Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FYI: Who invented the term neo-Darwinism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
arroba Email

Michael Flannery Re the highly recommended short doc, The Biology of the Second Reich:

One reader writes to express confusion about the terminology, noting that the doc refers to neo-Darwinism a few times, but the reader thinks that the term did not emerge until the 1960s. Who’s right?

(First, a note: The name “Second Reich” refers to Germany’s government in World War I, 1914–1918. Not to be confused with the infamous Third Reich that ruled Germany much later, in World War II, 1939–1945.)

But now, on to the historians: The term Neo-Darwinism was used by American biologist Vernon Kellogg (1867–1937), whose account was quoted.

There is some confusion, at times, between the terms “neo-Darwinian synthesis” and “neo-Darwinism.”

Historian Michael Flannery writes to say,

The term neo-Darwinian synthesis has a long and complex history, but is largely associated with Theodosius Dobzansky Genetics and the Origin of Species (1937). The term itself was coined by Julian Huxley in his book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (1942) and Ernst Mayr’s Systematics and the Origin of Species that same year.

Nevertheless, the term neo-Darwinism itself was coined by George Romanes in 1895, referring to August Weismann’s germ plasm theory. So the term neo-Darwinism pre-dates the synthesis and was indeed very much alive in the period covered by the video.

Note: It is best to check the history in these cases, and not rely on Darwin’s present-day followers, who often appear to be engaging in politics, and are oblivious to historical research.

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Here’s the doc again:

Comments
M: Is there some place else I should start rather than your theory of knowledge? It seemed like a good place to start to me.
It's not my theory. I'm a "Popperian", as indicated by my user name.
Has there ever before been a theory of knowledge that admits knowledge without understanding?
Yes. See Popper's Logic of Scientific Discovery and Objective Knowledge. More recent applications can be found by another Popperian in The Fabric of Reality and The Beginning of Infinity - both by David Deutsch. Popperian
knowledge - facts, information, and skills acquired by a person through experience or education; the theoretical or practical understanding of a subject. Has there ever before been a theory of knowledge that admits knowledge without understanding? Mung
Popperian, yes, I read the entire post. But I, like Bill O'Reilly, prefer to "keep it pithy." Is there some place else I should start rather than your theory of knowledge? It seemed like a good place to start to me. So just random rearrangements of matter (or dice) are not sufficient for the creation of non-explanatory knowledge. The random arrangement must 'solve some problem.' Do I understand correctly so far? So if we have the problem, say, what is the sum of four plus three, tossing dice at random dose or does not solve this problem and does or does not produce non-explanatory knowledge, and why or why not? To be honest, I have sincere doubts about the coherence of your view. Knowledge requires a knower. Someone or some thing must therefore have knowledge of what the problem is and whether or not it was solved. Who or what is 'the knower' and what is the 'known' in your theory of non-explanatory knowledge and in what sense could knowledge so gained be deemed non-explanatory? Mung
ok, I admit it! I invented the term neo-Darwinism. So sue me. Mung
Now you’re just grasping at straws. Actually natural selection is about elimination and not selection.
It's a form of criticism. So, natural selection selects theories that best survive criticism.
Darwinian evolution does not require knowledge to effect changes. It does not require knowledge to produce adaptations.
Then how do organisms know how to build themselves? Popperian
Mung: Like someone shaking a box containing a pair of dice that no one can see inside. The result is not observable by any knower. That’s constitutes non-explanatory knowledge?
The key distinction is that the variation is random to any specific problem to solve, not that it's completely random like a pair of dice. Nor does it necessitate the knowledge being hidden by any conscious observer. It's just not required to be observed. For example, in my hypothetical scenario, non-explanaory knowledge is created by accident, which I'm aware of as a useful rule of thumb. The key point is that non-explantory knowledge does not include an explanatory theory behind that usefulness. Did you read the rest of my comment? Popperian
Pop:
While Darwin didn’t know about DNA, his theory was still about variation and selection, which is the underlying explanation for the growth of knowledge via an error correcting process.
Now you're just grasping at straws. Actually natural selection is about elimination and not selection. Darwinian evolution does not require knowledge to effect changes. It does not require knowledge to produce adaptations. Joe
Popperian:
Non-explanatory knowledge is essentially a useful rule of thumb. It is the result of variation that occurs which is not directed toward a specific problem to solve and does not take the form of an explanatory theory.
Like someone shaking a box containing a pair of dice that no one can see inside. The result is not observable by any knower. That's constitutes non-explanatory knowledge? Mung
M: Briefly, what is meant by “non-explanatory knowledge”? Does it mean knowledge absent a knower?
Non-explanatory knowledge is essentially a useful rule of thumb. It is the result of variation that occurs which is not directed toward a specific problem to solve and does not take the form of an explanatory theory. This is in contrast to variation that is directed at a specific problem to solve and does take the form of an explanatory theory. Only people can conceive of problems and conjecture explanatory theories about how the world works, in reality, in an attempt to solve them. However, in both cases, variation is not not guaranteed to solve any problem, directed at or not. So, they are a form of conjecture. This can be difficult to understand because it requires the ability to suspend all of our explanatory knowledge to even consider it. To elaborate, imagine I’ve been shipwrecked on a deserted island and I have partial amnesia due to the wreck. I remember that coconuts are edible so climb a tree to pick them. While attempting to pick a coconut, one falls, lands of a rock and splits open. Note that I did not intend for the coconut to fall, let alone plan for it to fall because I guessed coconuts that fall on rocks might crack open. The coconut falling was random *in respect to a problem I hadn’t yet even tried to solve*. Yet it ended solving a problem regardless. Furthermore, due to my amnesia, I’ve hypothetically forgotten what I know about physics, including mass, inertia, etc. Specifically, I lack an explanation as to why the coconut landing on the rock causes it to open. As such, my knowledge of how to open coconuts is merely a useful rule of thumb, which is limited in reach. For example, in the absence of an explanation, I might collect coconuts picked from other trees, carry them to this same tree, climb it, then drop them on the same rocks to open them. IOW, since I lack an explanatory theory of how coconut is opened, in reality, my application it only extends to the exact conditions under which the rule of thumb was accidentally discovered. However, explanatory knowledge has significant reach. Specifically, if my explanatory knowledge of physics, including inertia, mass, etc. returned (theory about how the world works, in reality), I could use those explanations to strike coconut with any similar sized rock, rather than vice versa. Furthermore, I could exchange the rock with another object with significant mass, such as an anchor and open objects other than coconuts, such as shells, use this knowledge to protect myself from attacking wildlife, etc. So, explanatory knowledge only comes from intentional conjectures made by people and has significant reach. Non-explanatory knowledge (created by variation that is random to specific problems to solve, and selection) Popperian
Joe: No, because Darwinism doesn’t assume it takes knowledge to build adaptations in offspring.
