Through our own curiosity, humans have gone past the barriers of religion in search of many unanswered questions. One of the main questions that are always brought up is, where exactly did we come from? A quick answer is evolution, but what exactly is Evolutionism? What exactly makes us immediately believe that this is the answer, and for the matter is it even reliable? Isn’t evolution just another theory that remains to be proven? How can we continue to rely on this to be the core answer to our history when it has yet to be full proof? Even with fossil remains, some pieces tend to be missing and prevent us from providing a complete answer. The fact of the matter seems to be that we are never completely sure, there is much more about the world and ourselves that we don’t know about, and when we compare it to what we claim to know it is quite minuscule. However, for this precise reason, humans feel the need the keep researching into the unknown, because we would rather continue to fail and learn after multiple attempts rather than to stay ignorant. Evolutionism is a product of this, continuous human research into our past ancestors and connecting lines that weren’t there before, although it is still a working progress. Evolutionism means different things to different people. For example, there are theistic evolutionists and there are atheistic evolutionists. But the basic premise behind the evolutionary worldview is atheistic. Theistic evolutionists are those who have managed to reach a compromise between two very distinct world views, creationism, and evolutionism. Evolutionism, in its pure form, is the idea that this universe is the result of random cosmic accidents. Life arose spontaneously via chance chemical processes, and all life-forms are related and share a common ancestor from bananas to birds, from fishes to flowers, apes to humans and the cycle continues. Evolutionism is a worldview, which seeks to explain every aspect of this world in which we live. It encompasses a wide variety of topics, from astronomy to chemistry to biology. At its core, it teaches that there were different stages in the evolution of our universe. Through the foundations of Darwin, we learn that the first and most obvious aspect is the idea of an irreducible type, continuous within itself and discontinuous with other types. For example, the dog is a species and all other dogs are its members. The second aspect is the idea of classificatory or systematic hierarchy. This is where all aspects can be ordered in relation to one another or to their degree of likeness. The third is the idea of a hierarchy of endowment or some value-laden notion. Species can exist in countless modes. These species can be in modes of motionless, active, subtle, or to the bottom of the sale that can hardly be distinguished from the inorganic world.
What we have today is a better idea of how we reproduce, but more importantly different stages in our history as well. One of the concepts that Evolutionism is based on is survival of the fittest, where organisms will adapt to their environment in order to survive, this was first introduced by Charles Darwin, where he observed mutational changes occur occasionally in individual species. Sometimes the changes were inheritable and at times these inheritable changes improved the ability of the individual organisms possessing them which helped them to survive longer, through this the organisms were able to reproduce more, thus propagating their new altered design into the population. Essentially those that survive to reproduce are simply labeled after the event as ‘fitter’ than those that do not, natural selection is the differential loss of differently constituted individuals.
Natural selection is the mechanism for evolutionary change. Three generalizations are made about the properties of organisms. The first being that individual species vary somewhat one from another in both structural and behavioral. The second is that individual variation is to some degree hereditary. It is transmitted from generation to generation. The third generalization is that organisms multiply at a rate which exceeds the capacity of the environment to carry them. Natural Selection is used to refer to the natural evolution over a period of time of a species, these species have genes that will in-turn help them adapt and survive in the present environment. In Natural Selection, a population will develop genetic traits over generations that will help the species become best suited to its environment. These traits can be physical, structural traits or the skeleton that helps the species live in the setting, or physiological traits, which pertains how the organism digests its food. Because Natural Selection offers genetic traits that best fit the organism, it helps them continue to produce more offsprings and a higher chance of survival. An example for skeletal adaptations would be giraffe’s long necks, their necks help them reach food sources that are higher up in trees, so those who are a member of the giraffe population who didn’t have long necks eventually died. Coloration is also another type of way that species managed to survive in their environment. Some species can be bright, vivid colored, while others can be very challenging to see. The organism is in harsh impact on its environment, only some organisms perish or fail to reproduce. Adaptation should be noted as an important factor because it is said that if an organism can pass the barrier between generations then it is adapted. Another important note is that Natural Selection is understood to be a process that operates on a population of organisms. Evolution is the change in the average constitution of individuals as the generations succeed one another.
