The theory of evolution can evolve without rejecting Darwinism

Darwinian thinking has been challenged many times, starting with co-discoverer of natural selection Alfred Russel Wallace, who disagreed with some aspects of Charles Darwin’s arguments but was ultimately proven wrong in most of them. The American botanist Liberty Hyde Bailey published an article in 1894 in which he considered whether the formulation of neo-Darwinism, the mainstream version of the theory of evolution, needed to be expanded (which it did not); In the 1980s, paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould took a similar line.

Evolutionary biologist Kevin Lala also has doubts about what he calls traditional Darwinian thinking (see “The extraordinary way species control their own evolutionary fate”). Some consider this a straw man argument because it engages with old-fashioned ideas about evolutionary biology, whereas modern thinking is broad enough to encompass all the new aspects we are learning about, from developmental biology to cultural evolution Symbiosis different species live closely together.

Over the years, the theory of evolution by natural selection has evolved to include new insights into genes, DNA, population genetics, and epigenetics that were not available in Darwin’s time. As we report on page 11, identifying evolutionary drivers is critical if we want to forestall an avian flu pandemic, for example, and also understanding how species will adapt to climate change. It is questionable whether we need to expand the set of rules that evolutionary biologists already have. There is a danger of a “God of the gaps” argument creeping in, where obvious flaws in evolutionary theory are exploited by those who point to non-scientific explanations.

All theories must be questioned, and evaluating modern evolutionary biology brings to the fore many aspects of life that may not be well appreciated. Darwin’s explanation has endured for more than 160 years because it is broadly correct and robust enough to accommodate new discoveries. The implications of Lala’s approach are therefore not yet clear – but the exploration of neglected aspects of life is to be welcomed.