|
Study of evolution History of evolutionary thought The idea of biological evolution has existed since ancient times, notably among Greek philosophers such as Anaximander and Epicurus and Indian philosophers such as Patañjali. However, scientific theories of evolution were not proposed until the 18th and 19th centuries, by scientists such as Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin. The transmutation of species was accepted by many scientists before 1859, but Charles Darwin's On The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection provided the first convincing exposition Genes were then still theoretical entities, and many paleontologists and embryologists were inclined to dismiss them as being of no, or minor, importance, but subsequent advancements have made genetics a key aspect of evolutionary biology. The most significant recent developments in evolutionary biology have been the improved understanding of and advances in genetics.• In the 1940s, following up on Griffith's experiment, Avery, MacLeod and McCarty definitively identified DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) as the "transforming principle" responsible for transmitting genetic information. In 1953, Francis Crick and James D. Watson published their famous paper on the structure of DNA, based on the research of Rosalind Franklin and Maurice Wilkins. These developments ignited the era of molecular biology and transformed the understanding of evolution into a molecular process (see molecular evolution): the mutation of segments of DNA. George C. Williams' 1966 Adaptation and natural selection: A Critique of some Current Evolutionary Thought and Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene marked a departure from the idea of groups or organisms as units of selection toward the modern gene-centered view of evolution. In the mid-1970s, Motoo Kimura formulated the neutral theory of molecular evolution, firmly establishing the importance of genetic drift as a mechanism of evolution. Debates over various aspects of how evolution occurs have continued. One prominent debate was over the theory of punctuated equilibrium, proposed in 1972 by paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould to explain the paucity of gradual transitions between species in the fossil record, as well as the absence of change or stasis that is observed over significant intervals of time. Academic disciplines Scholars in a number of academic disciplines continue to document examples of the theory of evolution, contributing to a deeper understanding of its underlying mechanisms. Every subdiscipline within biology both informs and is informed by knowledge of the details of evolution, such as in ecological genetics, human evolution, molecular evolution, and phylogenetics. Areas of mathematics (such as bioinformatics), physics, chemistry, and other fields all make important foundational contributions to the theory of evolution. Even disciplines as far removed as geology and sociology play a part, since the process of biological evolution has coincided in time and space with the development of both the Earth and human civilization. Evolutionary biology is a subdiscipline of biology concerned with the origin and descent of species, as well as their changes over time. It was originally an interdisciplinary field including scientists from many traditional taxonomically-oriented disciplines. For example, it generally includes scientists who may have a specialist training in particular organisms, such as mammalogy, ornithology, or herpetology, but who use those organisms to answer general questions in evolution. Evolutionary biology as an academic discipline in its own right emerged as a result of the modern evolutionary synthesis in the 1930s and 1940s. It was not until the 1970s and 1980s, however, that a significant number of universities had departments that specifically included the term evolutionary biology in their titles. Evolutionary developmental biology (informally, evo-devo) is a field of biology that compares the developmental processes of different animals in an attempt to determine the ancestral relationship between organisms and how developmental processes evolved. The discovery of genes regulating development in model organisms allowed for comparisons to be made with genes and genetic networks of related organisms. Physical anthropology emerged in the late 19th century as the study of human osteology, and the fossilized skeletal remains of other hominids. At that time, anthropologists debated whether their evidence supported Darwin's claims, because skeletal remains revealed temporal and spatial variation among hominids, but Darwin had not offered an explanation of the specific mechanisms that produce variation. With the recognition of Mendelian genetics and the rise of the modern synthesis, however, evolution became both the fundamental conceptual framework for, and the object of study of, physical anthropologists. In addition to studying skeletal remains, they began to study genetic variation among human populations (population genetics); thus, some physical anthropologists began calling themselves biological anthropologists. Evidence of evolution
