Search blog.co.uk

The origin of evolution

by ranfuchs @ 2008-03-13 - 21:33:19

evolution-poster

Unlike physics and astronomy, in which unbiased observation directly contradicted religious teachings, for a long time progress in biology did not challenge old wisdom. Throughout the 16th and 17th centuries biologists classified all known plants and animals into taxonomical groups, and were, therefore, well aware of the commonalities living organisms shared. Yet, the belief that all living organisms had been created in their current form was so well rooted that no serious alternative existed before 1859. This was the year that Charles Darwin shocked his contemporaries by implying that humans and animals shared a common ancestor.

In 1831, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) joined as a naturalist the survey ship HMS Beagle for an expedition around the world. When he returned home in 1836 with over 2000 pages of notes and thousands of skins, bones and fossils, his work had just begun. It took over 20 years before he finally formalized his findings and observations into a consistent theory, which he published in his book On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection.

Natural selection theory suggests that adaptation to the environment, through the survival of the fittest, is the main (though not the only) mechanism of evolution. Random variations continuously occur in species, which are constantly under struggle for resources. When “the surviving one of ten thousand trials” gives an organism an advantage in its environment, it would pass on this favorable change to its offspring. Accumulation of such variations within a population, particularly when major environmental changes occur, could eventually lead to the creation of new species.

Trackback address for this post:

authimage

Comments, Trackbacks: Hide subcomments

DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
2008-03-14 @ 11:27

It seems so obvious to us now and it seems the best explanation for the way things are. There are a few ambiguities in my understanding of it however (if you could take the time to explain)
- the whole idea is based on random mutations occuring without killing the specimen. This mutation becomes so important in a time of need that the mutated specimen's offspring have a clear advantage over other specimens within its species (is that right?) It may seem a very basic criticism, but it seems VERY unlikely to happen repeatedly over a period of time. The loop hole is to just extend the time period we're talking about.
- Is there any other evidence for evolution other than the fact that these fossils simply LOOK like each other? We humans look like monkeys, but is that enough to draw a conclusion? In the future people may find microwaves next to TVs and assume they are related - but they'd be wrong.
- How come we don't see any 'transitional' species of animal? What happened to the half bird/reptile creatures etc?

I am only questioning these things to gain a greater understanding - and science is about questioning everything. There may be very obvious answers to these questions, but I don't know.

Marie [Visitor]
http://justonemorething.blog,co,uk
2008-03-14 @ 21:52

I am sure the writer of the original post is more than able to answer your questions but I thought I'd just join in the fun.
1) - The mutation only needs the slightest advantage to increase its chances of being passed on. If you imagine an organism to say 20,000 genes (this is a rough average humans have 30,000 some species have more some have less) and there are 10,000 individuals in a population then there are 200,000,000 genes in that population. The process of meiosis (producing sperm and egg cells) only needs a copying error rate of 0.001% to make 200,000 mutations in the population. Any of these that were significantly negative would result in non viable or sterile. Lets imagine half those mutations were bad. We now have 100,000 good mutations. If some of those are the same and offer the smallest advantage enough maybe to raise 10 offspring not 9. Each gene has a roughly 50% chance of being passed from parent to any particular offspring. lets err on the side of caution and say that 3 of the offspring have the advantageous gene, along with the offspring of the other individual that had the mutation. This gene is going to raise in the population because it is now not reliant on chance alone.
You raise the issue of time spans - We have vast amounts of time available to us, so much that is actually incomprehensible to us. about 4bn years since life evolved. That's enough generations for tiny changes to add up.
2)There is plenty of other evidence. In terms of the outward zoology there is the gradation of features. Island species looking like mainland species but being adapted to any differences in the new environment. A famous example of this is the Gallapagos Finches. Each one similar to the others, but adapted to their particular environment. This is not proof that evolution has occurred but is exactly what we would expect to see if it had. There is also prove that evolution can happen in the way that bacteria adapt to antibiotics. Again this is not proof that every living thing has evolved but it shows that the mechanisms are there. At the molecular level there is plenty to suggest that we all share a common ancestor. Much of our biochemistry is the same or similar, the fact that we all have DNA and RNA is very indicative of shared heritage. You can count the number of bases in the DNA that differ between individuals and use this information to see how related they are - the more differences the less related. This information ties up perfectly with the fossil record.
3) As to missing links there are plenty - I refer you to last weeks New Scientist - available on the web. If you have problems finding it - post a comment on my blog and i'll see what I can do.
hope that helps

