Is this really true? Is evolution now the absolute truth? No. SCOTT and COLE's work also found that of the 135,000 papers submitted in 1985, 18 were indeed anti-evolutionary and non-evolutionary. And without exception, these 18 papers were rejected for publication. Evolution is not infallible, but its defenders do not allow any challenge to it. This reinforces the impression that the theory of evolution is not founded on the scientific validity and perfection of its own doctrines, but on the beliefs of its many admirers. Evolution is not an "empirical science" in the KARL POPPER sense of the word, but a mishmash of hypotheses, beliefs and imperfect evidence.
In fact, what we find in scientific research today is enough to make people reconsider the validity of the theory of evolution. But these facts have either been avoided or erased, and people have been driven, consciously or unconsciously, by stereotypical thinking to become defenders of the prevailing theories and to lose the ability to think independently. This is not in line with the spirit of rational science. A real scientist should face up to the defects of the old theories and the challenges they face, and have the courage to get rid of the fetters. Only in this way can science move forward and mankind push forward.
Darwin in the "Origin of Species", had this description of the evolutionary theory of the pioneers, France's outstanding naturalist Lamarck [Lamarck (1744-1829)] French biologist, one of the founders of modern evolutionary theory. His main works include French Botany, Philosophy of Animals. For his contribution to the theory of evolution, "his merit is great, for he was the first to bring to light the hypothetical possibility that all the variations in the organic and inorganic world occur according to the laws of nature and not as a result of divine intervention." Again, we see that Lenin summarized the significance of Darwin's theory of evolution by saying, "Darwin's writings at last drove God out of nature, and the biological sciences stood on their feet." These statements demonstrate, above all, the role of evolution in combating theology.
In Western society, beginning with the Renaissance, the natural sciences, inspired by Copernicus's heliocentric theory, developed rapidly. By the 18th century, astronomy, mathematics, physics, and mechanics had been liberated from the rule of theology, but biology remained imprisoned in theology. The theological worldview in biology specifically manifested itself in species-specific creationism and species-invariantism. These two views advocate that God is the Creator, that all living things are created by God, and that all kinds of living things on earth receive their eternal and unchanging structures and functions, including their living habits, from the Creator. Obviously, the so-called species-specific creationism and species-invariantism are essentially the Christian Bible transposed into the natural sciences. The biological sciences at that time could only be an exegesis of the Bible, the "handmaiden of theology". In the midst of such an unquestionable social trend, how did the idea of evolution come to occupy the minds of a group of scientists such as Lamarck and Darwin? We know that from the end of the 18th century, not only Lamarck and Darwin, but also a group of natural scientists established the idea of evolution. The outstanding representatives among them are: the French scientist Bufon, the French zoologist St. Tyrrell [St. Tyrrell (1772-1844)] French animal anatomist, embryologist, and one of the pioneers of the modern theory of evolution. He was a professor of vertebrate zoology at the Muséum d'Histoire de Paris. His major works include The Philosophy of Anatomy. , British naturalist and poet Erasmus Darwin (Darwin's grandfather), British natural scientist Wallace, German botanist Karl Nicolai Fraser (18101875), Russian zoologist Lurier (18141858), and others. Where did the forces that drove so many natural scientists to break free of their theological bonds come from?
It becomes clear when we look at the way evolutionary ideas germinated in their minds. For example, Darwin's grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, once said, "The metamorphosis of animals, such as the change from tadpoles to frogs, ...... the changes caused by artificiality, such as new breeds of horses, dogs, and sheep bred artificially, ...... Changes caused by climatic and seasonal conditions, ...... the essential uniformity of the structure of all warm-blooded animals, ...... make it impossible for us not to conclude that they have all arisen from one and the same fiber of life." This suggests that the natural facts of the changes that occur in species under conditions of artificial cultivation and under the action of different external environments inspired him with the idea of species change. Take the German Karl Fraser, whom Marx called "the Darwinist before Darwin," who published his book "The History of the Climate and the Plant World in All Ages" in 1847. In this book, he used the descriptions of the morphology and ecology of plants by ancient Greek writers, compared with his fieldwork in Persia and Egypt in the 1930s, and concluded that "the belief in the invariance of plant species has also been shaken by us, and we even point out that this is due to nature." Not surprisingly, it was direct contact with the facts of nature that led him to reject the theological view of species invariance and species-specific creation.
