Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geolog

Post Reply New Topic

Darwin's theory of gradual evolution not supported by geological history, scientist concludes

Charles Darwin's theory of gradual evolution is not supported by geological history, New York University Geologist Michael Rampino concludes in an essay in the journal Historical Biology. In fact, Rampino notes that a more accurate theory of gradual evolution, positing that long periods of evolutionary stability are disrupted by catastrophic mass extinctions of life, was put forth by Scottish horticulturalist Patrick Matthew prior to Darwin's published work on the topic.

"Matthew discovered and clearly stated the idea of natural selection, applied it to the origin of species, and placed it in the context of a geologic record marked by catastrophic mass extinctions followed by relatively rapid adaptations," says Rampino, whose research on catastrophic events includes studies on volcano eruptions and asteroid impacts. "In light of the recent acceptance of the importance of catastrophic mass extinctions in the history of life, it may be time to reconsider the evolutionary views of Patrick Matthew as much more in line with present ideas regarding biological evolution than the Darwin view."
Matthew (1790-1874), Rampino notes, published a statement of the law of natural selection in a little-read Appendix to his 1831 book Naval Timber and Arboriculture. Even though both Darwin and his colleague Alfred Russel Wallace acknowledged that Matthew was the first to put forth the theory of natural selection, historians have attributed the unveiling of the theory to Darwin and Wallace. Darwin's notebooks show that he arrived at the idea in 1838, and he composed an essay on natural selection as early as 1842—years after Matthew's work appeared. Darwin and Wallace's theory was formally presented in 1858 at a science society meeting in London. Darwin's Origin of Species appeared a year later.

In the Appendix of Naval Timber and Arboriculture, Matthew described the theory of natural selection in a way that Darwin later echoed: "There is a natural law universal in nature, tending to render every reproductive being the best possibly suited to its condition…As the field of existence is limited and pre-occupied, it is only the hardier, more robust, better suited to circumstance individuals, who are able to struggle forward to maturity…"

However, in explaining the forces that influenced this process, Matthew saw catastrophic events as a prime factor, maintaining that mass extinctions were crucial to the process of evolution: "...all living things must have reduced existence so much, that an unoccupied field would be formed for new diverging ramifications of life... these remnants, in the course of time moulding and accommodating ... to the change in circumstances."

When Darwin published his Origin of Species nearly three decades later, he explicitly rejected the role of catastrophic change in natural selection: "The old notion of all the inhabitants of the Earth having been swept away by catastrophes at successive periods is very generally given up," he wrote. Instead, Darwin outlined a theory of evolution based on the ongoing struggle for survival among individuals within populations of existing species. This process of natural selection, he argued, should lead to gradual changes in the characteristics of surviving organisms.

However, as Rampino notes, geological history is now commonly understood to be marked by long periods of stability punctuated by major ecological changes that occur both episodically and rapidly, casting doubt on Darwin's theory that "most evolutionary change was accomplished very gradually by competition between organisms and by becoming better adapted to a relatively stable environment."

"Matthew's contribution was largely ignored at the time, and, with few exceptions, generally merits only a footnote in modern discussions of the discovery of natural selection," Rampino concludes. "Others have said that Matthew's thesis was published in too obscure a place to be noticed by the scientific community, or that the idea was so far ahead of its time that it could not be connected to generally accepted knowledge. As a result, his discovery was consigned to the dustbin of premature and unappreciated scientific ideas."
----------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-11-dar ... gical.html

Sorry folks, it's still evolution. :p

Punctuated equilibrium isn't exactly news. What's the point?

Confirmation of the origin of the origin of species. Patrick Matthew is the one everyone should be whining and crying about from now on, not Darwin.


Not to mention I thought it'd be fun to post something saying that Darwin's theory is not supported where the article simply goes on to say that it's another form of evolution but still evolution all the same. There's bound to be at least a couple people who jump with glee just at the sight of something saying Darwin was wrong with care for the context.

Darwin is still significant because he actually developed the idea of natural selection and took it further. Matthew suggested natural selection but he didn't develop the idea fully.

Problem with natural selection is how are we alive then.

We have are a lot weaker physically than other animals our size, our vision is set up to be a predator yet we don't have claws or sharp teeth. We are extremely slow compared to most animals. Need I go on.

We have other ways of guarding our young.

Our teeth and claws are our spears and arrows and knives. Our eyes our our radar devices and we can lick any mammal or reptile in the house. Where we have less luck is against one celled biota and insects.

ruveyn

How did we survive long enough to learn how to make tools that would serve as weapons though?

You assume we were the ones who came up with the idea. Most other primates living today can utilise tools to some extent, and we did not teach them.

Teamwork. Humans have language and can co-ordinate their activities, such as defense and hunting. One on one humans are not strong, but as a co-ordinated force we can lick just about any mammal or reptile on the planet.

ruveyn

Uh other animals have teamwork, I don't feel teamwork alone would have been that useful verses the predators our ancestors would have had to face.

Try beating up a Grizzly with your bare hands sometime.

2 kings 2:23-24 totally agrees with your position as to the superiority of bears to humans in hand-to-hand combat.

The bears in the Middle East were not as large as a Grizzly in which firearms in the 1800's had a hard time bringing down.

bronze age children did not have access to such firearms so the smaller size of the bears probably wasn't too much of an issue.

also, as they were summoned by a wizard, apparently, they were probably magic-bears. those sound more dangerous.

i think you'll find a wealth of information that agrees with you at http://www.answersingenesis.org/.

We're cleverer than most other animals. A major idea is that human beings partially started moving away from the pack as we developed the ability to make tools, and so this drove our evolution to become smarter and smarter.