While Darwin didn't know about DNA, his theory was still about variation and selection, which is the underlying explanation for the growth of knowledge via an error correcting process. This is in contrast to Lamarck, in which use and disuse was the cause of improvements - which implied there was something always there to improve in the first place. Furthermore, Lamarck also appealed to the idea that improvements were driven by a tendency built into the laws of nature, towards greater complexity. But just any complexity doesn't explain the evolution of adoptions. Only knowledge does. So that part of his theory merely invoked spontaneous generation. Popperian
Popperian:
What’s common is the creation of non-explanatory knowledge via a process of variation and selection.
Briefly, what is meant by "non-explanatory knowledge"? Does it mean knowledge absent a knower?
What’s common is the creation of non-explanatory knowledge via a process of variation and selection.
Is the variation and selection process blind and unguided?
Darwinism always predicts knowledge will be created...
Did you mean to say that Darwinism predicts that knowledge will always be created? What about prior to the advent of any Darwinian process? Or are you one of those hyper-Darwinists?
Darwinism always predicts ... that variation will always initially be be random *to any problem to solve* – which is non-explanatory in nature.
No it doesn't. Mung
Pop:
Does darwinsm assume the knowege of how to build adaptations in offspring was already present in the environment at the outset?
No, because Darwinism doesn't assume it takes knowledge to build adaptations in offspring. Anything else I can help you with? ;) Joe
... that was following Joe @85 Silver Asiatic
It's funny because evolutionists will eventually accept all of that as their "theory". They'll just embrace the stupidity of it all and act like everything makes perfect sense and every new finding is exactly what evolution expected, although they were also 'surprised' by it. Evolutionary double-speak. Silver Asiatic
Joe, Does darwinsm assume the knowege of how to build adaptations in offspring was already present in the environment at the outset? If the answer is "No.", which it is, then knowledge was created, rather than having always existed in some form. That would be paramount to the same mistake as induction. Namely, that the contents of theories come from observations (the environment). Popperian
There, that wasn't so difficult was it? You are now an expert on evolution. Joe
Joe - LOL. * Some unspecified change might occur by some mechanism, or it won't. * Known or unknown mechanisms might do something over time. * The biosphere in the past looked similar or different than the biosphere looks today. * Processes that might not exist could have caused the development of life in an unguided manner. Silver Asiatic
Silver Asiatic- That isn't quite true. I would say that evolutionism- whatever flavor- predicts change and/ or stasis. ;) Joe
Joe @ #69
I was told that if we read certain books- popular and textbooks- along with some peer-reviewed articles on the subject, that we could then figure out what the alleged theory of evolution is. Seriously.</blockquote. If anyone knew what the theory actually was, they'd explain it and not just reference text books. It predicts nothing, can't be tested and can't be falsified -- most importantly, because there's no "it". There's no single, coherent theory and clearly, no one can explain how the assortment of ideas called "evolution" actually work together.
Silver Asiatic
Pop:
While we will discover new ways for variation to occur, such as HGT, Darwinism always predicts knowledge will be created, rather than having always existed,
Please reference this alleged prediction of Darwinism. Joe
A_B (76) Between the 40s and now, the theory has been modified to take into account DNA, transcription, inversions, gene duplication, genetic transfer, drift, neutral theory, etc. so, we can only refer to this as neo-Darwinism in the fact that it is a distant descendant. A_B (76) But creationists use these terms with intent, knowing that they do not accurately reflect current understanding. I understand in principle: transcription, inversion, gene duplication, genetic transfer (HGT), drift and neutral theory. Darwin, and even Mendel, obviously didn't. The question is, do these terms in any meaningful way change neo-Darwinism or do they merely put meat on the bones of the theory. Transcription - DNA is copied, sometimes with non-foresighted errors. 'Fits comfortably within the neo-Darwinian frame. Inversion - DNA is sometimes copied backwards. If this happens accidentally, well, it fits comfortably within the neo-Darwinian frame. If it happens strategically (some have suggested so), then the neo-Darwinian frame would conclude the that method of strategic inversion was developed via non-foresighted variation filtered through natural selection. gene duplication, part of the DNA accidentally repeated itself. This is viewed as a on-foresighted error, filtered through natural selection. genetic transfer - presumably without foresight, organisms pick up DNA from neighboring organisms. Natural selection decides whether this is a worthy or unworthy accident. drift - The number of alleles of a particular gene increase or decrease in number without any guidance from natural selection. Selection, well, doesn't care. (See Neutral theory). Neutral theory - There are many mutations that neither benefit nor harm an organism. Natural selection is still fully and actively involved, it has responded with a shrug. Organism A gets a mutation that natural selection rejects -- the dear organism dies of some awful disease. Organism B gets a mutation that natural selection loves -- he gets lots of girlfriends. Organism C gets a mutation that natural selection shrugs at. Has Organism C really avoided natural selection? No. Natural selection simply says "eh". So none of the above mechanisms represent anything but non-foresighted variation filtered through the one universal filter, natural selection. I use these terms with intent, knowing that they do in fact accurately reflect current understanding. Moose Dr
The term Neo-Darwinism has the same "problem" as the term HD video. We now have 4k video and even higher resolution standards will appear. What's common is the creation of non-explanatory knowledge via a process of variation and selection. While we will discover new ways for variation to occur, such as HGT, Darwinism always predicts knowledge will be created, rather than having always existed, and that variation will always initially be be random *to any problem to solve* - which is non-explanatory in nature. Popperian
Richard Dawkins promotes what he calls neo-Darwinian evolution in this essay from 2008: http://www.theguardian.com/science/2008/feb/09/darwin.dawkins1 "...it is the only theory so far suggested that could, even in principle, explain life on any planet ..." So if one of the most well-known evolutionists in the world uses the term to describe the theory he teaches, I wouldn't say it's something that ID alone came up with. Silver Asiatic
I have yet to see any evidence for modern evolution being referred to in any other way except neo-darwinism- especially from evolutionists. The only people I have seen taking exception to this term are people who just don't know enough about the subject to matter. Just what does this alleged "current understanding" change? And why can't Acartia_bogart link to the most modern theory of evolution? Joe