We know that among the pioneers of evolution, Lamarck and Darwin had a direct theological education and may have made the priesthood a lifelong profession. Lamarck's parents wanted him to be a minister, so they enrolled him in a parochial school for a few years of theological instruction during his high school years. Darwin graduated from the Divinity School at Cambridge University with a degree and qualifications to be a priest. Yet again, it was precisely the two of them who dealt species creationism and immutability a heavy blow. Theological indoctrination did not prevent the germination of evolutionary ideas in their minds, and the underlying reason was the very fact of observing nature. Lamarck once summarized the matter in a single sentence when he said, "The material of observation has clearly proved the absurdity of the theory of the invariance of species." As for Darwin, the role of nature in enlightening him is even more obvious, and we might as well say more about it. In 1935, the Ecuadorian government erected a monument to Darwin on the Galapagos Islands, 1,000 kilometers off its coast, to commemorate the centennial of Darwin's expedition to the islands, with the inscription, "Charles Darwin landed in the Galapagos Islands in the year 1835. Charles Darwin landed on the Galapagos Islands in 1835. While studying the distribution of the local flora and fauna, he first considered the problem of biological evolution, and thus began the revolution of thought on this unsettled thesis." Here's what Darwin wrote in his journal of his expedition at the time: the archipelago is "surrounded by new birds, new reptiles, new mollusks, new insects, new plants ....... Why is it that the indigenous organisms of these islands are related to those of the continent in different proportions, either in kind or in number, and act in a different way from each other? Why were they also created according to the biological organization of the Americas?" "Inside the recent period of geological history, this was still a vast ocean of emptiness and nothingness. It seems, therefore, as if, whether in space or in time, we would arrive at an insight a little nearer to that great fact which is the secret of all secrets: the question of the first appearance of new creatures on earth." Darwin believed that his entire thought originated in the Galapagos Islands. Of the whole life of the expedition on board the Beagle, this is how he recalled it, "The Beagle trip was the single most important event of my life, and it determined my whole future career." Here is an episode that illustrates very well the way in which the facts of nature enlightened Darwin. Before the trip on the Beagle, Hans Roe, a professor of botany at Cambridge University whom Darwin greatly admired, advised Darwin to take the geologist Ryle [Ryle (1797-1875)], also translated as "Layle", a British geologist and the founder of geology, who advocated the theory of geological gradualism, and whose work was mainly devoted to the theory of geological change. He advocated the theory of geological gradualism, and his major work, Principles of Geology, marked the maturity of classical geology. of the book Principles of Geology with him, saying, "You must take Ryle's new work with you on this trip, and turn to it at all times, for it is very interesting, but you must not pay any attention to it except for the facts it contains, for its theories are all absurd to the extreme." As it turns out, Ryle's book expounded on the fact that the earth's strata were slowly changing, and that changes in the surface environment caused organisms to gradually change as well. Ryle's theory was a critique of the then dominant "catastrophism", which Hanslow believed in. Darwin read this work carefully on the way. At the beginning of his journey, he believed that "creatures were created according to God's plan" - he had answered such questions put to him by military officers during the journey. But when he had just visited his first site, the island of Santiago in the Cape Verdean archipelago, he found that the deeper the strata, the simpler the structure of the fossilized organisms; and the shallower the strata, the more complex the fossilized organisms, and that the evolution of the organisms was not recorded in the history of the strata? In the face of facts, Darwin could not but be overcome by Ryle's theory. Thus, he wrote, "This investigation has convinced me that Ryle's views are far superior to those advocated in any other work of which I am aware."
