kitsune · Post by **Kitsune** » 2005-08-20 01:41pm

Justforfun000 wrote:One person posted a very impressive handy dandy list of all recent and updated evidences for evolution particulary including DNA samples between species, chimpanzees and humans particulary, geological samples and transitional fossils, etc.

I am the one who posted it......
What scares me is something like 15% of the people on the Board, which is primarily a science fiction board, believe in creation over evolution. Granted, that is a much better percentage than surveying an average population group in the US but just a bit of reading the science behind the "Science Fiction" should put too may holes into creation for anyone to believe in creation.