Although we have read here, and in a subsequent OP that the term 'neo-Darwinism' was used long before the new synthesis, it is generally accepted that the common use of the term centred around the new synthesis, which was developed in the 30s and 40s. In its broadest sense, it simply combined Darwin's original theory with Mendelian genetics. Even at that point, referring to the current (1940s current) theory as Darwinism was a misnomer. Between the 40s and now, the theory has been modified to take into account DNA, transcription, inversions, gene duplication, genetic transfer, drift, neutral theory, etc. so, we can only refer to this as neo-Darwinism in the fact that it is a distant descendant. I still have not seen any comments here referencing any active researchers that refer to themselves as Darwinists or neo-Darwinists. Referencing scientists who have simply used the terms does not count. After all, I have used these terms repeatedly. I don't perceive either term as derogatory, just inaccurate. But intention is everything. Many people use these terms innocently (but incorrectly). And I have no issue with these people. But creationists use these terms with intent, knowing that they do not accurately reflect current understanding. That is where I have a problem, not that I expect the creationist movement to change their propaganda strategy. The UD editors could resolve some of our disagreement simply by posting the instructions provided to prospective authors to UD with respect to the use of these terms. If these instructions do not make reference to these terms, I will formally appologise and admit that I am wrong. Although I think that ID and UD are more about theology than science, I think that the people involved are basically honest and would not lie about this so I will accept that whatever they are willing to post would be honest. Acartia_bogart
Here are the links I have on the subject thus far: Alleged Human Chromosome 2 “Fusion Site” Encodes an Active DNA Binding Domain Inside a Complex and Highly Expressed Gene—Negating Fusion - by Jeffrey P. Tomkins - October 16, 2013 http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/arj/v6/n1/human-chromosome-fusion Human Chromosome Fusion Debunked - Jeffrey P. Tomkins - Oct. 26, 2013 http://designed-dna.org/blog/files/3e06d2e493f6210f9ceaaf555397ec29-86.php Refutation Of 98% similarity myth and Chromosome fusion - Tomkins - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EKO5mtdA0o4 bornagain77
Like I said Moose Dr, perhaps you can e-mail Dr. Tomkins to get the straight dope, especially since Darwinists were the ones who misled everybody in the first place. bornagain77
DDX11Ls are a gene family, arising from the duplication of a gene present in all primates. They have no known function (http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2164/10/250) and all the other members of the family are present in telomeres (chromosome ends), presumably they get copied around due to the the repetitive DNA in these regions. It's interesting that, as far as I know, the only non-telomeric copy sits right in the fusion site, the 'end' of the ancestral chromosome. wd400
Moose Dr, perhaps you can e-mail Dr. Tomkins? bornagain77
BA77, I really think that this gene may be a huge deal! It is kinda nice that Dr. Miller has emphasized the uselessness of the fusion point. If the fusion point is significantly functional, it is a big deal! For many, including maybe Dr. Miller himself, it is a Darwin slayer. BA77, "it’s an important, functional gene." What does the gene do? What do the non-Human apes do as they don't have this gene? Why is this gene in the refseq database, but not in the "major gene databanks"? Moose Dr
OT: Defenders Of The Evolutionary ‘Consensus’ Could Benefit From More Fact Checking - Aug. 27, 2014 Excerpt: Mooney,, took aim at a creationist biologist named Jeff Tomkins who had searched gene databases and discovered that the purported “fusion” point in human chromosome 2 is actually part of a functional gene. Quoting Kenneth Miller, an evolutionary biologist from Brown University, Mooney wrote: "But that’s just wrong, according to Miller. The fusion site is “more than 1,300 bases away from the gene,” he says, based on a review of major gene databanks. “These increasingly desperate efforts to ‘debunk’ the chromosome 2 story have failed before, and they’ve failed this time, too,” Miller concludes." Actually Mooney was wrong. When challenged privately, Dr. Miller conceded that the fusion point was only far away from the gene when one excludes results from a genomic database called “refseq.” When refseq is included, a longer gene transcript is found — produced by a section of DNA that includes the fusion site. Miller admitted the mistake to Tomkins: “in this transcript, the fusion site is in the middle of the first [gene] exon as you note.” Somehow Mooney failed to mention that inconvenient fact. Mooney apparently wanted to give the impression that the “fusion site” is useless junk DNA, produced by random evolutionary mutations. The evidence suggests otherwise — it’s an important, functional gene. http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/defenders-of-the-evolutionary-consensus-could-benefit-from-more-fact-checking-2/# bornagain77
Silver Asiatic- I was told that if we read certain books- popular and textbooks- along with some peer-reviewed articles on the subject, that we could then figure out what the alleged theory of evolution is. Seriously. My daughter told me that they are going to discuss evolution in her social study class- 6th grade. I can't wait to see what will be discussed. Joe
Silver Asiatic, IMHO, it merely a rhetorical talking point for Darwinists to deny neo-Darwinism to make it appear as if they are open to the crushing scientific criticisms against neo-Darwinian theory.,,, But as to what is actually taught in school, that would be good old fashioned random mutation and natural selection, i.e. Neo-Darwinism in its pristine form.,,, and I certainly don't see any Darwinists rushing to support IDs effort to have valid criticisms of orthodox neo-Darwinian theory taught in schools. bornagain77
BA77 - thanks for looking into that. There must have been neo-Darwinists around in 2011 for Lynn Margulis to criticize them. Plus, she was considered a rebel in the biological community -- not exactly the voice of the mainstream, so the term neo-Darwinism had to be a lot more widespread and commonly used. I would not be surprised if more biologists are rejecting the term - as A_B is doing, but it doesn't seem like the majority are like that. Silver Asiatic
"I just Googled it (Darwinism), and the first three entries use it to refer to the contemporary theory of evolution, and talk about it in terms of its origin in Darwin and its later developments. Those cites are: Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster Dictionary, and Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/the_strange_men084061.html bornagain77
SA, eminent biologist Lynn Margulis in 2011 for one: "Neo-Darwinists say that new species emerge when mutations occur and modify an organism. I was taught over and over again that the accumulation of random mutations led to evolutionary change -- led to new species. I believed it until I looked for evidence." (Quoted in "Discover Interview: Lynn Margulis Says She's Not Controversial, She's Right," Discover Magazine, p. 68 (April, 2011).) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/04/lynn_margulis_e084871.html bornagain77
Joe @ 62 True, it's not even a theory - more like a collection of observations and concepts, much of which is contradictory. Since nobody can point to what the theory is it obviously doesn't exist. Silver Asiatic
BA -- do you have references for the use of the term neo-Darwinism more recently than, say, the 1990s? I think Dawkins and Coyne still use the term. If so, they're two of the most popular voices for evolutionary theory so it would be hard to say that very few biologists would agree with them. Silver Asiatic
The "theory" has changed but one thing remains the same-> lack of supporting evidence. ;) Joe
Acartia_bogart- I challenge you to link to this alleged modern theory of evolution and explain the differences between it, the modern synthesis and Darwin. I also challenge you to find one biologist who can tell us exactly what makes an organism what it is along with a way to test that claim. Ya see, I don't give a dang what we call them, all anti-IDists push pseudo-science. Joe
Ernst Mayr wrote the forward to "Darwinism Defended" by Michael Ruse in 1982, so the term was very commonly used then.