In summary, we can see that observing, collecting, and analyzing the facts of nature was a primary factor in the germination of evolutionary thought. At the same time, we know that it is these objective facts that have given generations of natural scientists the firm conviction to carry on the idea of biological evolution in spite of the persecution of the religious forces and the discrimination and blows of the forces of social ignorance. Similarly, it is by relying on a large number of facts that the theory of evolution has won success. As we all clearly see today, no matter how people explain the cause of evolution, no matter how evolutionary theory may change its form, the fact of biological evolution in nature can never be erased.
The Sublimation of Theory
Man's reason is never satisfied with "knowing what is true", but always wants to understand "why it is true", so any scientific theory cannot remain in the description of empirical facts, but must give a reasonable explanation of why the facts happened as they did. Therefore, any scientific theory cannot stop at describing empirical facts, but must give a reasonable explanation of why the facts happened. In fact, many years before Darwin, people discovered the fact of biological evolution, and put forward the idea of biological evolution, Engels pointed out: "Kaffer Wolff [Kaffer Wolff (1733-1794)] German embryologist. He observed in detail the embryonic development of chickens and proved that the blood vessels of chickens were formed gradually, providing evidence in favor of the "gradualism" of the various organs of living organisms. His major work was the Theory of Occurrence, published in 1759. In 1759, he made the first attack on the invariance of species and announced the theory of the origin of seeds. But what in his case was merely the foresight of genius, in Okun [Okun (1779-1851)] the German natural philosopher. The view that man is the epitome of the whole universe, the culmination of the development of nature, and that the laws of the spirit are identical with the laws of nature. , Lamarck, Bell [Bell (1792-1876)] also transliterated as von Bell, German-Russian biologist, anthropologist and geographer, founder of comparative embryology. The greatest contribution was the discovery of the mammalian egg in 1827. Major work, "The History of Animal Happenings - Observations and Reflections", pointed out that the embryos of all vertebrates are similar to a certain extent, and the closer the relationship, the greater the degree of similarity. During development, the characteristics of the phylum appear first, followed by those of the order, order, family, genus and species. This came to be known in embryology as "Bell's Law". It was there that it took definite form, and it was only a full century later, in 1859, that it was triumphantly accomplished by Darwin." Why, then, did the theory of evolution not reach its first great fulfillment until Darwin's hands? One very important reason is that he provided a more plausible explanation that theoretically and correctly elucidated the mechanism of biological evolution.
It is true that species evolve, but what are the causes of evolution? Why do species mutate? Why do species surprisingly show an evolution from simple to complex, from low to high? Before Darwin, there had been some evolutionists who tried to answer this question, but their answers were either off the mark or too far-fetched. Darwin summarized and discarded the doctrines of his predecessors, and paid attention to draw sustenance from the academic ideas of other disciplines, and after years of diligent exploration and intense thinking, he put forward the doctrine of natural selection as a way to explain the facts of biological evolution. The doctrine of natural selection mainly consists of the following three harmonized elements:
(1) The theory of struggle for survival. The contradiction between the excess of reproduction and the limited conditions of survival is one of the external causes of the elimination of species on earth.
(2) The theory of genetically occurring mutations. Although the mechanism of variation is not clear, the fact that variation occurs universally cannot be denied, and Darwin used it to show the intrinsic cause of the evolution of species.
(3) The theory of survival of the fittest. Survival conditions are always changing, if the variation of the species is suitable for the changing environment, then it will be victorious in the struggle for survival and development; if the variation of the species is not suitable for the conditions of its survival at that time, then it tends to decay or extinction.