Morphological evidence Fossils are critical evidence for estimating when various lineages originated. Since fossilization of an organism is an uncommon occurrence, usually requiring hard parts (like teeth, bone or pollen), the fossil record is traditionally thought to provide only sparse and intermittent information about ancestral lineages. Fossilization of organisms without hard body parts is rare, but happens under unusual circumstances, such as rapid burial, low oxygen environments, or microbial action.• The fossil record provides several types of data important to the study of evolution. First, the fossil record contains the earliest known examples of life itself, as well as the earliest occurrences of individual lineages. For example, the first complex animals date from the early Cambrian period, approximately 520 million years ago. Second, the records of individual species yield information regarding the patterns and rates of evolution, showing for example if species evolve into new species (speciation) gradually and incrementally, or in relatively brief intervals of geologic time. Thirdly, the fossil record is a document of large scale patterns and events in the history of life, many of which have influenced the evolutionary history of numerous lineages. For example, mass extinctions frequently resulted in the loss of entire groups of species, such as the non-avian dinosaurs, while leaving others relatively unscathed. Recently, molecular biologists have used the time since divergence of related lineages to calibrate the rate at which mutations accumulate, and at which the genomes of different lineages evolve. Phylogenetics, the study of the ancestry of species, has revealed that structures with similar internal organization may perform divergent functions. Vertebrate limbs are a common example of such homologous structures. The appendages on bat wings, for example, are very structurally similar to human hands, and may constitute a vestigial structure. Other examples include the presence of hip bones in whales and snakes. Such structures may exist with little or no function in a more current organism, yet have a clear function in an ancestral species of the same. Examples of vestigial structures in humans include wisdom teeth, the coccyx and the vermiform appendix. Molecular evidence Comparison of the DNA sequences allows organisms to be grouped by sequence similarity, and the resulting phylogenetic trees are typically congruent with traditional taxonomy, and are often used to strengthen or correct taxonomic classifications. Sequence comparison is considered a measure robust enough to be used to correct erroneous assumptions in the phylogenetic tree in instances where other evidence is scarce. For example, neutral human DNA sequences are approximately 1.2% divergent (based on substitutions) from those of their nearest genetic relative, the chimpanzee, 1.6% from gorillas, and 6.6% from baboons. Genetic sequence evidence thus allows inference and quantification of genetic relatedness between humans and other apes. The sequence of the 16S rRNA gene, a vital gene encoding a part of the ribosome, was used to find the broad phylogenetic relationships between all extant life. The analysis, originally done by Carl Woese, resulted in the three-domain system, arguing for two major splits in the early evolution of life. The first split led to modern Bacteria and the subsequent split led to modern Archaea and Eukaryote. The proteomic evidence also supports the universal ancestry of life. Vital proteins, such as the ribosome, DNA polymerase, and RNA polymerase are found in the most primitive bacteria to the most complex mammals. The core part of the protein is conserved across all lineages of life, serving similar functions. Higher organisms have evolved additional protein subunits, largely affecting the regulation and protein-protein interaction of the core. Other overarching similarities between all lineages of extant organisms, such as DNA, RNA, amino acids, and the lipid bilayer, give support to the theory of common descent. The chirality of DNA, RNA, and amino acids is conserved across all known life. As there is no functional advantage to right or left handed molecular chirality, the simplest hypothesis is that the choice was made randomly in the early beginnings of life and passed on to all extant life through common descent. Molecular evidence also offers a mechanism for large evolutionary changes. Horizontal gene transfer, the process in which an organism transfers genetic material (i.e. DNA) to another cell that is not its offspring, allows for large sudden evolutionary leaps in a species by incorporating beneficial genes evolved in another species. The Endosymbiotic theory explains the origin of mitochondria and plastids (e.g. chloroplasts), which are organelles of eukaryotic cells, as the incorporation of an ancient prokaryotic cell into ancient eukaryotic cell. Rather than evolving eukaryotic organelles slowly, this theory offers a mechanism for a large evolutionary changes by incorporating the genetic material and biochemical composition of a separate species. This evolutionary mechanism has been observed. Hatena, a protist, is an extant organism that is undergoing endosymbiotic evolution.•• Further evidence for reconstructing ancestral lineages comes from junk DNA such as pseudogenes, i.e., 'dead' genes, which steadily accumulate mutations. Since metabolic processes do not leave fossils, research into the evolution of the basic cellular processes is done largely by comparison of existing organisms. Many lineages diverged when new metabolic processes appeared, and it is theoretically possible to determine when certain metabolic processes appeared by comparing the traits of the descendants of a common ancestor or by detecting their physical manifestations. As an example, the appearance of oxygen in the earth's atmosphere is linked to the evolution of photosynthesis. Theoretical evidence Mathematical models of evolution, pioneered by the likes of Sewall Wright, Ronald Fisher and J. B. S. Haldane and extended via diffusion theory by Motoo Kimura, allow predictions about the genetic structure of evolving populations. Direct examination of the genetic structure of modern populations via DNA sequencing has recently allowed