The theory has been greatly changed since then.
At the time, the theory was defended as being almost absolutely certain, but it actually had to change so much that biologists now distance themselves from the term Darwinism. If evolutionary scientists would just admit these facts and not continue to pretend that "there are no weaknesses in evolutionary theory", they might build more credibility with the part of the public that is anti-evolutionary. Continuing to deny that there are significant problems and then by taking hostile postures (with lots of ridicule) against any criticism, only reveals weakness and uncertainty. It's an emotional bias. Why not just admit that Darwinism was falsified and then neo-Darwinism was also falsified? I think some evolutionists are so afraid of giving the appearance that creationists and IDers were correct about anything that they just want to pretend that current evolutionary ideas are the same as neo-Darwinism, but just changed somewhat. New ideas were needed because evidence did not support neo-Darwinian claims. When the theory conflicts with the evidence, then the theory is wrong. There shouldn't be any problem in admitting that. Critics of neo-Darwinism have been proven correct. That's a good thing for science - even if the criticism came from creationists and IDers. That kind of thing should be celebrated, not feared. Silver Asiatic
AB, perhaps you should research a bit before you post your comments? (Not that we mind you making such elementary mistakes since you are a (badly) representing Neo-Darwinism) http://lmgtfy.com/?q=Modern+Synthesis+Neo-Darwinism I will explain why some central aspects of neo-Darwinism (or the Modern Synthesis – in this article I am not always distinguishing between them), and their most popular expression in The Selfish Gene (Dawkins, 1976, 2006), form a barrier to the new synthesis required between physiology and evolutionary theory. http://jp.physoc.org/content/589/5/1007.full Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences. bornagain77
Joe, Ernst Mayr was one of the founders of the new synthesis, which he called neo-Darwinism. This is true. But that was well over half a century ago. The theory has been greatly changed since then. If you can find a significant number of current evolutionary biologists that call themselves Darwinists, or neo-Darwninsts, then I will believe you. I am sure that there are some biologists who consider themselves to be pure Darwinists, but they are few and far between, and not significant contributors to the field. Much like some creationists are young earth creationists, but they do not garner much respect anywhere except their own little conclave. Acartia_bogart
Evolutionary biologists refer to modern evolution as Darwinism or neo-Darwinism. Ernst Mayr, one of the architects of the modern synthesis referred to it as neo-Darwinism. Now what? Joe
Moose Dr -- sorry, I didn't see your post @ 2 before. Agreed that evolutionary biologist doesn't really work, so I'm not sure what would be better. A_B -- I think some research was done on UD a while back showing that the term Darwinism was still used very frequently in scientific papers. (Try a search of the term neo-darwinism on Google Scholar for example). Has neo-Darwinism been falsified and replaced with a new theory? Silver Asiatic
BA77:
IMHO, Being called a Neo-Darwinist, since that is in fact the proper name for the modern synthesis, ...
I'm getting confused. Wasn't the point of this OP that the term neo-darwinism predates the new synthesis. If this is the case then it can't be the proper name for the new synthesis. I can accept either argument, but not both. SA
I think that’s a very wide definition of the term.
But not as wide as calling modern evolutionary theory Darwinism, or neo-Darwinism. So, as long as the ID people insist on referring to evolutionary theory as Darwinism (or neo-Darwinism) I will continue to refer to ID as creationism. Acartia_bogart
Question, is our use of the term neo-Darwin(ist) the same? Do we carry a subtle note of insult, or is it a truly descriptive term?
Great questions. With some soul-searching, I would have to admit ... Insulting people and trying to make them look stupid is not the best approach. Good science should be unbiased -- following the evidence wherever it leads. The same with terminology. Probably something like "evolutionary biologist" is more reasonable and accurate. Maybe the fact that our opponents don't like the term neo-Darwinist means that they know that those ideas have failed? Neo-Darwinism cannot survive. Virtually nobody in the biology community will ever admit that, but they'll change to terminology to cover a wide assortment of contradictory ideas that will call come under the umbrella of "evolution". Silver Asiatic
I accuse the anti-creationist camp of hypocrisy! (the practice of claiming to have moral standards or beliefs to which one's own behavior does not conform.) You use the term "creationist" to refer to the ID community with prejudice. That is to say, you want the negative bias, mostly developed from the Bible thumping young earth community, to stick on us. Yet you hypocritically try to accuse us of prejudice in the term neo-Darwin(ist). Moose Dr
Silver Asiatic, "I think the term ‘creationist’ is often not used for reasons of clarity or accuracy but rather to create a negative bias." Absolutely! Question, is our use of the term neo-Darwin(ist) the same? Do we carry a subtle note of insult, or is it a truly descriptive term? Moose Dr
A_B
If design is a verb, then a designer is required. A designer is either a creator, or employs the trades to build, in which case he is, essentially, the creator.
