I was thinking about the theory of evolution today, its flaws, and I thought about man. And not only. I think you know the concept of a biosocial being, which are man, ant, bee, naked mole rats and some others. What did human do, when he developed into a human in biological concept? He started develop into a human in social concept. We can’t say that about bees, ants or other biosocial creatures, because all that formed before the birth of human’s society, but I think, that their evolution was similar evolution of human. And what happens, when society develops? From a biological point of view, the species degrades and differentiates. Why degradation? When you have a pistol, do you need in acute claws and teeth for defense? Of course no, you don’t need in that. Ants, bees, and other similar, only instead of a gun soldiers. Instead the robots in industrial - workers. But why ants, bees and others stay on Eusocial? They had millions of years to develop, when humans had about 100.000 years. Nothing in our world just happens. Everything can be explained by any reasons.
And about upgrading of Evolution Theory. We can TRY to introduce in this evolution of society. I repeat, only try. What do you think?
That’s the thing, I don’t think it’s really possible to upgrade or “improve” the theory since there is so little people know about how evolution is actually supposed to work, since we weren’t there when evolution supposedly took place. To be honest, this is one of the several reasons why I stay religious, the fact that Evolution in of itself has only remained a theory for many years, and hasn’t expanded all that much in the realm of “truth” despite technological advances.
I’m a bit confused by some of your examples and your wording.
However, as I understand, the notion that humans and other eusocial animals have at all escaped the bounds of the Theory of Evolution is a common misinterpretation of the theory. Humans as a species have gotten quite talented at thwarting the dramatic evolutionary pressures of other animals. However, people still die everyday before spreading their genes. For example, imagine a population afflicted by some terminal disease, many children will succumb to disease, while some children (for whatever reason) will have some minor or major natural immunity. Thus, those children with immunity will (when they are older) have the chance have kids, who may or may not have their parents immunity. Though, as time goes on those fit to survive from that disease, barring they aren’t infertile, will become the future of that same population. Though, the theory has been added to, such as Richard Dawkins the Selfish Gene. Dawkins hypothesis did not discount anything we already know about evolution but it did provide new perspectives of seeing evolution more as a process of competing genes as organisms as their vehicle of spread rather than the previously assumed reverse.
TL;DR: The Theory of Evolution will always be relevant as long as some people die for a measurable reason and others are able to not do that in a measurable way. Though, the Theory has been expanded upon with new methods of predicting and observing the process (a la The Selfish Gene).
By the way @BowlDawg, theories are actually quite a great accomplishment in the world of science. Essentially, it means "we’ve tested this phenomenon over and over again with a variety of experiments, conditions, and variable; and have ruled that this phenomenon is stable enough to found other research on as an acceptable reality.
Also you can observe evolution in action if you have the right tools and some time. Organisms like fruit flies, moths, bacteria, and even some rodents and lagomorphs can and have extensively been observed for their observable evolution patterns (as they go through many generations over a relatively short time for us humans and have huge litters/spawns to parse through).
An even greater accomplishment for the world of science is scientific fact.
There is a difference between evolution and just ordinary mutation. The example you gave only really shows minor changes in an animals genes, evolution having even larger changes, like going from a single cell to a multicellular organism.
Evolution is a fact, Evolution by natural selection is a scientific theory.
The “ordinary Mutation” you’re talking about is just evolution on a small scale, the Key components for evolution are MUTATION and Natural selection. Mutation is the changer of creatures, Natural selection chooses the best fit creatures for survival, each with their own Mutations.
True. However, the uniformitarian principle would suggest that, if processes like mutation (and thus the other rungs of evolution) functioned in the past as they do today, minor changes will inevitably become larger changes when given time over many generations. I’ll also admit that in many cases we can only make educated guess on how one structure formed from another. I wouldn’t say these are large enough to entirely dismiss the process though.
I said about social side of theory. When organism comes to what either outcome biologically, he is beginning to evolve socially. About biological side I don’t want say now. Only society evolution
societal evolution is a better title to me, what do you think?
Yes, societal evolution better, thanks
Theories are verified whereas hypotheses aren’t.
By all means, theories are essentially scientific fact. Gravity is a scientific fact established by the theory of relativity, formally by Newtonian Physics. The fact that oxygen is what causes combustion is a theory, described in the Oxygen theory of combustion. Plate tectonics, quantum mechanics, the expansion of the universe a la Big Bang, planetary motion; all theories, all accepted fact.
As it is with evolution. It is established that evolution is a fact, because through two centuries of research, not one piece of evidence contradicted Darwin’s original theory. There are still gaps in our knowledge regarding how certain things evolved, but every day, we gain further insight into these mysteries.
You should read The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins. His arguments regarding evolution are explained through our modern understanding of genetics. This can help you begin understanding the processes behind evolution in detail.
Thing is, there is nothing about the evolution of human society that is not explained by evolution through natural selection, so there is no need to expand upon the theory of evolution as is. The reason why we developed into a species ruled by society is a byproduct of the individual features that we happened to have which could allow us to manipulate tools and cooperate. Other animals which have similar intelligence and social organizing didn’t have the physiology to extract utility from their surroundings as much as we did. Take killer whales, for example; obviously socially advanced and potentially just as smart as us, they have no effective means of manipulating their environment as well as we do.
You can not understand the development of our societies without understanding the underlying biological mechanisms which dictates how we as a species functions and thinks. The development of societies can be simply thought of as another unique evolved trait/characteristic, not an entirely new thing by itself.