verification of many of these predictions. For example, the "Out of Africa" theory of human origins, which states that modern humans developed in Africa and a small sub-population migrated out (undergoing a population bottleneck), implies that modern populations should show the signatures of this migration pattern. Specifically, post-bottleneck populations (Europeans and Asians) should show lower overall genetic diversity and a more uniform distribution of allele frequencies compared to the African population. Both of these predictions are borne out by actual data from a number of studies. Ancestry of organisms In biology, the theory of universal common descent proposes that all organisms on Earth are descended from a common ancestor or ancestral gene pool. Evidence for common descent is inferred from traits shared between all living organisms. In Darwin's day, the evidence of shared traits was based solely on visible observation of morphologic similarities, such as the fact that all birds, even those which do not fly, have wings. Today, there is strong evidence from genetics that all organisms have a common ancestor. For example, every living cell makes use of nucleic acids as its genetic material, and uses the same twenty amino acids as the building blocks for proteins. All organisms use the same genetic code (with some extremely rare and minor deviations) to translate nucleic acid sequences into proteins. The universality of these traits strongly suggests common ancestry, because the selection of many of these traits seems arbitrary. Information about the early development of life includes input from the fields of geology and planetary science. These sciences provide information about the history of the Earth and the changes produced by life. However, a great deal of information about the early Earth has been destroyed by geological processes over the course of time. History of life
Modern synthesis Charles Darwin was able to observe variation, infer natural selection and thereby adaptation, but didn't know the basis of heritability. He couldn't explain how organisms might change over generations. It also seemed that when two individuals were crossed, their traits must be blended in the progeny, so that eventually all variation would be lost. The blending problem was solved when the population geneticists R.A. Fisher, Sewall Wright, and J. B. S. Haldane, married Darwinian evolutionary theory to population genetic theory, which was based on Mendelian genetics (genes as discrete units of heredity). The problem of what the mechanisms might be was solved in principle with the identification of DNA as the genetic material by Oswald Avery and colleagues, and the articulation of the double-helical structure of DNA by James Watson and Francis Crick provided a physical basis for the notion that genes were encoded in DNA. Heredity
Variation Evolutionary changes are the product of evolutionary forces acting on genetic variation. In natural populations, there is a certain amount of phenotypic variation (e.g., what makes you appear different from your neighbor). This phenotypic variation is the result of variants in gene sequences among the individuals of a population. There may be one or more functional variants of a gene or locus, and these variants are called alleles. Most sites in the genome (i.e., complete DNA sequence) of a species are identical in all individuals in the population; sites with more than one allele are called polymorphic or segregating sites. All genetic variation begins as a new mutation in a single individual; in subsequent generations the frequency of that variant may fluctuate in the population, becoming more or less prevalent relative to other alleles at the site. This change in allele frequency is the commonly accepted definition of evolution, and all evolutionary forces act by driving allele frequency in one direction or another. Variation disappears when it reaches the point of fixation — when it either reaches a frequency of zero and disappears from the population, or reaches a frequency of one and replaces the ancestral allele entirely. Mechanisms of evolution Evolution consists of two basic types of processes: those that introduce new genetic variation into a population, and those that affect the frequencies of existing variation. Paleontologist Stephen J. Gould once phrased this succinctly as "variation proposes and selection disposes."• Mutation
Selection and adaptation Natural selection comes from differences in survival and reproduction . Differential mortality is the survival rate of individuals to their reproductive age. Differential fertility is the total genetic contribution to the next generation. Note that, whereas mutations and genetic drift are random, natural selection is not, as it preferentially selects for different mutations based on differential fitnesses. For example, rolling dice is random, but always picking the higher number on two rolled dice is not random. The central role of natural selection in evolutionary theory has given rise to a strong connection between that field and the study of ecology. Natural selection can be subdivided into two categories: Natural selection also operates on mutations in several different ways: Through the process of natural selection, organisms become better adapted to their environments. Adaptation is any evolutionary process that increases the fitness of the individual, or sometimes the trait that confers increased fitness, e.g. a stronger prehensile tail or greater visual acuity. Note that adaptation is context-sensitive; a trait that increases fitness in one environment may decrease it in another. Evolution does not act in a linear direction towards a pre-defined "goal" — it only responds to various types of adaptationary changes. The belief in a teleological evolution of this sort is known as orthogenesis, and is not supported by the scientific understanding of evolution. One example of this misconception is the erroneous belief humans will evolve more fingers in the future on account of their increased use of machines such as computers. In reality, this would only occur if more fingers offered a significantly higher rate of reproductive success than those not having them, which seems very unlikely at the current time. Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of many mutations of small effect. However, macromutation is an alternative process for adaptation that involves a single, very large scale mutation. Recombination In asexual organisms, variants in genes on the same chromosome will always be inherited together — they are linked, by virtue of being on the same DNA molecule. However, sexual organisms, in the production of gametes, shuffle linked alleles on homologous chromosomes inherited from the parents via meiotic recombination. This shuffling allows independent assortment of alleles (mutations) in genes to be propagated in the population independently. This allows bad mutations to be purged and beneficial mutations to be retained more efficiently than in asexual populations. However, the meitoic recombination rate is not very high - on the order of one crossover (recombination event between homomolgous chromosomes) per chromosome arm per generation. Therefore, linked alleles are not perfectly shuffled away from each other, but tend to be inherited together. This tendency may be measured by comparing the co-occurrence of two alleles, usually quantified as linkage disequilibrium (LD). A set of alleles that are often co-propagated is called a haplotype. Strong haplotype blocks can be a product of strong positive selection. Recombination is mildly mutagenic, which is one of the proposed reasons why it occurs with limited frequency. Recombination also breaks up gene combinations that have been successful in previous generations, and hence should be opposed by selection. However, recombination could be favoured by negative frequency-dependent selection (this is when rare variants increase in frequency) because it leads to more individuals with new and rare gene combinations being produced. When alleles cannot be separated by recombination (for example in mammalian Y chromosomes), we see a reduction in effective population size, known as the Hill-Robertson effect, and the successive establishment of bad mutations, known as Muller's ratchet. Gene flow and Population structure
Drift Genetic drift describes changes in allele frequency from one generation to the next due to sampling variance. The frequency of an allele in the offspring generation will vary according to a probability distribution of the frequency of the allele in the parent generation. Thus, over time even in the absence of selection upon the alleles, allele frequencies will tend to "drift" upward or downward, eventually becoming "fixed" - that is, going to 0% or 100% frequency. Thus, fluctuations in allele frequency between successive generations may result in some alleles disappearing from the population due to chance alone. Two separate populations that begin with the same allele frequencies therefore might drift apart by random fluctuation into two divergent populations with different allele sets (for example, alleles present in one population could be absent in the other, or vice versa). The impact of genetic drift depends strongly on the size of the population (generally abbreviated as N): drift is important in small mating populations (see Founder effect and Population bottleneck), where chance fluctuations from generation to generation can be large. The relative importance of natural selection and genetic drift in determining the fate of new mutations also depends on the population size and the strength of selection: when N times s (population size times strength of selection) is small, genetic drift predominates. When N times s is large, selection predominates. Thus, natural selection is predominant in large populations, or equivalently, genetic drift is stronger in small populations. Finally, the time for an allele to become fixed in the population by genetic drift (that is, for all individuals in the population to carry that allele) depends on population size, with smaller populations requiring a shorter time to fixation. Horizontal gene transfer Horizontal gene transfer (HGT) (or Lateral gene transfers) is any process in which an organism transfers genetic material (i.e. DNA) to another organism that is not its offspring. This mechanism allows for the transfer of genetic material between unrelated organisms of the same species or of different species. Many mechanisms for horizontal gene transfer have been observed, such as antigenic shift, reassortment, and hybridization. Viruses can transfer genes between species via transduction. Bacteria can incorporate genes from other dead bacteria or plasmids via transformation, exchange genes with living bacteria via conjugation, and can have plasmids "set up residence separate from the host's genome". HGT has been shown to result in the spread of antibiotic resistance across bacterial populations.• Furthermore, findings indicate that HGT has been a major mechanism for prokaryotic and eukaryotic evolution.•• HGT complicates the inference of the phylogeny of life, as the original metaphor of a tree of life no longer fits. Rather, since genetic information is passed to other organisms and other species in addition to being passed from parent to offspring, "biologists should use the metaphor of a mosaic to describe the different histories combined in individual genomes and use the metaphor of a net to visualize the rich exchange and cooperative effects of HGT among microbes." Speciation and extinction
