Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection: A Scientific Revolution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Darwin's theory of natural selection and its historical context, particularly the prevailing theories it challenged, such as creationism and Lamarckian evolution. Participants explore the evidence that supported Darwin's ideas and the nature of scientific revolutions in biology.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that before Darwin, creationism and Lamarckian evolution were the dominant theories, with Lamarck proposing that characteristics acquired during an organism's life could be inherited.
  • It is mentioned that Darwin's "The Origin of Species" and the work of Alfred Russel Wallace provided significant evidence for natural selection, while experiments with mice challenged Lamarckian ideas.
  • One participant highlights Malthus's essay on population as an influence on Darwin's thinking, suggesting that earlier theories lacked robust evidence or mechanisms for change.
  • A later post references the importance of genetic discoveries in the 20th century that made natural selection a more compelling explanation for evolution.
  • Another participant questions whether natural selection is a falsifiable theory and seeks to identify experiments that could potentially falsify it.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the historical context of Darwin's theory and the challenges it posed to earlier views, but there is no consensus on the specifics of experiments that could resolve debates about natural selection versus Lamarckism or the falsifiability of natural selection itself.

Contextual Notes

Some claims about the evidence supporting Darwin's theory depend on interpretations of historical experiments and the evolution of genetic understanding, which may not be universally accepted or fully resolved.

Jimmy Snyder
Messages
1,137
Reaction score
22
I know zip about biology, but I know a little physics. Before Einstein's general theory of relativity challenged it, the prevailing scientific theory of gravitation was Newton's theory. In the minds of most physicists, the issue was resolved in favor of Einstein's theory as a result of an experiment involving an eclipse of the sun. It was the prototypical scientific revolution. Now my two questions:

1. What was the prevailing scientific theory(s) that Darwin's theory of natural selection challenged?

2. What experiment(s) resolved the issue in favor of Darwin's theory in the minds of most biologists?
 
Biology news on Phys.org
Before Darwin, prevailing views were creationism and Lamarckian evolution. Lamarck suggested that animals acquired carachteristics to suit their needs. If an animal lived at high altitude, their lungs would grow stronger and larger, and this characteristic would be passed on to its offspring.
Darwin's book, "The Origin of Species" was the main body of evidence (along with Alfred Russel Wallace's work of the same period), and experiments involving cutting the tails off mice and seeing if their offspring acquired shorter tails provided evidence against Lamarckism. Gregor Mendel's pea plant research (conducted earlier, but not re-discovered until the early 20th centuary) provided evidence that characteristics were passed on to offspring.
 
There apparently wasn't much before the theory we know today. As with all theories, Darwin was inspired by earlier work: Malthus's essay on human population operated on the same operating premise. Others around the same time considered the progressive nature of species change, but didn't offer good evidence or a good means by which it happened. But before scientists really started looking at it (remember, "science" didn't really exist until ~1600), Biblical creationism was pretty much it.

An interesting link:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_14

Google: "evolution history"
 
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/history_14

I checked out this site, and I was most intrigued by the final sentence:


berkeley said:
It would take the discovery of genes and mutations in the twentieth century to make natural selection not just attractive as an explanation, but unavoidable.

A statement like that hints that there is some experiment that would decide between Darwinism and Lamarckism. I intend to look into this further.
 
Is natural selection considered to be a 'falsifiable' theory? If so, what experiment is considered to be capable of falsifying it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
5K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
8K