‘Absurdly crude and misleading’: Why some scientists believe evolution theory could be due for an update

Credit: Quartz
Credit: Quartz

Strange as it sounds, scientists still do not know the answers to some of the most basic questions about how life on Earth evolved. Take eyes, for instance. Where do they come from, exactly? The usual explanation of how we got these stupendously complex organs rests upon the theory of natural selection.

Follow the latest news and policy debates on sustainable agriculture, biomedicine, and other ‘disruptive’ innovations. Subscribe to our newsletter.

This is the basic story of evolution, as recounted in countless textbooks and pop-science bestsellers. The problem, according to a growing number of scientists, is that it is absurdly crude and misleading.

For one thing, it starts midway through the story, taking for granted the existence of light-sensitive cells, lenses and irises, without explaining where they came from in the first place. 

In 2014, eight scientists took up this challenge, publishing an article in the leading journal Nature that asked “Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?” Their answer was: “Yes, urgently.”

Each of the authors came from cutting-edge scientific subfields, from the study of the way organisms alter their environment in order to reduce the normal pressure of natural selection – think of beavers building dams – to new research showing that chemical modifications added to DNA during our lifetimes can be passed on to our offspring. The authors called for a new understanding of evolution that could make room for such discoveries.

This is an excerpt. Read the original post here. 

{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.singularReviewCountLabel }}
{{ reviewsTotal }}{{ options.labels.pluralReviewCountLabel }}
{{ options.labels.noReviewsLabel }}
{{ options.labels.newReviewButton }}
{{ userData.canReview.message }}

Related Articles

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Infographic: Global regulatory and health research agencies on whether glyphosate causes cancer

Does glyphosate—the world's most heavily-used herbicide—pose serious harm to humans? Is it carcinogenic? Those issues are of both legal and ...

Most Popular

ChatGPT-Image-Mar-10-2026-01_39_01-PM
Viewpoint—“Miracle molecule” debunked: Why acemannan supplements don’t work
Picture1
Hiroshima at 81: America’s new nuclear bomb, a buried Iranian target, and a question no one wants to ask
Screenshot-2026-07-31-at-10.10.55-AM
Viewpoint: ‘Misinformation' about the effects of offshore wind turbines on marine life could derail offshore wind farm projects 
ChatGPT Image Jul 29, 2026, 06_26_01 PM 2
Facts & Fallacies podcast: Organic food myths make a comeback on Instagram, with Dr. Kevin Folta
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-10-2026-09_42_12-AM-1
Peptides, patient autonomy, and the limits of medical freedom
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-10-2026-12_21_03-PM
Viewpoint: Is there new evidence that the animal deworming drug ivermectin decreases the risk of Covid and cancer? Don’t waste your money.
Screenshot-2026-07-09-at-1.09.25-PM
Anti-vaccine myths rattle health care
ChatGPT Image Jul 31, 2026, 08_05_37 AM
With trust in RFK, Jr.'s CDC vaccine advice collapsing, physicians scramble to fill the information gap
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-31-2026-07_35_35-AM
Wikipedia has assembled an informative list of fake news websites from across the ideological spectrum
Screenshot-2026-07-31-at-9.37.42-AM
Obsessing about ultra-processed foods but ignoring what matters far more: A balanced diet
ChatGPT-Image-Jul-22-2026-09_13_07-AM
Viewpoint—The Strategic Litigation boom: Understanding the tightening coalition among NGOs, foundations, journalists, and tort lawyers
ChatGPT Image Jul 29, 2026, 10_17_59 AM
Viewpoint: What does it mean when critics of conventional agriculture say many fruits and vegetables are “linked” to pesticide poisoning?
glp menu logo outlined

Get news on human & agricultural genetics and biotechnology delivered to your inbox.