I see where you're going with this and in some ways I agree. Belief in any kind of god that had involvement in the design of the universe (deism at the minimum) is basically "creationism". All theists would be 'creationists' in that view. This would bring a lot of evolutionary-biologists (like Ken Miller) into the creationist camp. I think that's a very wide definition of the term. Silver Asiatic
wd400 @14 Yes, I think the term 'creationist' is often not used for reasons of clarity or accuracy but rather to create a negative bias. Silver Asiatic
Acartia_bogart:
I simply pointed out the fact that Darwinism is not the main point of evolutionary theory.
And I pointed out that natural selection is a major part of all materialistic evolutionary "theories".
I like how you claim that Darwin posited a ‘design mimic’ before anyone posited a ‘designer’.
What? It is a fact that Darwin posited a designer mimic, aka natural selection.Just read "On the Origins of Species...". Also ideas of design, including Creation, have been around long before Darwin. Are you really that ignorant of history? Really?! Joe
Let's keep it empirical, please. rich
Darwinism is the belief that "it just happened, that's all" is a rational explanation for the appearance of design in the living world. Neo-Darwinism is the belief that "it just happened, that's all" has an identifiable mechanism, the changing of gene frequencies in a gene pool, and that this then is a rational explanation for the appearance of design in the living world. Neither one is believable. So I use both as terms of derision. Mung
Upright- "DK, I understand your position. If an IDist doesn’t name a designer because there is no material evidence to support the claim, then he’s a liar. Got it. Thanks." That's like someone being introduced to a model of automobile where the signature emblem is lacking and telling you it wasn't designed because you failed to list Henry Ford or some other individual by name as the designer. They are incapable of inferring design from the obvious which goes a long way in exposing either their gross incompetence or extreme bias & prejudice. DavidD
A powerful retort DK. Really. Upright BiPed
Joe: "LoL! I pointed out why Darwinism is still the main point of any materialistic evolutionary they and Acartia-bogart blows a gasket." Obviously your definition of "blowing a gasket" is different than mine. I simply pointed out the fact that Darwinism is not the main point of evolutionary theory. It is just one of the earliest attempts to explain the cause of the observed evolution and, as such, deserves some respect. Much in the same way that Copernicus, Galileo and Newton deserve respect, even thought they did not have it right. Joe: "Darwin is the only one who ever posited a designer mimic mechanism- natural selection. " I like how you claim that Darwin posited a 'design mimic' before anyone posited a 'designer'. This is consistent with creationism predicting things long after they were observed. I predict that it will stay dark until about 6:00 am tomorrow. And I predict that it will start getting cooler and that ponds and streams will freeze within the next four months. And I predict that by January I will be proven right. Damn, I must be a genius. Acartia_bogart
LoL! I pointed out why Darwinism is still the main point of any materialistic evolutionary they and Acartia-bogart blows a gasket.
What about Judeo/Christian beliefs? Muslim beliefs? Hindu beliefs? Shinto beliefs? Seik beliefs? Native American beliefs? Cargo cult beliefs? Etc. They all posited a creation belief. Which one is right?
What does that have to do with the fact that Darwinism is still the only materialistic evolutionary theory that posits a designer mimic and all modern spin-offs of Darwinism also rely on it for that same purpose? And I am not sure which one f those Creation accounts are correct or even if any of them are. I am sure that all materialistic explanations are wrong. So at s I know which way to go from there. Joe
OT podcast: How We Know Intelligent Design is Science http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-22T21_03_01-07_00 bornagain77
podcast: Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-25T15_07_31-07_00 bornagain77
I understand your position. If an IDist doesn’t name a designer because there is no material evidence to support the claim, then he’s a liar. Got it. Thanks.
You're half right. Daniel King
Joe: "Darwin is the only one who ever posited a designer mimic mechanism- natural selection. No one else has ever done such a thing and every other version of Darwin’s ideas still use natural selection as a designer mimic for that simple fact." What about Judeo/Christian beliefs? Muslim beliefs? Hindu beliefs? Shinto beliefs? Seik beliefs? Native American beliefs? Cargo cult beliefs? Etc. They all posited a creation belief. Which one is right? Acartia_bogart
DK, SETI scientists obfuscate when they detect designed signals, but claim not to know the 'creator'. Box
DK: "Creationists are honest about the identity of the designer/creator. IDers obfuscate." I agree. But other creationists are free to disagree. Acartia_bogart
Darwin is the only one who ever posited a designer mimic mechanism- natural selection. No one else has ever done such a thing and every other version of Darwin's ideas still use natural selection as a designer mimic for that simple fact. IOW it is a safe bet that this alleged "modern evolutionary theory" also relies on natural selection for a designer mimic. Drift definitely isn't up to the task. Neutral theory has nothing to offer wrt a designer mimic. All that has changed is now we understand the source of heredity and variation. As for ID = Creationism, only to the willfully ignorant. Creationism relies on the Bible and ID doesn't. Creationism could be falsified and ID would be OK. OTOH if ID is falsified then there goes Creationism. That is because Creation is a small subset of ID. Joe
DK, I understand your position. If an IDist doesn't name a designer because there is no material evidence to support the claim, then he's a liar. Got it. Thanks. Upright BiPed
Daniel King- Creationists don't have a scientific basis for their claim of a designer and that is why ID, not IDists, is quiet about the designers' identity. Joe
Could wd400 please link to this alleged "modern evolutionary theory". Joe
UB “Do you have the capacity to fairly articulate the distiction that IDist make between ID and creationism?”