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-14 @ 23:50

I don't think there is much more I can add. I still will though (how can I resist? :) Both the super bug and the bird flu are contemporary evidence that evolution processes are happening here and now.

DominicGeeDominicGee [Member]
2008-03-15 @ 20:49

Thanks, that's made it a bit clearer. The other thing that worried me about it was that the theory seemed to spring from the Romantic movement etc and what with all the Empire building at the time, it seemed a perfect way of explaining dominants societies - justifiying imperialism in a way. Not only were new species and ancient ones being discovered, but new civilizations. Evolutionary theory is applied to so many branches of thought now - political especially that it has been quite damaging. Evolution has the evidence to back it up but it did come from an era when people wished to explain how the Europeans had come to dominate the world. Is it possible that the theory of evolution will fall from fashion, like so many other scientific theories? (even though it's not meant to be dictated by fashion, a lot of it is)

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-15 @ 21:29

I am not sure what you are referring to. What theory sprung from Romantic movement? I know of no connection between evolution theory and the romantic movement. I will be happy to learn about such connection.

How evolution seems a perfect way to explain imperialism is beyond me. Evolution does not talk about one species better than another in any way. It makes no moral claims or judgment. It merely talks about adaptability and survivability. It does not justify it, but describe the way nature seems to behave, whether we like it or not.

It was the Church that did not believe in evolution, far before evolution theory ever emerged, that used divine superiority as justification for Europeans atrocities and dominance of the world ( http://thequestionofreality.blog.co.uk/2008/01/30/aristotle_and_the_great_chain_of_being~3652569 ) Evolution theory has taken this away. You can’t claim any more that you were chosen, or that you are superior. At most you can claim is that you are better at surviving.

Naturally, there have been many cases of people using scientific ‘terms’ to justify their doings. But it has nothing to do with science. (just like green tax has nothing to do with global warming, and all to do with an excuse to raise taxes, or ‘fuck off’ has nothing to do with sex). The only reason they could get away with it, is because of the scientific ignorance of the population that can’t tell science from fake science ( http://ranfuchs.blog.co.uk/2008/03/02/science-vs-pseudo-science-3804074 )

As for fashion, evolution is not a fashion, it is a scientific theory based on observations. Like any other theory, if new observation will contradict it, it will be invalidated. Until that day, it will remain a plausible theory.

PrettyintelligentprincessPrettyintelligentprincess [Member]
2008-03-17 @ 00:57

Did you know, he only 'released' his 'theory' after the death of his youngest son?
I have taught a little of the theory and the impact upon the power of the church when introducing Mary Shelley's Frankenstein. She was a supporter or Darwin.Fascinating stuff.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-17 @ 08:26

This part I did not know. Thank for the info. Where did you find about it?

deleted user [Visitor]

2008-03-17 @ 02:23

how long have dogs been around for? and cats? sabre tooth tigers, aren't they real ancient? so why can't dogs and cats talk? or if Darwin is right can we expect them to start talking sometime in the future? nah, I just don't buy it.

ranfuchsranfuchs pro
2008-03-17 @ 09:27

1. They both can communicate
2 Why should they talk? Talking is only one way evolution can go, germs can't talk and they are very good at surviving. So from evolution point of view, germs are just as successful as we are, and they don't even need to talk about it. How lucky :>

Leave a comment :

Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Your URL will be displayed.
Allowed XHTML tags: <!, p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, a, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small, img>
URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:
 
(Line breaks become <br />)
(Set cookies for name, email & url)
Validation code:
Please enter the above code here:
For protection from spambots (case-sensitive).