Darwin May Have Been Wrong, New Study Argues

UPDATE: Steve Newton, Programs and Policy Director for the National Center for Science Education, has written an analysis of the study, titled "Darwin Was Not Wrong--New Study Being Distorted." Read it here.

--
A new study published in Biology Letters calls into question elements of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

While Darwin argued that competition was the key force driving evolution, a research team from the University of Bristol argues that "living space" is in fact the primary driver. Michael Benton, a co-author of the study, said his team concluded that "competition did not play a big role in the overall pattern of evolution."

"The new study proposes that really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space, not occupied by other animals," BBC News explains. "For example, when birds evolved the ability to fly, that opened up a vast range of new possibilities not available to other animals. Suddenly the skies were quite literally the limit, triggering a new evolutionary burst."

Slate describes how PhD student Sarda Sahney conducted her research:

Using fossils to study evolutionary patterns over hundreds of millions of years of history, Sahney and team found that biodiversity, at least among the land animals that they decided to focus on, matched the availability of living space through time. Living space refers to the particular requirements of individual organisms to thrive and reproduce. It can include several components but primarily describes the availability of food and favorable habitat.

"Throughout geological time, patterns of global diversity of tetrapod families show 97 per cent correlation with ecological modes," Sahney writes in the Biology Letters article co-authored by Michael Benton and Paul Ferry.

Not all have accepted the team's conclusions. According to BBC News, Yale University evolutionary biologist Stephen Stearns said the interpretation was "problematic." "What is the impetus to occupy new portions of ecological space if not to avoid competition with the species in the space already occupied?" Stearns asked.

What do you think of their theory--is it bogus or does it have legs? Weigh in below.

Comments

[CFL68]

11:35 AM on 08/30/2010

I'll put my money on someone eventually proving that genetic mechanisms are read/write, and not just read only.

[ExtraorDom]

02:30 AM on 08/30/2010

Also, many predators will attack strong, not weak, prey.

[Maezeppa]

10:10 AM on 08/29/2010

Headline Abuse! There's nothing really new about adaptive radiation and it doesn't challenge Darwinian evolution at all.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Adaptive_Radiation

[Etienne Perret]

10:36 AM on 08/28/2010

Headlines are incredibly powerful and have been misused ever since newspapers have been published.

[Lesli Sagan]

08:36 AM on 08/28/2010

No point reading the article when the title is so far off the mark.

[mikeholloway]

11:36 AM on 08/27/2010

I know it's not customary for authors to look at, or respond, to comments, but I'm dying to know why the the BBC is quoted, but not the authors of the study. Why was there no attempt made to question the scientists? Apparently the BBC didn't do it either. What's the barrier, protocol, or prejudice that prevents this?

[Maezeppa]

10:10 AM on 08/29/2010

It's sheer laziness.

[Texas Aggie]

11:05 AM on 08/27/2010

This article is just one more in a long list of clueless science articles posted by Huffpost. It goes along with their silliness about microwave ovens the other day, pushing creationism and a whole bunch of crystal power type nonsense that has found its way onto their blog site. I wish someone would say something to them about it.

[gregstevens]

10:32 AM on 08/27/2010

Most irresponsible article title. Ever.

The revolutionary key hypothesis of Darwin's theory of evolution was that complex biological systems become more adapted to their environment, not by some kind of directed or intentional change, but rather by a process of random variation and then selection.

That was the "Big Idea".

From there, he proposed a number of detailed smalled ideas on how, precisely, that big idea operates. Competition between species was one. Sexual selection was another.

But remember, in Darwin's day, he didn't even know about DNA. All of the discovery since Darwin has been focused on the details of HOW this "random variation" combined with "selection" happens.

So, perhaps he mis-stated the level of influence that one type of "selection" had. Perhaps he completely missed another form of "selection" that takes place. If you look at the granular details of what he published, he was wrong about a LOT of things. Which isn't surprising.. he lived in the 1800's.