Creationists are honest about the identity of the designer/creator. IDers obfuscate. Daniel King
wd400 states: "I’m not talking about new body plans," As if you did not know, I'm using phenotype as it relates to its primary concern, i.e. morphology,,
phenotype - A phenotype (from Greek phainein, meaning "to show", and typos, meaning "type") is the composite of an organism's observable characteristics or traits, such as its morphology,,,, per wiki
But even minor phenotypic variation of traits by mutation to DNA is hard for Darwinists to establish the legitimacy of:
Researchers Ran a Massive Yearlong Experiment to Get Bacteria to Evolve. Guess What Happened? - August 22, 2014 Excerpt: (the problem the researchers tried to address???) "the general inability to connect phenotype to genotype in the context of environmental adaptation has been a major failing in the field of evolution.,,," (Their results in addressing this major failing???) 'In short, it was hard to find anything beyond a "suggestion" or a "scenario" that these bacteria improved their fitness in any way by genetic mutations, other than the gross observation that some of the clones managed to survive at 45 °C. But even the ancestor could do that sometimes through the "Lazarus effect."' http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/08/researchers_ran089231.html
Not good,,, But anyways, to repeat,,, "I’m not talking about new body plans," - wd400 So wd400 doesn't hold that changes to DNA (genotype) can produce fundamental changes in morphology (phenotype)? But is not that the main claim of Neo-Darwinism? but since Darwinists have no evidence that mutations to DNA can produce fundamentally new body plans why do they act as if they do? That the basic morphological form of a species is not reducible to the information in DNA is shown by a few different methods: For instance:
The Gene Myth, Part II - August 2010 Excerpt: “It was long believed that a protein molecule’s three-dimensional shape, on which its function depends, is uniquely determined by its amino acid sequence. But we now know that this is not always true – the rate at which a protein is synthesized, which depends on factors internal and external to the cell, affects the order in which its different portions fold. So even with the same sequence a given protein can have different shapes and functions. Furthermore, many proteins have no intrinsic shape, taking on different roles in different molecular contexts. So even though genes specify protein sequences they have only a tenuous (very weak or slight) influence over their functions. ,,,,So, to reiterate, the genes do not uniquely determine what is in the cell, but what is in the cell determines how the genes get used. Only if the pie were to rise up, take hold of the recipe book and rewrite the instructions for its own production, would this popular analogy for the role of genes be pertinent. Stuart A. Newman, Ph.D. – Professor of Cell Biology and Anatomy http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2010/08/gene-myth-part-ii.html Metamorphic Proteins - 2008 Summary: Proteins that can adopt more than one native folded conformation may be more common than previously thought. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/320/5884/1725.summary podcast - Jonathan Wells: Is There Biological Information Outside of the DNA?, pt. 3 - Bioelectric code http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-06-11T16_35_52-07_00 An Electric Face: A Rendering Worth a Thousand Falsifications - September 2011 Excerpt: The video suggests that bioelectric signals presage the morphological development of the face. It also, in an instant, gives a peak at the phenomenal processes at work in biology. As the lead researcher said, “It’s a jaw dropper.” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM http://darwins-god.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-face-rendering-worth-thousand.html The (Electric) Face of a Frog - video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VULjzX__OM Laszlo Bencze: So evolution is a poor at predicting results? - April 29, 2014 Excerpt: recent studies have shown that species which look very similar and behave similarly can have vastly different genetic structure (notably frogs). In other words the genetic studies do not accord with studies based on phenotype. So much for certainty. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/darwinism/laszlo-bencze-so-evolution-is-a-poor-at-predicting-results/ etc.. etc...
bornagain77
UB: "Didn’t think so." Then please, enlighten me. In one paragraph, explain to me why the distinction between ID and creationism is real but the distinction between Darwinism and current evolutionary theory is not. Acartia_bogart
Creationism is a doctrine that takes its cues from religious text, and then uses science in an attempt to support its individual interpretations of that text. Design theory does not derive any observations from any religious text whatsoever -- a fact that can be immediately verified by reading any actual design argument. You make a perfect ideologue AB. Upright BiPed
Didn't think so. Upright BiPed
UB "Do you have the capacity to fairly articulate the distiction that IDist make between ID and creationism?" If design is a verb, then a designer is required. A designer is either a creator, or employs the trades to build, in which case he is, essentially, the creator. If ID is just the identification of what may be designed, then it means nothing without postulating the nature of the designer (AKA, the creator). Acartia_bogart
I'm not talking about new body plans, I'm taking about the claim you made. "This is not a minor problem at the periphery for Neo-Darwinian theory but is a refutation of the core precept within Neo-Darwinism. Namely, that variation within the genotype will produce variation of the phenotype." Do you really think data refutes this precept? wd400
wd400, do you have empirical evidence that mutations to DNA can produce new body plans? to repeat: A technique called “saturation mutagenesis”1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans–because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. bornagain77
a few related notes; The Fate of Darwinism: Evolution After the Modern Synthesis - David J. Depew and Bruce H. Weber - 2011 Excerpt: We trace the history of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis, and of genetic Darwinism generally, with a view to showing why, even in its current versions, it can no longer serve as a general framework for evolutionary theory. The main reason is empirical. Genetical Darwinism cannot accommodate the role of development (and of genes in development) in many evolutionary processes.,,, http://www.springerlink.com/content/845x02v03g3t7002/ With a Startling Candor, Oxford Scientist Admits a Gaping Hole in Evolutionary Theory - November 2011 Excerpt: As of now, we have no good theory of how to read [genetic] networks, how to model them mathematically or how one network meshes with another; worse, we have no obvious experimental lines of investigation for studying these areas. There is a great deal for systems biology to do in order to produce a full explanation of how genotypes generate phenotypes,,, http://www.evolutionnews.org/2011/11/with_a_startling_candor_oxford052821.html Response to John Wise - October 2010 Excerpt: A technique called "saturation mutagenesis"1,2 has been used to produce every possible developmental mutation in fruit flies (Drosophila melanogaster),3,4,5 roundworms (Caenorhabditis elegans),6,7 and zebrafish (Danio rerio),8,9,10 and the same technique is now being applied to mice (Mus musculus).11,12 None of the evidence from these and numerous other studies of developmental mutations supports the neo-Darwinian dogma that DNA mutations can lead to new organs or body plans--because none of the observed developmental mutations benefit the organism. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2010/10/response_to_john_wise038811.html HOW BIOLOGISTS LOST SIGHT OF THE MEANING OF LIFE — AND ARE NOW STARING IT IN THE FACE - Stephen L. Talbott - May 2012 Excerpt: The same sort of question can be asked of cells, for example in the growing embryo, where literal streams of cells are flowing to their appointed places, differentiating themselves into different types as they go, and adjusting themselves to all sorts of unpredictable perturbations — even to the degree of responding appropriately when a lab technician excises a clump of them from one location in a young embryo and puts them in another, where they may proceed to adapt themselves in an entirely different and proper way to the new environment. It is hard to quibble with the immediate impression that form (which is more idea-like than thing-like) is primary, and the material particulars subsidiary. http://www.netfuture.org/2012/May1012_184.html#2 bornagain77
BA, are you really claiming variation in genotype doesn't create variation in phenotype? wd400
wd400 claims:
"I’d rather talk about data than draw up battle lines."