Misunderstandings about modern evolutionary biology Although the modern synthesis is a central theory in science, many misunderstandings about specific facets of the modern synthesis are prevalent among the general population. These misunderstandings have had a negative impact on the acceptance of the modern synthesis,• most notably in the United States.• Some of the most common misunderstandings are outlined in this section. Distinctions between theory and fact Further information: Scientific Theory See also: Theory vs. Fact Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered." The modern synthesis, like its Mendelian and Darwinian antecedents, is a scientific theory. A theory is an attempt to identify and describe relationships between phenomena or things, and generates falsifiable predictions which can be tested through controlled experiments and empirical observation. Speculative or conjectural explanations tend to be called hypotheses, and well tested explanations, theories. ''Fact'' tends to mean a datum, an observation, i.e., a fact is obtained by a fairly direct observation. However, a fact does not mean absolute certainty; in science, fact can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." A theory is obtained by inference from a body of facts. Fact and theory denote the epistemological status of knowledge; how the knowledge was obtained, what sort of knowledge it is. In this scientific sense, "facts" are what theories attempt to explain. So, for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not stand in opposition, but rather exist in a reciprocal relationship; for example, it is a "fact" that an apple will fall to the ground if it becomes dislodged from a branch and the "theory" which explains this is the current theory of gravitation. In the same way, heritable variation, natural selection, and response to selection (e.g. in domesticated plants and animals) are "facts", and the generalization or extrapolation beyond these phenomena, and the explanation for them, is the "theory of evolution". Evolution and devolution One of the most common misunderstandings of evolution is that one species can be "more highly evolved" than another, that evolution is necessarily progressive and/or leads to greater "complexity", or that its converse is "devolution". Evolution provides no assurance that later generations are more intelligent or complex than earlier generations. The claim that evolution results in progress is not part of modern evolutionary theory; it derives from earlier belief systems which were held around the time Darwin formulated his ideas. In many cases evolution does involve "progression" towards more complexity, since the earliest lifeforms were extremely simple compared to many of the species existing today, and there was nowhere to go but up. However, there is no guarantee that any particular organism existing today will become more intelligent, more complex, bigger, or stronger in the future. In fact, natural selection will only favor this kind of "progression" if it increases chance of survival, i.e. the ability to live long enough to raise offspring to sexual maturity. The same mechanism can actually favor lower intelligence, lower complexity, and so on if those traits become a selective advantage in the organism's environment. One way of understanding the apparent "progression" of lifeforms over time is to remember that the earliest life began as maximally simple forms. Evolution caused life to become more complex, since becoming simpler wasn't advantageous. Once individual lineages have attained sufficient complexity, however, simplifications (specialization) are as likely as increased complexity. This can be seen in many parasite species, for example, which have evolved simpler forms from more complex ancestors. Speciation It is sometimes claimed that speciation — the origin of new species — has never been directly observed, and thus evolution cannot be called sound science. This is a misunderstanding of both science and evolution. First, scientific discovery does not occur solely through reproducible experiments; the principle of uniformitarianism allows natural scientists to infer causes through their empirical effects. Moreover, since the publication of On the Origin of Species scientists have confirmed Darwin's hypothesis by data gathered from sources that did not exist in his day, such as DNA similarity among species and new fossil discoveries. Finally, speciation has actually been directly observed.• (See the hawthorn fly example.) Further, there are a number of examples of speciation in plants,• and differences in ectodysplasin alleles in stickleback fish speciation has developed as a supermodel for studying gene alterations and speciation.• A variation of this assertion, that microevolution has been directly observed and macroevolution has not, is subject to the same counterarguments. However, it is generally accepted that macroevolution uses the same mechanisms of change as those already observed in microevolution. Self-organization and entropy It is claimed that evolution, by increasing complexity without supernatural intervention, violates the second law of thermodynamics. This law posits that in an idealised isolated system, entropy will tend to increase or stay the same. Entropy is a measure of the dispersal of energy in a physical system so that it is not available to do mechanical work. Misunderstandings also arise from the mistaken idea that the second law applies in some way to information entropy. The flow of matter and energy allows self-organization enabling an increase in complexity