In this way, Darwin, based on the facts and contradictions of nature itself, gave us a general picture of the mechanism of biological evolution, and all kinds of key questions were answered by him in a more reasonable and factually supported way. How do new species appear? Because old species mutate. Why did many species go extinct? Because they can't withstand the pressure of the struggle for survival. Why are extant organisms in such harmony with their environment? Because some of the countless variations happen to fit the environment's choices. As to why lower types of organisms exist everywhere, Darwin wrote, "This is not difficult to understand, for natural selection, i.e., the survival of the fittest, does not necessarily involve progressive development-natural selection utilizes only those variations which are favorable to organisms in the complex relations of life. "
Here, it is important to highlight that Darwin's ability to skillfully use facts in arguing his points is well worthwhile. He did not base his doctrine heavily on speculation, as Lamarck did. Does this mean that Darwin answered all questions with facts? No. His ability to use facts skillfully lay in the fact that, on the one hand, when he was not able to provide the mechanism by which a fact came to be, he declared that the present science could not solve the mystery of the fact; and, at the same time, he used a great deal of material from various sources to prove that it was a fact. In this way, although he did not explain "why", he made it easy for everyone to believe that what he said was true. For example, on the mechanism of mutation and the mechanism of heredity, Darwin could not give a reasonable explanation, he admitted: "We are profoundly ignorant of the laws of mutation. There is less than one instance in a hundred in which we can suggest any reason why this part or that part has undergone a variation." Concerning heredity, he says, "The laws of heredity are incredible; it is a matter for future science." What one cannot answer, one does not readily speculate or conclude, in order to avoid letting unsure speculation lessen the reliability of the theory. But the facts of variation and heredity are objective and cannot be obliterated, and so Darwin puts before his readers a wealth of material, which makes it impossible to read without believing in it, and to put one's hope in future science for the exploration of the causes. On the other hand, when he explained why the facts occurred and illustrated his theories, he tried to collect research results from various sources and disciplines to support his views, which undoubtedly increased the credibility of his new theories. Take a look at his 1859 book "Origin of Species", the richness of its material and informative full of words, it is not difficult to imagine that Darwin's mastery of the facts of the work of the deep and well-intentioned.
Darwin's scientific temperament
Darwin, looking back on his life's path, spoke of two temperaments that helped him.
The first was "freedom of thought", and in 1881, he told people that he followed this principle: "I have endeavored resolutely to keep my mind free, so as to throw away my hypotheses, however fond I may be of them, as soon as they have been proved to be inconsistent with the facts (and I cannot object to the validity of every question). (and I could not object to the establishment of a hypothesis on every question), and not otherwise." Considering the social and customary influence of religion and theology at the time, and considering the difficulty of the study of the theory of evolution itself, we can appreciate that "keeping one's mind free" was of particular interest to Darwin.
"Freedom of thought" in Darwin was characterized by skepticism and a lack of complacency and conservatism.
It goes without saying that his theory of evolution was a rebellion against the religious theological views of his day, a product of bold skepticism.
The two mentors he was most grateful to and respected in his life were Henslowe and Ryle. He accepted his mentors' guidance earnestly, but this did not prevent him from maintaining his own style and having his own thinking. For example, Hanslow believed that the movement of twining plants was due to their own natural tendency to grow in a coiled fashion, but Darwin, based on his own observations of climbing plants cultivated in flower houses, suggested that "the movement of the tendril plants or climbers is an adaptation to the circumstances of their life to obtain a larger surface of sunlight and more air, conducive to subsistence and growth; otherwise it would be difficult for them to live." Another example is Ryle's work on the formation of coral reefs, where a crater theory was proposed. People believed Ryle and no one doubted it. But Darwin questioned based on his own observations, "The new facts do not seem to be what Ryle said." He thought that the formation of coral reefs and volcanoes are not necessarily linked, it is coral polyps built over the years.
Later he became an authority himself, but this did not make him conservative or circumspect, but still skeptical and enterprising. Once, he was reading the recently published book "Blood Marriage", the author quoted a Belgian scholar published in the authoritative journal "Journal of the Royal Society of Belgium" a paragraph of experimental information: with close relatives of rabbits mated for many generations, did not occur in the slightest harmful consequences. People are used to not being skeptical of authoritative newspaper articles. But Darwin thought that the report of this experiment was untenable, so he wrote to that magazine, giving his own opinion, asking whether the experiment was true. Sure enough, he soon got a reply that the report of that experiment was a forgery.
