Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry.

  • Berry, R. J. (Robert James)
Date:
1982
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    62/76 (page 56)
    56 THE EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION physiology, and biochemistry far outweighs disputes over particular examples. Darwin himself was convinced that evolution had occurred by his obser¬ vations of geographical variation and replacement on the Beagle voyage. During the 1920s there was a belief that geographical variation was a phenotypic response to different environments. This was shown to be untrue by Turesson's demonstration that ecotypic variation in plants is inherited, and Sumner's similar work on deermice {Peromyscus species). Biogeographical data (supplemented by geological information on continental drift, sea-level changes, etc. and ecologi¬ cal information on competition, dispersal, tolerance, etc.) provide strong support for evolutionary change. Sometimes 'facts' are reported that 'disprove' evolution (such as the alleged occurrence together of fossil human and dinosaur footprints). Such apparent anomalies obviously need examining on their merits, but it is worth emphasizing again that the strength of the neo-Darwinian understanding is its proven mechanism rather than any accumulation of evidence. Indeed, one of the more serious complaints about neo-Darwinism is that it explains so much that it has become dogma rather than science, and should be rejected on that ground. This is a criticism we shall examine in the final chapter (section 7.1).