The only theories of evolution you tend to hear about are Lamarck's, Haeckel's and Darwin's. Are there any other major theories of evolution? Are any of them remotely viable?
I understand a humanities board is really not the place for this question, but I posted it on /sci/ before and I just got stuff like furry porn in response. So I ask you, hoping your responses will be more informed or thoughtful.
>>499080
Evolution is a lie.
>>499080
the only problem with homo is that homos cannot reproduce, also shit dicking and disease
>>499158
It's just a joke bruh, it's not that related to the thread beyond having to do with evolution. The topic is the question in the OP
>>499183
I understand that, I mean I'm asking for other *theories of evolution*. Those names both subscribe to Darwin's theory, afaik
Maybe /sci/ could answer this question better? I would answer if I knew, but I do not believe in evolution, so I have no idea.
>>499257
Did you read the whole OP? I asked on /sci/ already.
Try /sci/ faggot
>>499080
> Are there any other major theories of evolution?
There are many 20th century evolutionary theories spun out of the debate over group selection, which continues to this day.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kin_selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection#Multilevel_selection_theory
http://www.pnas.org/content/101/30/11019
Notable theorists on the subject would include
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V._C._Wynne-Edwards
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._B._S._Haldane
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._O._Wilson
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins
>>499280
Try reading the whole OP
>>499199
Eh, Darwin provided the larger framework, but a lot of his stuff didn't make the cut into today's academia.
He also wrote about the role of emotions. Sort of like a proto-evo-psychologist. Doesn't really hold up, but it's interesting how he tried to bridge the man-beast gap as far as touching the subject of sensibility. Really, he had a pretty broad vision.
>>499287
If I recall correctly, those are attempts to conciliate the capacity for altruistic behavior with the selfish gene theory, yes?
>>499287
Thanks a bunch
>>499296
Selfish gene is more recent than a lot of it and not everyone thinks it's right enough to be worth reconciling with anything. The PNAS paper there, for instance, is a 2004 one affirming more or less the argument that Wynne-Edwards made in 1960, before selfish gene.
It's more that any theory of group selection has to reconcile altruistic behavior, which can include many animals, with the fact that reproduction and genetic transmission generally occurs only in pairs of animals.
>>499320
Oh. Thanks then.
