{"id":8985,"date":"2021-01-22T14:39:33","date_gmt":"2021-01-22T14:39:33","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/?p=8985"},"modified":"2021-04-12T15:44:35","modified_gmt":"2021-04-12T14:44:35","slug":"evolutionary-theory","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.innovationnewsnetwork.com\/evolutionary-theory\/8985\/","title":{"rendered":"Evolutionary theory in applied problem-solving"},"content":{"rendered":"

Professor Lawrence C Scharmann from the University of Nebraska explains how the Darwinian evolutionary theory and common ancestry can be used as problem solving tools.<\/h2>\n

In the previous edition of The Innovation Platform<\/em><\/a>, I put forward an argument for theory as the most powerful tool in the arsenal of the working scientist. Scientists, in fact, employ a naturalistic worldview that coalesces the theories and methodology of each of the major disciplines of science (e.g., biology, chemistry, geology, and physics) into working paradigms. Scientific paradigms are considered mature if they account for explanations between and among observations and provide a mechanism of action by which hypotheses (and predictions) can be tested resulting in new observations. Taking chemistry as an example: the periodic table of elements represents \u2013 through its rows and columns \u2013 relationships between elements; predictions can be made on the basis of valence shell electrons, tested, and results assessed\/evaluated. Likewise for geology, continental drift represents predicted relationships between continents; plate tectonics illustrates geology\u2019s mechanism of action. What theories, then, frame a biological sciences paradigm?<\/p>\n

Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution<\/h3>\n

Biology\u2019s quest to be considered a mature science was initiated by Charles Darwin with the publication of On the Origin of Species2 in 1859. Naturalists quickly endorsed Darwin\u2019s explanation for the relationships between similar species (i.e., common ancestry). Nonetheless, one of the arguments posed against evolution was that its supposed mechanism of action \u2013 namely natural selection \u2013 was considered conjecture at best since Darwin provided little in the way of evidence to support how natural selection might actually work. It was not until the 1930s when geneticists T.H. Morgan, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Ernst Mayr, and G. Gaylord Simpson noted that Mendel\u2019s work from the 1850s provided the evidence necessary to explain natural selection as a mechanism of action for changes in species over time. The integration of evidence from genetics during this period became known as The Great Synthesis.<\/p>\n

Ernst Mayr, considered to be the greatest evolutionist of the 20th century, provided an eminently accessible account of Darwin\u2019s original work3. In One Long Argument, Mayr asserted that Darwin posed two major theories \u2013 natural selection and common ancestry (or modification with descent) \u2013 and three supporting or ancillary explanations \u2013 evolution (as change over time), multiplication of species, and gradualism to buttress his two major theories. It is to Darwin\u2019s original work that contemporary biologists turn again and again for explanatory power, predictive capacity, and as problem-solving lenses as they seek to answer scientific questions and solve scientific puzzles. Darwin\u2019s complementary theories \u2013 natural selection and common ancestry \u2013 allow us at any moment in time to consider conditional statements looking forward (natural selection) and into the past (common ancestry) and, in doing so, to look for and interpret new evidence.<\/p>\n

Applying evolutionary theory in solving problems<\/h3>\n

Problem 1: change in human visual acuity over time \u2013 the use of natural selection as an explanatory tool<\/h4>\n

It can be observed that there are greater numbers of us requiring corrective measures to improve visual acuity than at any time in human history. In generation after generation it can be noted that the percentage of individuals needing improved visual clarity continues to rise. How can this be the case, when natural selection should predict just the opposite?<\/p>\n

In other animals, variations exist in which individual members of a population possess an eye shape that is either too short or too long, creating conditions<\/p>\n

of hyperopia (farsightedness) and myopia (nearsightedness). Natural selection would not favour extreme variations in eye shape for several obvious reasons because blurred vision makes the following more difficult:<\/p>\n