What is the Evolution debate about?

Question

`m not talking about the creationism vs. evolution debate. Thats been over with for quite awhile. We have the fossils, Dna, Controlled experiements, age of rocks, to prove Evolution is the way to go.

I have heard there is a debate within the scientific community about Natural selection. They are not in disupute that life evolved - rather they debate about what role natural selection plays in the evolutionary process. Some say it is the motivating mechanism - others say it`s not. I don`t know what is the arguement on the other side of the debate. If natarul selection is not the motivating mechanism then what is? If you could please explain to me the other side of the debate among biologist I would appreciate it!

Yes I`m aware this is a biology inquiry. I tried posting it over there with no sucess. Hopefully my fellow philosophers can help me out on this one?

Answer 1

Perhaps what you're thinking about is the 'units of selection' problem.

Though it seems pretty obvious that something that can't get food will starve and its genes will die out, biologists like to be a little more exact than that. And when you are being more exact, almost any way you try to frame the picture there are problems.

Take for example the idea of the 'selfish gene'. Obviously a piece of DNA isn't selfish itself... it's just a chemical. Not even alive in most senses. And if it's just sitting there, it's not likely to have any effect on survival at all. Think about it: does it matter if you have a 'die now' gene if that gene isn't turned on?

So instead you start to think of gene products. Proteins. Cells. Tissues. Organs. Creatures. Societies. Species. Niches. All life everywhere. Evolution can produce changes at any of these levels. And while it seems more proper to talk about selection affecting cells instead of genes (at least the cells are alive!), when you look at things that fine it's hard to describe multi-species symbiotic relationships.

Some biologists deny that selection operates on any of those higher levels at all, however. They try to describe altruistic behaviours purely in the context of gene survival. Others try to study whether belief systems and behaviour patterns can affect survival in ways in which genes are completely uninvolved.

And the problem is that a lot of it SEEMS to make sense. Which makes a singular, uniform description of 'fitness', 'selection', and perhaps even 'evolution' a little difficult to collect when you look at the details. It's not a huge issue that most lay people would appreciate... but it is a puzzler.

Answer 2

Well, I think you are talking about a way of putting it instead of a real debate... it has been preached out to us in school in terms of motivational mechanism, however it is just a failure mechanism. You fail you go... and so on ... most life form don't have motivation, only consequence. Real motivation requires some level of complexity... most life forms are not that complex!
One thing that has been argued over is the speed of the processes and how they work. Some say most evolution is due to sporadic mutation, which in most cases is fatal, or absolutely irrelevant. (Like people with six toes or babies born without a fully developed nervous system) Such that in the rare event a mutation goes right and makes that individual Superior, also makes it become the eventual standard by natural selection. The other side says no...it is the slow adaptation due to behaviors and need, etc...! I personally thing both mechanisms could be working simultaneously just fine! So much so that there are paralell species evolved from a single one that kept on existing fine but evolved with minor differences...

Answer 3

There is no debate that Natural Selection plays the main role in the evolution of organisms. But other mechanisms and what exactly the unit of selection is, is widely open to debate. The possible units for selection are the organism, genes, the group, the species, etc. And the two major mechanisms that have a on going debate are Gradualism and Punctuated Equilibrium.

Answer 4

I just had to add that "Nothingusefullearnedinschool" 's name is quite appropriate for him...he apparently didn't learn much of anything. When anyone refers to evolution as "Darwinism" and "just a theory" it's an immediate tip-off that we're dealing with someone with a severely stunted science education.

The existence of young-Earth creationists in this day and age, along with monkeys and apes, ought to be proof enough that man evolved from lower life forms.

Answer 5

Darwinism is a "theory", nothing more. There is no proof of its existence anywhere. There is, however, quite a lot of proof that it is not true. For instance, when you find dinosaur tracks and human tracks that were made at the same time in the same layer of molten rock, which has been found in numerous places around the world.
If you want to believe that there was a "big bang" and billions of years later, man appeared upon the earth, go ahead. Just remember, it is only a halucination.

Answer 6

I think humanity is at an evoluntionary leap point. We just keep leaping in the wrong place.

Answer 7

hot cross buns.....
hot cross buns.....
one penny two penny
hot cross buns....