But the fact is, the "Big Idea" of his theory, the one key thing that made it ground-breaking to begin with, is still right. And presenting this article to imply otherwise is misleading and irresponsible.

[astjuste]

09:12 AM on 08/27/2010

Why does Darwin have to be wrong? This seems to buttress competition, not refute.

[AxelDC]

05:26 PM on 08/26/2010

Even if this theory were correct, it just refines, not refutes Darwin's theory.

Of course, Creationists will take scientific debate as evidence that we are descended from a man and the woman created from his rib who were seduced by a talking snake.

[david c taylor]

12:33 PM on 08/26/2010

Can't the two go hand-in-hand?

[Culturegeek]

09:47 AM on 08/27/2010

Depends on what you mean by that. If you mean, can knowledge about the theory of evolution and belief in a higher power coexist in one student, then yes. A student may believe that a theory is entirely wrong and still correctly answer a question about what it implies. For example, one teacher of human origins reassured a student that he could begin every answer with “’if human evolution were true,’ subjunctive contrary to fact,” and, if that was followed with a correct answer, it was a correct answer.
In that sense, science and religion can coexist because science is not about what you believe, it's about whether or not you can apply the rules of science to a problem in the physical world.
In fact, many scientists are religious and this is not a conflict because science addresses the physical world, while religion addresses the supernatural. Science and religion follow different rules and meet different needs.

However, if you are asking about religious speculation as science, then not really. Scientists are, as previously mentioned, perfectly capable of having private religious beliefs, but they don't postulate them in science. Science doesn't ask or answer questions about the supernatural-- that is the province of religion-- but it must be allowed to function by its own rules as concerns the natural world. .

[ZeroTiger]

12:32 PM on 08/26/2010

darwin wrong? if anything this shows that darwin was right. article says, "really big evolutionary changes happen when animals move into empty areas of living space." This completely follows natrual selection. if a mutated trait isn't challenged because there are few other living things competing for resources, these traits will be passed on to later generations. this is nothing more than extrapolating preditor/prey theory. if there are few preditors, it is no surprise that the prey will increase in numbers. an increase in numbers increases the diversity of genetic traits. so of course evolution will experience a big jump.

[Jordan Bigel]

10:38 AM on 08/26/2010

>What do you think of their theory--is it bogus or does it have legs? Weigh in below.

Whats BOOOOGUUUUUUS is your sensationalist headline "Darwin may have been WRONG..."
I have been a big fan of Huffpo for several years but you guys are going off the deep end with the headlines and this is a prime example.

Did you think it would be a good idea to attract "new readers" who wouldn't normally read HuffPo - get the conservatives interested so they come inside? Tease them with a little "darwin was wrong" BS? Well all you've acheived is pissing off your regular readers who respect accuracy and reality.

Finally, let me say that the research described in this article does nothing to disprove the Theory of Evolution. When you say "Darwin", everyone thinks "Evolution" - they don't think about "Natural Selection" vs "Some other wacky form of selection" - they think "Evolution". Its a dog whistle. Your headline implies that new research shows that Evolution is not reality. In fact, the research is about the mechanics of the selection pressure, not the key and central fact that live evolved and we are all evolved from a common ancestor (we meaning ALL life on earth).

Stop with the BOGUS headlines. I'm just sayin, I'm THIS CLOSE to never opening Huffpo again. Ever. And I am not the only one.

[JuanDimensional]

04:35 PM on 08/26/2010

"Huffington Post Use a Misleading Headline? A Trillion People Say it's Never Happened!"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/24/darwin-wrong-evolution_n_692502.html

[OgreDaddy]

10:30 AM on 08/26/2010

I consider the possibility that the earth itself is one of many Noah's Arks of life.
Seeded here and then evolving in time.

We are being kept in the dark deliberately because knowledge threatens their power over us.

[LittleMittens]

09:42 AM on 08/26/2010

As long as the line between church and state continues to crumble, you can expect a continued downward spiral of science...

[ExtraorDom]

02:28 AM on 08/30/2010

That is completely untrue scaremongering.

Isaac Newton would like a word with you...