Richard Dawkins introduced the Selfish gene, an individual's selfishness, and altruism. Our evolution is successful because we have these Selfish genes and Dawkins argues that a predominant quality in a successful gene is a Selfish gene. Altruism and selfishness are behavioral, not subjective. Dawkins shared a concern about whether the effect of altruism increases or decrease the survival prospect of the altruist and the beneficiary. He states a few examples of the selfish and altruistic behavior of animals. For instance, the selfish black-headed gulls, they eat their neighbors hatched chicks when they’re unattentive or away. Also, the female praying mantis who eats her partner’s head during the sexual performance. The altruistic example Dawkins gives is small birds who give out an alarm call to warn all other birds from the predator. Also that of the parent bird who performs a distraction display to lure away the predator. After a while, it stops its pretense and escapes in time. Therefore, saving the life of its nesting, but at risk of itself. On another note, he concluded that extinction may be avoidable by an adaptive change. However, this is not guaranteed.
Macroevolution is the generally known concept that all life is connected and has lineage from a common ancestor, the birds and the apples, the fishes and the trees to us, we are all related through a process of over millions of years. During this stage, Charles Darwin popularized in his well known, Origin of Species, published in 1859. Darwin didn't necessarily invent the theory, but he gave it credence by providing a plausible mechanism through natural selection.This evolutionary phase is singular in that creationists and evolutionists tend to agree on this one. This is the concept that there can be variations within different types of species. There can be big individuals, small individuals, brown individuals, and white individuals. There are many different shades of skin tone and many different eye colors, but humans are still human. Just because an individual's characteristics are different from others, that doesn't mean they are any less human than the next person over. Our traits make us unique, but we are all still the same species, our DNA allows for the variation in traits. The variety is thought to be controlled by our genetic code. The code itself allows this process, but there are genetic barriers which limit.
Despite some of the solid evidence to help support Evolutionism and all the concepts within it, many people still speculate and feel it has a weak foundation. Throughout the years' people have come out and pinpointed what they believe to weaknesses in the theory and many missing holes, which they also believe to be vital if the theory is truly factual. One of which is a lack of a viable mechanism for generating high quality of compound and particularized data or material. Connected to this are issues with the Darwinian mechanism creating clear complex features, and the issues of counterproductive or harmful intermediate sections. One of the most common arguments is the failure of the fossil record to provide support for Darwinian evolution. Many also believe Natural selection is an extremely inefficient method of spreading traits in populations, that is unless a trait has an extremely high selection coefficient. Another problem seems to be that convergent evolution appears excessive at both the hereditary and morphological stages, even though under Darwinian theory this is profoundly unlikely. Those that oppose Evolutionism and the Darwinian feel that chemistry fails to explain the origin of the genetic code as well developmental biology, an example they use is that vertebrate embryos diverge at the start of the developmental process. An interesting note that opposers also make is that humans continue to show plenty of cognitive and behavioral traits and capabilities that wouldn’t offer survival advantages.
Challengers of Evolutionism also look at genetics differently and believe mutations cause harm instead of benefits and have no impact on complexity. They also make a case in that Darwinian evolution relies on random mutations that are selected by an unguided process of Natural selection. This undirected process has no intentions of improving and being aimless, it tends to harm species which in turn does not improve them or build complexity. Biologist Lynn Margulis, a member of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, made some strong comments challenging Evolutionism claiming mutations don’t create new species, they instead create offspring that are impaired. Another mention is the past president of the French Academy of Sciences, Pierre-Paul Grasse, who disputed that mutations have a restrictive constructive capacity because no matter the varieties there may be, mutations do not create or lead to evolution.
Expanding on these claims a common notion that leads many to question Evolutionism in biochemistry, and the unguided random processes that seem to not produce cellular complexity. Our cells work similarly to factories using machine technology but minimizing the complexity and effectiveness of anything created by humans. The makeup of cells could be described as feedback loops, motors, encoded language, circuits, and most importantly error-checking to unravel and fix our DNA. In their eyes, Darwinian Evolutionism is missing some steps in order to explain the provenance of this form of integrated complexity. In a book published by Oxford University Press, Biochemist Franklin Harold explains that there are currently no particularized Darwinian written descriptions of the evolution of any biochemical or cellular structure, only a vast number of ambitious beliefs.