As far as I can tell, wd400 adamantly refuses to talk about the empirical evidence that refutes Neo-Darwinism (or any purported derivative thereof). For instance, it has been pointed out to wd400, on more than one occasion, that phenotypes are not reducible to genotypes.
‘Now one more problem as far as the generation of information. It turns out that you don’t only need information to build genes and proteins, it turns out to build Body-Plans you need higher levels of information; Higher order assembly instructions. DNA codes for the building of proteins, but proteins must be arranged into distinctive circuitry to form distinctive cell types. Cell types have to be arranged into tissues. Tissues have to be arranged into organs. Organs and tissues must be specifically arranged to generate whole new Body-Plans, distinctive arrangements of those body parts. We now know that DNA alone is not responsible for those higher orders of organization. DNA codes for proteins, but by itself it does not insure that proteins, cell types, tissues, organs, will all be arranged in the body. And what that means is that the Body-Plan morphogenesis, as it is called, depends upon information that is not encoded on DNA. Which means you can mutate DNA indefinitely. 80 million years, 100 million years, til the cows come home. It doesn’t matter, because in the best case you are just going to find a new protein some place out there in that vast combinatorial sequence space. You are not, by mutating DNA alone, going to generate higher order structures that are necessary to building a body plan. So what we can conclude from that is that the neo-Darwinian mechanism is grossly inadequate to explain the origin of information necessary to build new genes and proteins, and it is also grossly inadequate to explain the origination of novel biological form.’ Stephen Meyer - (excerpt taken from Meyer/Sternberg vs. Shermer/Prothero debate - 2009) Not Junk After All—Conclusion – August 29, 2013 Excerpt: Many scientists have pointed out that the relationship between the genome and the organism — the genotype-phenotype mapping — cannot be reduced to a genetic program encoded in DNA sequences. Atlan and Koppel wrote in 1990 that advances in artificial intelligence showed that cellular operations are not controlled by a linear sequence of instructions in DNA but by a “distributed multilayer network” [150]. According to Denton and his co-workers, protein folding appears to involve formal causes that transcend material mechanisms [151], and according to Sternberg this is even more evident at higher levels of the genotype-phenotype mapping [152]. https://uncommondesc.wpengine.com/junk-dna/open-mike-cornell-obi-conference-chapter-11-not-junk-after-all-conclusion/ The next evolutionary synthesis: Jonathan BL Bard (2011) Excerpt: We now know that there are at least 50 possible functions that DNA sequences can fulfill [8], that the networks for traits require many proteins and that they allow for considerable redundancy [9]. The reality is that the evolutionary synthesis says nothing about any of this; for all its claim of being grounded in DNA and mutation, it is actually a theory based on phenotypic traits. This is not to say that the evolutionary synthesis is wrong, but that it is inadequate – it is really only half a theory! http://www.biosignaling.com/content/pdf/1478-811X-9-30.pdf
This is not a minor problem at the periphery for Neo-Darwinian theory but is a refutation of the core precept within Neo-Darwinism. Namely, that variation within the genotype will produce variation of the phenotype. But alas, this crippling weakness in their theory is never honestly addressed. bornagain77
From Wikipedia
Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce. Also called Darwinian theory.
Neo-Darwinism is the 'modern synthesis' of Darwinian evolution through natural selection with Mendelian genetics, the latter being a set of primary tenets specifying that evolution involves the transmission of characteristics from parent to child through the mechanism of genetic transfer, rather than the 'blending process' of pre-Mendelian evolutionary science. Neo-Darwinism can also designate Darwin's ideas of natural selection separated from his hypothesis of Pangenesis as a Lamarckian source of variation involving blending inheritance.
Following the development, from about 1937 to 1950, of the modern evolutionary synthesis, now generally referred to as the synthetic view of evolution or the modern synthesis, the term neo-Darwinian is often used to refer to contemporary evolutionary theory. However, such usage has been described by some as incorrect; with Ernst Mayr writing in 1984:
v"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."
Despite such objections, publications such as Encyclopædia Britannica[10][11] use this term to refer to current evolutionary theory. This term is also used in the scientific literature, with the academic publisher Blackwell Publishing referring to "neo-Darwinism as practised today", and some figures in the study of evolution like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould using the term in their writings and lectures.
And yes, I am familiar with most of the variations that are proposed as time goes along. jerry
few active evolutionary biologists that would call themselves Darwinists. Natural selection is still an important part of the theory, but it has evolved (pun definitely intended) significantly from the original theory.
How inane!! Please, why was Darwin given such a big celebration five years ago for his 200th birthday. Of course evolutionary biologist will say they are Darwinist because it means natural selection and universal common descent. A 150 years later and there still is no theory of evolution. All has proved false with further study and has not been replaced with anything that is coherent. It is the evolutionary speculation and that is being generous. jerry
A-B Do you have the capacity to fairly articulate the distiction that IDist make between ID and creationism? Upright BiPed
IMHO, Being called a Neo-Darwinist, since that is in fact the proper name for the modern synthesis, would be a badge of honor and would not be seen as a slight if it were not for the fact that neo-Darwinian evolution is so laughable as a scientific theory. Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig: Complex systems in biology overwhelmingly point to an intelligent origin of living beings - Mar 22, 2014 Excerpt: the idea of slow evolution by “infinitesimally small inherited variations” etc. has been falsified by the findings of palaeontology (abrupt appearance of the Baupläne) as well genetics (origin of DNA and complex genetic information). Yet its adherents principally reject any scientific proof against Neo-Darwinism, so that, in fact, their theory has become a non-falsifiable world-view, to which people stick in spite of all contrary evidence. Their main reason: Without Darwinism, philosophic materialism has lost its battle against an intelligent origin of the world.“ ,,, “As I myself had to experience [that] (see book on the “Max-Planck-Affair” mentioned above). Since Darwinism is unable to answer almost all of the most important questions on the origin of species, its only option is suppression of scientifically valid criticism. What else can they do under these circumstances?“ http://dippost.com/2014/03/22/wolf-ekkehard-lonnig-complex-systems-in-biology-overwhelmingly-point-to-an-intelligent-origin-of-living-beings/ bornagain77
The term “Darwinism” and neo Darwinism are common terms employed by evolutionary biologists.
