Review of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

Evolution is the core theory of life sciences, and with the development of science, the theory of evolution has gradually developed from inference to verification, from qualitative to quantitative, and developed into evolutionary biology. Evolutionary biology answers a series of questions such as the origin of life, the reasons for the complexity and diversity of the living world, and the mechanism of evolution, and is the largest unifying theory in biology, and the concept of evolution has been applied to fields other than the biological sciences. Before taking this course, I only knew a little about Darwin and evolution, such as natural selection and the struggle for survival; after a semester of study and extracurricular readings, I came to understand that the basic concepts of evolution are complex, and that evolutionary ideas can be extended in different directions, and that each of these ideas has a rich connotation. The most classic Darwinism needs no introduction, and below I would like to offer some of my own views on the counter-traditional view. The first is a discussion of the possibility of the existence of evolution as a formalized theory. Axiomatization was once considered the advanced form of mature theory, and axiomatization not only has aesthetic value, but also the simpler the theory is, the clearer it becomes. By pointing out the necessary conditions and specific explanatory scope of the theory, not only the misuse of the theory can be avoided, but also the possibility of theory growth is enhanced, and the structural optimization in turn facilitates the definition and illustration of the generalization. Only within a theoretical framework can conceptual terms be defined; if the theory itself is vague and open-ended, concepts will have multiple definitions, and when used, the individual descriptions will overlap and even contradict each other. Whereas evolution is not a mature, closed axiomatized system, for example, there is no strict theory of biology, and the field of biology does not apply a strong semantic theory of designation. Biology cannot evolve without ambiguity and ambiguity, and even self-contradiction. But I think that strictly speaking, for a theory to develop, it must necessarily be open. The study of living organisms should go beyond the level of understanding of physics, removing the analysis of biophysics, there is some kind of property that cannot be accounted for by the laws of physics. Biology is different from physics, and the philosophy of biology has changed the standards of the philosophy of physics in many important features, but this does not prevent us from examining and critically examining the theory of evolution by logical standards. There is no lack of mathematics in the theory of evolution, and population genetics has been applying sophisticated mathematical statistical methods since the 20th century. At the same time, the study of biology has the **** of the study of other natural sciences in that it believes that the answers to biology's own questions should be sought from the study of the organisms themselves. Such answers may be unknown, but they must not refer to that which is beyond human perception and beyond the capabilities of science. It reflects the empiricist, naturalistic tendency of all scientific research. The opposition to religious sentiment, mysticism, and the infiltration of science by agnosticism is a conscious response by the scientific community; otherwise, the rationality and validity of science would be in doubt. Then there is the question of *** same origin and gradual change. ****same origin is quite important in the whole argument of Darwinism, and the interpretation of evolution is now inseparable from the explanation of ****same origin. The evolution of existing species from a primitive limited number of species to a subsequent large number of species not only explains the uniform phenomenon of the biological laws of nature, but both lineal and branching evolution require the recognition of such an evolutionary picture of backward and forward succession and continuous development. The American jurist Philip James did not believe that countless small changes could accumulate to form complex or larger changes. He asked, "Who can imagine what an intermediate type between a scale and a feather would look like?" And he ridiculed the "story described by gradualism" as "human conjecture" because "no one has ever proved experimentally that wings and eyes can evolve gradually." Darwinists have evolved a whole series of supporting arguments that provide seemingly plausible answers to any question, without ever considering all the immaterial forces that "supernaturally" like Creationism "guided organisms toward complexity and conscious evolution, and when none of them make sense, they simply blame chance. simply blame chance." While there are plenty of examples from the fossil record, morphology, embryology, geographical distribution of organisms, molecular evidence, and other perspectives that confirm Darwin's conjecture, I think that there is some truth in what Philip Zen says, and that we make a lot of allusions to how ancestors developed new content and accepted new shapes when we conclude that different kinds of organisms are all connected by the **** same ancestor in the distant past. "So far Darwinists have looked only for positive evidence, but evidence against the theory of ****same ancestry they have never been able to find. Because as far as Darwinists are concerned, these evidences don't exist." To make sense of the answer, Jenfrey speculates from a social psychology perspective that the scientific community accepted and developed the doctrine of evolution because of social forces, rather than for reasons of natural science itself. "Stigma is the main difficulty because the leaders of the scientific community believe that they are in a battle to the death with the fundamentalists of religion. They treat all those who believe in a Creator's involvement in this world as fundamentalists and see these people as a threat to enlightenment, to freedom, and even more so to popular support for scientific research. As scientific naturalism became a dystopian creation story, Darwinism played a conceptually important role in the war against the fundamentalists. For this reason, the scientific community has dutifully protected Darwinism without testing it, and even distorted the rules of scientific research to help them succeed." While it's a bit of a stretch to see the scientific community's adherence to evolution as a result of ideological reasons, however, we can't rule out the possible influence of this factor; who wouldn't run and shout for something they strongly believe in? It's really all essentially a personal choice. Denying other people the broad freedom to believe what they affirm can sometimes lead to disaster. In short, there are still many debatable issues about evolution, and heated debates are inevitable. And it is precisely because of the existence of multiple theoretical systems*** that a hundred schools of thought can contend and pool their wisdom*** with each other to promote scientific development. We should be diligent in thinking and asking questions in the future study of any discipline, dare to challenge the authority, and rub out the spark of wisdom of innovation.