(October 11, 2014 at 1:41 pm)Dolorian Wrote:Quote:Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? Yes, urgently
Without an extended evolutionary framework, the theory neglects key processes, say Kevin Laland and colleagues.
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
[...]
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well
Theory accommodates evidence through relentless synthesis, say Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues.
In October 1881, just six months before he died, Charles Darwin published his final book. The Formation of Vegetable Mould, Through the Actions of Worms11 sold briskly: Darwin’s earlier publications had secured his reputation. He devoted an entire book to these humble creatures in part because they exemplify an interesting feedback process: earthworms are adapted to thrive in an environment that they modify through their own activities.
Darwin learned about earthworms from conversations with gardeners and his own simple experiments. He had a genius for distilling penetrating insights about evolutionary processes — often after amassing years of observational and experimental data — and he drew on such disparate topics as agriculture, geology, embryology and behaviour. Evolutionary thinking ever since has followed Darwin’s lead in its emphasis on evidence and in synthesizing information from other fields.
Source
...
Check the source for the full paper. Very interesting discussion.
You are confusing what evolution is, with the field in which advances has brought the greatest insight into the operation of evolution in recent years.
Think of evolution as history. Think of genetics as an amazingly large and comprehensive ancient library that was discovered completely intact. Obviously until a good portion of the library is analyzed, a very fruitful way to spend your time researching history is to read the content this library. This does not means all history is in this library. It does not mean sudden rememberance of the fact that history may not be in this library demands rethink of history.
Does that make sense?
