Swedish Chicken Experiment Challenges Darwin's Theory of Evolution
April 14th 2010 05:47
For years, Scientists such as Richard Dawkins have heralded Darwin's theory of evolution as the single most significant breakthrough in scientific evolutionary thinking. However, today, it seems, perspective on the way life came about is beginning to take a huge shift. At least in some large circles.
An experiment conducted by Swedish scientists on the evolutionary behaviour of chickens is one just example leading empirical science towards an alternative viewpoint on natural selection.
The experiment manipulated lighting inside a henhouse to make the chickens stressed by confusing them over night and day (which discombobulated the chickens entirely). Not surprisingly, the chooks capacity for learning after the experiment decreased significantly.
The chickens were then moved to a stress free environment, where they hatched and raised chicks. Interestingly, despite being raised in a stress free environment, the chicks displayed a decreased ability to perform tasks on the whole, compared with other chicks. Further tests revealed the adult chickens had passed the stress on to their offspring genetically.
It would seem, therefore, rather than genes mutating towards those having the best capacity for survival (survival of the fittest), environmental conditions play a bigger part in offspring determinant than previously thought.
Another study (which was of course Swedish) confirmed this. In rural parts of Sweden, foods available to a child varied from one year to the next (due to climactic conditions). One single period of extreme overeating, researchers discovered, could cause a person's offspring to die on average 32 years earlier than if food had been administered steadily over a long period.
In short, these studies have found that lifestyle appears to have a direct influence over heredity.
Opponents of Darwin's theory of evolution, such as American philosopher Jerry Fodor, believe that people should not assume that natural selection is "evidently simple and exhaustively true". Funnily enough, Darwin never claimed that it was, in fact he went to his grave saying he had been misinterpreted.
Although, with organisations such as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster implying that it is a "response to the Intelligent Design movement" or a "defence of science", pro-Darwinians can probably relax for a little longer, and take solace in some pasta.
An experiment conducted by Swedish scientists on the evolutionary behaviour of chickens is one just example leading empirical science towards an alternative viewpoint on natural selection.
The experiment manipulated lighting inside a henhouse to make the chickens stressed by confusing them over night and day (which discombobulated the chickens entirely). Not surprisingly, the chooks capacity for learning after the experiment decreased significantly.
The chickens were then moved to a stress free environment, where they hatched and raised chicks. Interestingly, despite being raised in a stress free environment, the chicks displayed a decreased ability to perform tasks on the whole, compared with other chicks. Further tests revealed the adult chickens had passed the stress on to their offspring genetically.
It would seem, therefore, rather than genes mutating towards those having the best capacity for survival (survival of the fittest), environmental conditions play a bigger part in offspring determinant than previously thought.
Another study (which was of course Swedish) confirmed this. In rural parts of Sweden, foods available to a child varied from one year to the next (due to climactic conditions). One single period of extreme overeating, researchers discovered, could cause a person's offspring to die on average 32 years earlier than if food had been administered steadily over a long period.
In short, these studies have found that lifestyle appears to have a direct influence over heredity.
Opponents of Darwin's theory of evolution, such as American philosopher Jerry Fodor, believe that people should not assume that natural selection is "evidently simple and exhaustively true". Funnily enough, Darwin never claimed that it was, in fact he went to his grave saying he had been misinterpreted.
Although, with organisations such as the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster implying that it is a "response to the Intelligent Design movement" or a "defence of science", pro-Darwinians can probably relax for a little longer, and take solace in some pasta.
| 227 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Journeywoman
Great Hair Style Tips
The Mama Sutra
I Dream of Hollywood
Fashion Peach
That aside, this is pretty interesting stuff. I know that Darwin's theory of evolution isn't the be-all and end-all, but it's been the best we've had for more than a century. If a few more experiments like these can obtain similar results, then we may have a whole revolution in scientific theory on our hands... and in my humble opinion, that is pretty damn exciting.
Comment by Andy Tope
Bagman's Gazette
Cinema Banana
Yes, I guess we keep probing while we stand on other people's shoulders to get even further.
I also love anything with Swedish experiments in it. Doesn't all the experimentation seem to happen in Sweden or Switzerland, or is it just my imagination? Bless the Sw countries..hehe
Comment by Andy Tope
Bagman's Gazette
Cinema Banana
Comment by Chris Champion
Vyoos
Zoomies
Bloggercises
The Blog of Lists
Newly Old
Comment by Andy Tope
Bagman's Gazette
Cinema Banana
Comment by Spring-Heeled Jack
Over.Exposure
Surely if the second generation of chickens displayed the same aberrant behaviour as their discombobulated parents the most logical conclusion would be to pin it on acquired behaviours, not genetic memory.
The only way to properly establish whether there was a genetic factor would be to swap eggs between a group who had been frizzled and a group left alone. If the chicks from the frizzled parents still turned out whacky, despite being raised by normal parents, then you'd have a case for the genetic factor.
On another note, I really can't see how this assails evolutionary theory. All it espouses is that animals adapt to their environment in the most efficient manner, and that natural selection weeds out those who aren't suited. These chickens simply altered their behaviour to suit a new set of variables, so if the sun did just happen to go haywire it would obviously be advantageous to them.
If anything, it seems to reinforce evolutionary theory.
Comment by Andy Tope
Bagman's Gazette
Cinema Banana
I'm not sure why you would pin aberrant behaviour (maybe it wasn't explained correctly) as being acquired behaviour in this case, when the environment had completely changed, and so had the parents (their cognitive abilities had returned to normal) in the new environment (yet the chicks were functioning abnormally). I guess the point the experiment was trying to make was, environmental/lifestyle factors can side track the gene, irrespective of characteristics that would make the gene most likely to survive (survival of the fittest).
As far as being flawed, I absolutely agree with you. I personally don't think the article says too much of worth. I was just more having a laugh (Swedish chicken experiment?). I believe you would need a lot more to disprove evolutionary theory than a couple of isolated experiments. And if you read Fodor's arguments, he seems to confuse himself as well as a lot of other people.
Although I do think it's nice we keep probing estalished norms, no matter how great they are.
I didn't think this article sounded too serious. Maybe reading the newspaper link above may clarify your thoughts.
Comment by Spring-Heeled Jack
Over.Exposure
That's how we end up with evolutionary dead-ends, where organisms become so attuned to a minute environmental condition that it actually becomes a weakness, should conditions ever change.