Darwin never claimed to be a great man, and he knew the value to science of being modest. Therefore, he could not accept any touting of himself and belittling of others, and when confronted with such behavior from others, he would say bluntly, "Objection to the great importance which you put upon our great men; I am accustomed to think: second, third, and fourth-rate men are all of the utmost importance, at least as far as scientists are concerned."
On his own theories, he was by no means a stickler, but was not averse to deep thought and repetition. Regarding the mechanism of heredity, he put forward the hypothesis of "pangenesis," which suggests that a particle called "pangen" is exported from all parts of the body to the germ cells, thus explaining the changes in the body, i.e., the inheritance of acquired traits to the offspring. After the publication of this hypothesis, some scholars raised objections, and Darwin paid close attention to these criticisms. For example, of the Italian botanist Fidelic Delpino (18331905), he stated, "He opposed the hypothesis, but criticized it fairly; and I found his criticisms useful." Thereafter they corresponded frequently and discussed botanical problems. It was also on the basis of careful consideration of the criticism that Darwin, in the sixth edition of On the Origin of Species, deleted the discussion of the hypothesis of pangenesis. From this fact, we can see a little of his modest and rigorous style of study. Of course, from the fact that he organized the "draft of the origin of species" in 1842, and did not publish the book "Origin of Species" until 1859, we can better appreciate his "not tired of deep thought" of "deep".
Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" was not published until 1859.
Darwin's second important quality was his ability to observe. It seems to be the only thing he was so confident of. He said, "I have neither an eminent faculty of understanding nor a superior wit, except that I may be above all men in the power of perceiving that which is fleeting and observing it finely." There is no doubt of this. From the description of the ecological habits of plants and animals in his many published works, and from his comparisons of the minute differences in form and structure of species and varieties, we cannot help but marvel at his powers of observation. Of course, the importance of this quality to Darwin is not difficult to understand. For every naturalist and evolutionist of his day, fine observation was a primary, and minimum, requirement for entry into research. In Darwin's case, it was truly a skillful adaptation of personal ability to the needs of the job.
Darwin also spoke of another important quality of a scientist, that of interest, an interest in the mysteries of nature. It was this interest that made Darwin, as a child and teenager, keen to go with his brother to collect specimens, travel, hunt and study chemistry. He was not interested in schoolwork and consequently did not do well. In his autobiography he said, "School was an empty place for my education." It was this interest that caused him to be distracted while studying medicine at Edinburgh University, and later transferred to the Cambridge Theology Department, where he studied theology while learning a lot of geology, botany, and zoology with professors of biology and geology, such as Hanslow, and taking part in botanical and geological expeditions to conduct academic explorations. It was this interest that made him not want to become a priest but rather to participate in grueling expeditions around the world, even though he had graduated from the Faculty of Theology. It was also this interest that made him research tirelessly in the latter part of his life despite his illness. Interest, gave the scientific giants a steady stream of power, inspired by the passion of selfless work.
In his autobiography, Darwin summed up his life for the creation of the theory of evolution in this way, "the most important thing is that the love of science - not tired of deep thought - diligent observation and collection of information -- considerable inventive ability and common sense." Darwin's voice of experience, is not worth our deep thought?
On July 1, 1858, Darwin and Wallace read their papers on the origin of species at the Linnean Society in London, and the scientific theory of evolution was born.In 1859, Darwin published his book, On the Origin of Species, and became the founder of the theory of evolution. The theory of evolution fundamentally rejects the traditional concept of "divine creation" and "species invariance", and has had a great impact on philosophy, sociology, ethics, economics and other fields.
This article describes in detail the ideological process of Darwin's theory of evolution, its emergence, development, and establishment, and reveals the mystery of Darwin's success in terms of his own scientific temperament, and highly evaluates Darwin and his book On the Origin of Species as an outstanding contribution to human history. When reading, you can refer to this article with the Origin of Species>Introduction, to deepen the knowledge of evolutionary thought, the understanding of the content of the introduction.