What is the current state of Darwinism?

Question

How much of the theory still stands up? How much of it has failed? What does the current state of research suggest for its future? Looking for answers from all sides.

Answer 1

First of all, it's not Darwinism, it's Evolutionary Theory. And last time I checked, it's still going on all around us. Most scientific evidence confirms the validity of this theory, and it is considered to be accepted as fact by everyone but the creationists and the intelligent design *cough* scientists *cough*.

Answer 2

Well Darwinism is basically outdated, because the theory of evolution in one aspect is so radical that it needs to be completely revamped everytime more evidence points against it.

There are two aspects to the current theory of evolution, these are Microevolution and Macroevolution.

Microevolution is a proven fact, this is the natural selection idea that darwin proposed, that species naturally sort out the better genes to evolve to survive in better circumstances, those that do not evolve in this respect, die out. These are usually insignificant changes, like if you use a certain cleaner to eradicate the bacteria in your kitchen, and about .1 percent of them survive, but their new generation becomes resistant to the chemical. This is microevolution.

Macroevolution is the other aspect, and this, among almost every scientist except for ones paid by biased companies, finds to be controversial. There is currently no evidence or proof for the idea of macroevolution. Macroevolution is the idea that these similar genetic changes as per natural selection is concerned will actually have one species evolve into an entirely new species overtime. At present, there are nothing but a few ideas that sound convincing if you hear it alone, like 'genetic drift', the idea that because there is no genetic memory of the state of the species in one generation, that they all drift off as accordingly to other species. Of course, this theory is flawed, because I have no idea what they think DNA is, but there is certainly a genetic memory, and if this is true, the species when spread across, would not evolve in uniform, as they seem to believe.

While microevolution is a fact, any honest scientist will tell you, even if they believe that macroevolution is a convincing theory, that there is no conclusive evidence to say that it is or isn't true.

Answer 3

As in any area of science, the initial theories of the founding fathers have been thoroughly investigated, resulting in some elements being rejected, other elements being modified, and still other elements accepted and built upon. Darwin was the father of evolutionary biology, but his impressions of just how evolution works were simplistic, just like Mendel's primitive theories of genetics (which no intelligent person today refers to as "Mendelism"). Today both genetics and evolutionary biology have advanced greatly, and we understand more about both these areas of life science than the early pioneers would ever have dreamed possible.

Answer 4

Darwinism is the last bastion of Newtonian Mechanism. Its "state" is no different than it was when Darwin proposed it. It has became a religion (i.e.,a faith based notion) so will be with us for a long time. If you are looking for alternative theories try "Vitalism", there was a good book written by the physicist Neils Bohr but I cant remember the title. Sorry, it was a long time ago.

Answer 5

I think the original concept was not supposed to mean that creation did not exist. I believe it was put way out of the original idea. Compare to the first man and see the progression and it is understandable. I am a Christian but I believe that one day could have meant a 1000 years. Just my feelings. I also believe that monkeys stayed monkeys. Since nothing in the bible revealed exactly how the creation of man came about in scientific terms, I just don't concern myself with it because I don't think it matters. I just know God created all things.

Answer 6

Funny how all of the creationists really have no argument. "I just know" or "we didn't come from apes" is not a very scientific argument. Can't we just agree to keep the "I just knows" out of the science class room. Nobody just "knows" anything. Science is based on testible questions. Theorys are based on the best available data.

Creationism is based on "I just know." Remember when they just knew the world was flat?

Answer 7

I looked up religion, and my Oxford College dictionary uses the word, "supernatural" in the definition. So, no. Although, I do enjoy the irony of you explaining WHY evolution is a religion by claiming that it's caused a moral decline, and using the assertion of its status as a religion to discredit it.

Answer 8

Darwinism in matters of racial differences theory is scientifically proven wrong now that more has come on anthropology and genetics.

Answer 9

That state is probably California or Mississippi.

Answer 10

It's evolving.