There were plenty of things that Charles Darwin got wrong in his most famous work On the Origin of Species. Yet no contemporary biologist doubts the central claim of Darwin’s work-namely, that evolution is driven by random variation coupled with non-random survival. In 2004, for example, the front page cover of National Geographic read “Was Darwin Wrong?” to which the column in the magazine tersely replied, “No. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming” (Quammem, 2004). In recent news, however, research suggests one of Darwin’s most basic hypotheses, survival of the fittest, may not be transparent among closely related organisms.
Darwin speculated that competition between species is the primary force that fuels natural selection. Without competition, evolution would become dormant. Organisms that are genetically similar to each other are more likely to compete for the available resources in the surrounding environment than organisms that are genetically unique. Yet competition between genetically similar organisms does not hold true for one-third of the species of algae, according to the provocative insights in the article “Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists.” The researchers discovered that closely related species of algae actually work together, instead of compete with each other, for available resources in a closed environment. The researchers originally set out to vindicate Darwin’s hypothesis; however, repeated tests proved otherwise. The insights of the study suggest that cooperation, rather than competition, may be much more prevalent in the animal kingdom than Darwin supposed.
Use your promo and get a custom paper on
"What Darwin Got Wrong".
Evolution by means of natural selection strings the complexity of life into a single coherent framework. This being the case, the article assumed background knowledge regarding the basic principles that dictate evolution by means of natural selection. In addition, the article made reference to basic biological concepts learned in class, such as photosynthesis. Rather than competing with each other for available light, the algae were cooperatively converting light energy into chemical energy.
The article originally caught my eye due to its provocative headline. However, it continued to fuel my interest due to its emphasis on specie conservation. In particular, conservation decisions are determine by species that are genetically unique versus those that are genetically regular. Since it is impossible to preserve all species, conservation efforts give priority to the former over the latter. Although the research does not directly affect me, it does challenge common assumptions used to determine conservation policies-policies that, in the grand scheme of things, impact everybody. As Bradley Cardinale, associate professor of natural resources and environment notes, “But if scientists ultimately prove Darwin wrong on a larger scale, then we need to stop using his hypothesis as a basis for conservation decisions” (Cimons, 2014).
The research has already been issued a $2 million dollar grant by the National Science Foundation, a federal research agency that is in charge of funding scientific research. The research is being funded through public tax dollars for good reasons. Although the behavior of algae may seem trivial, its implications have consequences that effect federal policy. In particular, if Darwin’s hypothesis is cast in a dubious light by this research, then it will reform the maxim that underpins wild life conservation policies. This being the case, the public should have an invested interest in research that is currently being conducted on algae.
- Cimons, M. (2014, April 28). Doubting Darwin: Algae Findings Surprise Scientists. Retrieved from Live Science : http://www.livescience.com/
- Quammem, D. (2004, November ). Was Darwin Wrong? Retrieved from National Geographic : http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/