without guidance or management. Examples of this spontaneous order include mineral crystals, snowflakes, and rain droplets. In the world we observe many cases where the natural course is increasing order. Self assembly is ubiquitous in biological systems and for nanostructures under equilibrium and some in non-equilibrium conditions. There are numerous examples of entropy driving order and self assembly. Information Some assert that evolution cannot create information, or that information can only be created by an intelligence. Physical information exists regardless of the presence of an intelligence, and evolution allows for new information whenever a novel mutation or gene duplication occurs and is kept. It does not need to be beneficial or visually apparent to be "information." However, even if those were requirements they would be satisfied with the appearance of nylon eating bacteria,• which required new enzymes to efficiently digest a material that never existed until the modern age. Japanese researchers demonstrated that nylon degrading ability can be obtained de novo in laboratory cultures of Pseudomonas aeruginosa strain POA, which initially had no enzymes capable of degrading nylon oligomers. This indicates that the ability of bacteria to digest nylon can evolve if proper artificial selection is applied.• Recently, the same group solved the high resolution X-ray crystal structure of the newly evolved nylon-digesting enzyme.• Using the structural results, the authors propose "that the amino acid replacements in the catalytic cleft of a preexisting esterase with the beta-lactamase fold resulted in the evolution of the" nylon-digesting enzyme. This hypothesis still needs to be confirmed by detailed mutagenesis studies. Social and religious controversies Starting with the publication of The Origin of Species in 1859, the modern science of evolution has been a source of nearly constant controversy. In general, controversy has centered on the philosophical, cosmological, social, and religious implications of evolution, not on the science of evolution itself. The proposition that biological evolution occurs through the mechanism of natural selection has been almost completely uncontested within the scientific community for much of the 20th century. As Darwin recognized early on, perhaps the most controversial aspect of evolutionary thought is its applicability to human beings. The idea that all diversity in life, including human beings, arose through natural processes without a need for supernatural intervention poses difficulties for the belief in purpose inherent in most religious faiths — and especially for the Abrahamic religions. Many religious people are able to reconcile the science of evolution with their faith, or see no real conflict; Judaism and Catholicism are notable as major faith traditions whose adherents generally see no conflict between evolutionary theory and religious belief. The idea that faith and evolution are compatible has been called theistic evolution. Another group of religious people, generally referred to as creationists, consider evolutionary origin beliefs to be incompatible with their faith, their religious texts and their perception of design in nature, and so cannot accept what they call "unguided evolution". One particularly contentious topic evoked by evolution is the biological status of humanity. Whereas the classical religious view can broadly be characterized as a belief in the great chain of being (in which people are "above" the animals but slightly "below" the angels), the science of evolution shows that humans are animals and share common ancestry with chimpanzees, gibbons, gorillas, and orangutans, which some people find repellent, as, in their opinion, it "degrades" humankind. A related conflict arises when critics combine the religious view of people's superior status with the mistaken notion that evolution is necessarily "progressive". If human beings are superior to animals yet evolved from them, these critics claim, "inferior" animals would not still exist. Because animals that are (in their view) "inferior" creatures do demonstrably exist, those criticising evolution sometimes incorrectly take this as supporting their claim that evolution is false. In some countries — notably the United States — these and other tensions between religion and science have fueled what has been called the creation-evolution controversy, which, among other things, has generated struggles over the teaching curriculum. While many other fields of science, such as cosmology• and earth science• also conflict with a literal interpretation of many religious texts, evolutionary studies have borne the brunt of these debates. Evolution has been used to support philosophical and ethical choices which most modern scientists argue are neither mandated by evolution nor supported by science. For example, the eugenic ideas of Francis Galton were developed into arguments that the human gene pool should be improved by selective breeding policies, including incentives for reproduction for those of "good stock" and disincentives, such as compulsory sterilization, "euthanasia", and later, prenatal testing, birth control, and genetic engineering, for those of "bad stock". Another example of an extension of evolutionary theory that is widely regarded as unwarranted is "Social Darwinism"; a term given to the 19th century Whig Malthusian theory developed by Herbert Spencer into ideas about "survival of the fittest" in commerce and human societies as a whole, and by others into claims that social inequality, racism, and imperialism were justified. See also For a more comprehensive list of topics, see and Evolution Simulators | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
| |