There is a general assumption that the entire theory of evolution was never discussed prior to Linnaeus, Lamarck, Wallace and Darwin. This is a common misconeption. The concept of evolution, particularly, what we call micro and macroevolution, was a topic of debate in ancient Greece. Among the most notable were the famous philosophers, Pythagoras and Aristotle -- Pythagoras arguing in favor of evolution, Aristotle ultimately rejecting the notion.
My reason for mentioning has to do with well-known observations and speculative theories. The plain fact about it is that we know beyond all reasonable doubt that DNA has a terrific capacity for diversity. And even prior to Crick and Watson's contribution to DNA research, we always knew that some mechanism was responsible for this, we were simply unable to define it prior. What hasn't been witnessed, ever, is what Mayr referred to as, "transpecific evolution," which later synthesized into macroevolution. Darwin's contribution and his extrapolation off the works of his grandfather, Erasmus Darwin, obviously gave the theory its most compelling reasons to believe in the theoretical basis for such an evolvement. Darwin argued that certainly within his lifetime, he would able to identify the innumerable transitional forms in the fossil record. During his time, he recognized that it was seriously lacking and that all fossilized creatures seemed to appear abruptly in full formation just as we see them today. Over 100 years later the theory was still built around circumstancial evidence. The theory, seriously anemic with lacking physical evidence, the eminent Gould and Mayr expounded on an older theory to which they would refer to as Punctuated Equilibrium or Equilibria. As far as I can tell, it was a total abandonment of Darwin's bread and butter, which is slight gradations building upon on each other. Instead, Gould and Mayr argued that little to no evidence should be found because the large population would experience long ages of stasis, where smaller, peripheral populations would branch off creating speciation. This seems like a clever way to absolve the theory of any wrong conclusions and to keep it afloat by presenting no evidence to support a lack of evidence. What's particularly disturbing, creationists have always pointed this out, yet we were expected to believe the whole of Darwinism. It was only when Gould and Mayr gave a tentative and passive thumbs down to Darwin's bread and butter that the rest of the biological community finally followed suit.
In a sea of pure and unadulterated conjecture, I see no compelling reason to continue in this vein. The theory still faces the exact same challenges that Darwin faced, even in light of technological advances. In fact, these advances within technology only seem to undermine it, not enhance it.
“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal
™ Version 4.2