The issue with fossil records, on the other hand, seems to be an inadequacy of intermediate fossils. The overall pattern is one of a hasty outbreak of new biological forms and tends to miss conceivable options for transitional fossils, contradicting the system of continuous evolution suggested by the Darwinian theory. This objection to Darwinian arrangement has been identified by many paleontologists. University of Pittsburgh anthropologist Jeffrey Schwartz believes that we are still far from knowing about the origin of most major groups of organisms, we are essentially still making some guesses. Evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr expanded on the idea that new species tend to emerge in fossil records spontaneously, not connected with ancestors by a series of intermediates. Essentially a group of species can live up to millions of years, but once it goes instinct it will likely be replaced by a similar species. The most important point from this argument is that most major groups of organisms appear suddenly in the fossil record, fully formed, and with no other fossils discovered that lead into a transition phase from their ancestral group.
One aspect that everyone seems to agree on is that microevolution occurs. However, an abundance of scientific and academic literature is overcome with doubt about the Darwinian claim that microevolution provides a satisfactory basis for supporting macroevolutionary claims. Günter Theißen, of the Department of Genetics at Friedrich Schiller University in Germany, elaborated on that while we already have a decent understanding of how species adapt to the ecosystem, not much is understood about the system behind the origin of evolutionary novelties, a development that is arguably different from adaptation. Although Darwin’s work did an excellent job of explaining how the large complex and diverse groups of living organism on Earth, this remains one of the toughest challenges of biology and all sciences together. Evolutionary biologist Stanley Salthe also describes himself as a critic of Darwinian evolutionary theory. Salthe believes Evolutionism isn’t capable of explaining origins or the actual presence of forms and behaviors in organisms. In addition, Biologist Scott Gilbert claims that the modern synthesis is a perfect example at demonstrating the survival of the fittest, however, it failed on displaying the rise of the fittest.
Whether one is for or against Evolutionism and the Darwinian theory, it is clear that it has gained much attention either through its merits and accomplishments in giving us new ideas of looking into our ancestry or through the skepticism and denial that many still feel towards it. For this reason, I think Evolutionism connects with many other theories and concepts such as that of consciousness. A concept where we question if we are truly in charge of our minds. When going into terms such as cognition and recognition, the main argument seems to be when exactly does consciousness kick back in? Because for consciousness we have to stop and think about what we are doing, so for that matter when exactly did we start to worry about our origins? Would coming up with a theory and agreeing with aspects of it such as evolutionism mean that we are conscious? Another concept is that of perceptionism, where it elaborates on our internal and external perceptions. I believe this connects well with evolutionism since culture plays a role in our perception, a lot of times our beliefs will alter what we believe to be the better option. Our perception can actually help us decide what we think of evolutionism if the ideas and concepts that it creates align with what we would like to image then it becomes easier to accept the theory and vise versa. A similar instance can be seen through the concept of behaviorism because many of us were conditioned into fully grasping and believing into the theory of evolutionism, throughout school, we were taught the theory, and by being tested on it and passing we received positive feedback that measured our behavior.
In conclusion, Evolutionism has proven its importance, although still a theory it has made its way into school lessons from elementary through higher education. It was once objected by many through religious ideals, but as the years have passed it proves to stand firm with its concepts and main points, and in order to do that it must have a strong thesis. The Darwinian theory was relatively new at its time and brought about new ideas that were not really heard of and for many, it gave them a whole new outlook on life itself as they did not know how to conceive this new information. As mentioned earlier humans are always curious and searching for more answers in many different areas, but considering we don’t know the full story of ourselves it’s safe to say this topic is one of the most eye-catching as we always find ourselves questioning everything we know and that we are taught. As the years go by new concepts and theories are created through countless years of research and replace older lessons were thought to be correct. And this is another aspect that I feel Evolutionism represents, whether one believes in it or thinks it lacks too much information to receive full credit, it is essentially the best answer we have towards many of our questions specifically about ourselves and how we got here. So what is Evolutionism? It the best set up system that we have today that helps explain how we reproduce, it gave adaption a new meaning by making us realize that a species can evolve over millions of years and that includes humans as well. It showed us that survival of the fittest doesn’t necessarily mean which species is the strongest, fastest, or brightest, but it's about the importance of being able to reproduce because that is how an overall group of species will survive. Evolutionism also gave us Natural selection which actually helps lead into the importance of reproducing because this is how organisms adapt to their surrounding environment which into turn allows them to pass on the most useful genes and traits. Although the theory isn’t perfected yet over the process of many years we might be able to see that change, missing links might be made or maybe other pieces of information will arise that will completely disregard the theory in the future. However, as of today it has proven to be the best explanation and makes the most sense.