What parts of Origin of Species have been proven wrong?

[Jonathanaronda]

I'm curious, I hear that some of our modern day understanding of evolution have proven at least some of the things on Origin wrong. Is this true? If so, what are these things?

[Arete]

To my knowledge, nothing specifically in Origin has really been proven wrong.

 

The refinement of evolutionary theory http://en.wikipedia....onary_synthesis has largely been a refinement, rather than a dismissal with the inclusion of details Darwin did not consider.

 

For example, aside from the introduction of the concept of selection, Darwin never really discusses the mechanisms of speciation through spatial variability of the enviroment, or the concept of ecological speciation. http://www.sciencema...3/5915/737.full

 

Also, Darwin never seemed to consider for "punctuated evolution" i.e. temporal variation in the rates of speciation and extinction:

 

"To the question why we do not find rich fossiliferous deposits belonging to these assumed earliest periods prior to the Cambrian system, I can give no satisfactory answer ... The difficulty of assigning any good reason for the absence of vast piles of strata rich in fossils beneath the Cambrian is very great . . . The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained" ( The Origin of Species, pp. 309-310).

 

We now know that mutation rates, speciation and extinction can be extremely dynamic over time http://en.wikipedia....ted_equilibrium which accounts for observed differences in species diversity through time.

 

There are other theories in evolutionary biology, such as Lamarckism http://en.wikipedia....wiki/Lamarckism which have been in the main, proven wrong, but nothing I know of in Origin.

Edited June 29, 2012 by Arete

[Ringer]

Well Origin, especially later versions, did have versions of Lamarckism as something that happened alongside Selection instead of not happening. Also some things on the methods of inheritance were wrong, but I don't remember if he goes into detail about that or if it's just something he talks about elsewhere.

[Moontanman]

If I remember correctly Darwin was troubled by the lack of transitional fossils but he did predict there would be such fossils and today we do have a plethora of transitional fossils. While Darwin was right about many things he didn't know at the time just how right he really was. There was no knowledge of DNA which meant that the mechanism of heredity was a mystery at the time and only the effects of heredity could be seen.

 

I think it's amazing how close to right he really was considering the available information of the time.

[Ringer]

If I remember correctly Darwin was troubled by the lack of transitional fossils but he did predict there would be such fossils and today we do have a plethora of transitional fossils. While Darwin was right about many things he didn't know at the time just how right he really was. There was no knowledge of DNA which meant that the mechanism of heredity was a mystery at the time and only the effects of heredity could be seen.

 

Yeah, they still had the whole blending hypothesis of inheritance which was one of the main problems with his theory at the time. IIRC he talked about the lack of transitional fossils being due to the difficulty of soft organic material breaking down or being eaten before fossilization, the methods of collecting fossils weren't that great at the time, the fossils being looked for, etc.

 

I think it's amazing how close to right he really was considering the available information of the time.

 

It is indeed incredible in so many aspects. I think it's difficult for people to understand what was not known then and all the assumptions and evidence his idea was using at the time made most everything about it an uphill battle. It's really mind blowing to me all the things he predicted that hadn't been seen, or at times even thought possible, and has been proven correct on almost all account. That's amazing for a couple page article and he had an almost 500 page manuscript. It's truly humbling in my mind.

 

[edit]

Another after thought, he also did a great job of trying to point out all the things wrong with Selection. A trait that is woefully missing in so many scientists and laymen anymore

[/edit]

Edited June 29, 2012 by Ringer

[CCWilson]

Darwin knew nothing about the actual method of inheritance. The description of genes and chromosomes and DNA was way into the future, and I believe that he didn't even know about Mendel's theories of inheritance, including dominant and recessive traits. But his insight as to natural selection was perfect, and he was such a thorough and intelligent scientist that he got almost everything right. Truly an amazing, wonderful man. One area that is still in controversy is that he believed in group selection as an explanation for altruism and morality. I happen to believe that he was dead right on this as well, but most evolution scientists disagree.

[Swedgen]

Darwin knew nothing about the actual method of inheritance. The description of genes and chromosomes and DNA was way into the future, and I believe that he didn't even know about Mendel's theories of inheritance, including dominant and recessive traits. But his insight as to natural selection was perfect, and he was such a thorough and intelligent scientist that he got almost everything right. Truly an amazing, wonderful man. One area that is still in controversy is that he believed in group selection as an explanation for altruism and morality. I happen to believe that he was dead right on this as well, but most evolution scientists disagree.

 

Correct. Mendel's work had been published in the UK, but Darwin was unaware of it when Origin of Species was written. I think Mendel knew about Darwin, can't be sure on that.

 

To me almost the greatest evidence there is (and there is so much from so many disparate fields) is that the molecular evidence meshes perfectly with what Darwin surmised. That is mindblowing by itself.

[Ophiolite]

Mendel's work had been published in the UK, but Darwin was unaware of it when Origin of Species was written.

That seems incorrect. Mendel presented his findings, in 1865, to the Natural History Society of Brünn and these results were published the following year. (See below) That was after the first edition of Orgin was published.

 

Mendel, Gregor. 1866. Versuche über Plflanzen-hybriden. Verhandlungen des naturforschenden Ver-eines in Brünn, Bd. IV für das Jahr 1865, Abhand-lungen, 3–47.

 

The first English translation and UK publication did not occur until 1901 in the Journal of the Royal Horticultural Society.

 

What is interesting is that after his death an unopened copy of Mendel's paper was found in Darwin's library. One wonders what would have happened to the development of evolutionary theory had Darwin read the paper.

[CCWilson]

My guess is, not much. It was his "natural selection" concept that was most important, not the specific mechanism behind it. But as smart as Darwin was, he might well have added fresh nsights based on Mendel's ideas.

[Ringer]

My guess is, not much. It was his "natural selection" concept that was most important, not the specific mechanism behind it. But as smart as Darwin was, he might well have added fresh nsights based on Mendel's ideas.

 

It would have added strength to his argument. He said himself that the major pitfall of his theory is that it doesn't fit with the then theorized methods of inheritance. You can see in his later versions of origin he backed off on a lot of what he believed, and was mostly correct, due to some of the failing he thought were there that could have been easily explained with an understanding of Mendelian genetics.

[Ophiolite]

As Ringer says, later editions of Origin were vaguer, allowing for Lamarkism to creep in to a degree. If he had been aware of Mendel's work and had bought into it, then the move away from natural selection at the turn of the centurymight never have occured and the Modern Synthesis could have been realised twenty or thirty years earlier.