Errors in the theory of evolution

[fantôme profane]

What a lot of people don’t know is that Darwin in his time actually argued in favour of blended inheritance as the main way in which traits were passed on, even though it was pointed out to him that this would not work with his theory. He also believed that inheritance of acquired characteristics was possible.

It really wasn’t till his theory was combined with genetics (Mendelism) that Darwinism took on its full explanatory strength.

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by fantôme profane

What a lot of people don’t know is that Darwin in his time actually argued in favour of blended inheritance as the main way in which traits were passed on, even though it was pointed out to him that this would not would with his theory. He also believed that inheritance of acquired characteristics was possible.

It really wasn’t till his theory was combined with genetics (Mendelism) that Darwinism took on its full explanatory strength.

Yes, he recognized that traits were heritable but he did not have an explanation for how.

[gnostic]

Let's look at this way.

We know that computer, comprised of many electronic components. But part of that included the software side, which more useful to us people. Companies who make these electronic components and software, are continuing to improve on them.

That's just like science, and in this case, about the science of Evolution; the new evidences not only improve our knowledge on Evolution, but as Jayhawker Soule have stated earlier, confirmed that the theory is fact. In any case, there's always room for improvement.

[doppelgänger]

Originally Posted by Jaiket

I haven't read what Lamarck wrote, only textbook material on the matter. Darwinism as presented in those same texts, without genetics, always seemed a much more compelling and satisfying explanation. In fact the genetic revolution obscured the field of understanding for a time I had read.

The problem was that Lamarck proposed a mechanism that was plainly not workable. Take that away, and Darwin really didn't substantially change the basic idea - though the concept of very gradual change over incredibly long periods of time was an important addition. In principle, Lamarck was correct. An organism interacts with its environment and depending on its success it does pass traits to the next generation. It's the how where Lamarck is looked back on with a little ridicule in the paragraph right before the discussion of Darwin in most textbooks.

[painted wolf]

Lamarck also believed in directionality with humanity as the ultimate goal... ie, chimps wanted to eventually become a race of man.

Now, to the OP. As a biologist keenly interested in evolutionary science (working toward that as my future career) I have yet to see any profound problems with evolution.

Are there areas that could use more research? Absolutely. But then there are still aspects of the theory of Gravitation that still need more research. That is the way science works, every answer opens up opportunity for more exploration.
That is part of why I'm excited to be a scientist.

wa:do

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

To those of you who said that the theory of evolution is now a fact, think again. According to a history book supported by many archaeologists, " The idea that man evolved or developed is only a theory, not a positive science fact. It is full of gaps,especially with regards to the "missing link"

I suppose evolution is only a theory in the same way that gravity is only a theory.

[rojse]

Originally Posted by Troublemane

ignorance is bliss.

Until the truck hits you from behind.

[Father Heathen]

Originally Posted by Lawrence

Yap. Besides, it's still just a theory that needs to be proven.

Gravity, too, is "just a theory".

[Women_Of_Reason]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

Gravity, too, is "just a theory".

Sex is just a theory to. Prove to me that it isin`t God that guides the sperm cell to the ovary.