They may be used under certain contexts (e.g., historical) but you will find very few active evolutionary biologists that would call themselves Darwinists. Natural selection is still an important part of the theory, but it has evolved (pun definitely intended) significantly from the original theory. Acartia_bogart
Could we make a similar comment about the use of the term “creationist”?
Absolutely. With one very small distinction. ID is still creationism. Modern evolutionary theory is not Darwinism. Acartia_bogart
The term "Darwinism" and neo Darwinism are common terms employed by evolutionary biologists. For example, from the third way people
The vast majority of people believe that there are only two alternative ways to explain the origins of biological diversity. One way is Creationism that depends upon supernatural intervention by a divine Creator. The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems. Both views are inconsistent with significant bodies of empirical evidence and have evolved into hard-line ideologies. There is a need for a more open “third way” of discussing evolutionary change based on empirical observations.
Of course there is a fourth way. jerry
Silver Asiatic, I don't know, could you? wd400
Certainly beats Darwinism, not sure if Theistic Evolutionists would see it as a slight. By the way, I'm sure i'm not the only person who gives up on a climate change discussion when some one calls the mainstream position "warmism" or some even more ridiculous name. It's a shibboleth that shows someone is more interested in tribalistic fight that learning something (and many people defending mainstream scientific positions, including evolution, behave in precisely the same way). I'd rather talk about data than draw up battle lines. wd400
WD400, the reason that the creationists on UD and other sites use the term ‘Darwinism’ and ‘Darwinian evolution’ is an intentional strategy rather than an innocent use of an outdated term. It wouldn’t surprise me if the UD editors instruct contributors to use these terms whenever referring to evolutionary theory. It is the same strategy used by right wing ideologues when they refer to those on the left of the spectrum as ‘Liberal elites”. It is an attempt to associate the term with a negative.
Could we make a similar comment about the use of the term "creationist"? Silver Asiatic
wD400: “supports of mainstream evolutionary theory” Two problems with this suggestion. The obvious problem, of course, is that it is wordy. The second problem is that the ID community truly desires to see a shift in mainstream evolutionary theory. If we accomplish that goal, the expression no longer is valid. Case in point, years ago there was a common expression & bumper sticker to the tune of "question the dominant paradigm." Well, since then in many ways the current dominant paradigm has become exactly what the questioners were hoping for (for better or worse.) Many in the ID camp hold to universal common descent. Universal Common Descent has been defined as "the fact of evolution." Therefore, the term "evolution" is certainly valid for those who hold to UCD. The UCD-IDers object to the use of the term "evolutionist" to load with naturalistic causation. As I am typing, I am thinking -- happens a lot. I wonder if the term naturalistic evolutionist (NE) would be better than neo-Darwinist to describe those who do not see eye to eye with the ID community? Moose Dr
WD400, the reason that the creationists on UD and other sites use the term 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinian evolution' is an intentional strategy rather than an innocent use of an outdated term. It wouldn't surprise me if the UD editors instruct contributors to use these terms whenever referring to evolutionary theory. It is the same strategy used by right wing ideologues when they refer to those on the left of the spectrum as 'Liberal elites". It is an attempt to associate the term with a negative. Acartia_bogart
People talk about lots of stuff here. I can't count the number of times someone has told me that, for instance, the number of differences between humans and chimps could never have accrued in 6 million years, or junk DNA wold be selected away (in animals with huge genomes and small populations sizes). As to the development of functional proteins. Relaxation of selection in eukaryotes has almost certainly contribute to some of our messy complexity (wouldn't get away such things in a slick prokaryote), so I think non-Darwinian ideas are important here too. That's before we even start on constructive neutral evolution... wd400
wd400: You may be right, but the point is: ID's true "interlocutor" is still neo darwinism, classical neo-darwinism a la Dawkins, IOWs, RV + NS. That's the only theory which "tries" (without succeeding) to explain functional information in biology. I have no problems with neutral theory and similar. Why should I? Neutral theory cannot explain anything of what is the central interest of ID theory (functional information). It does not even try to do anything like that. So, what's the problem? When we have to explain ATP synthase, or cellular differentiation, it's not certainly neutral theory which comes to the fight. It's the old wrong theory of RV + NS. gpuccio
"iron out most of the wrinkles"??? That's really good :) gpuccio
The problem with labeling all evolutionary biology as some flavour of Darwinism isn't so much that it's prejudiced, as that it's not very accurate. Modern evolutionary theory contains much that Darwin couldn't have dreamed of, and the new synethesis came before netural theory and related ideas that were needed to understand genetic and now genomic datasets (as well as evolutionary development). Lumping all of evolution under Darwinism hinders understanding, especially of important topics that rest on non-Darwinian ideas (to take recent examples, junk DNA, the percentage identity between human and chimp genomes and even Behe's malaria claims). I don't think we need to define teams by what -ist they are, so don't think it would be so hard for people to say "supports of mainstream evolutionary theory" or some similar phrase. Not that I imagine anyone is about to change. wd400
All those people mentioned in the OP as coining "neo-Darwinism" are/ were CREATIONISTS- CREATIONISTS I tell you! LoL! :) Joe
Dennett in Darwin's Dangerous Idea, p 21 "Its triumphant establishment at the heart of the 'Modern Synthesis' (in effect, the synthesis of Mendel and Darwin) was eventually made secure in the 1940s, thanks to the work of Theodosius Dobzhansky, Julian Huxley, Ernst Mayr, and others. It has taken another half-century to iron out most of the wrinkles of that new fabric." Sirius
I just looked at my Kindle version of Evolution by Edward Larson which is a history of the the theory. He says that Weismann preferred the term, neo-darwinism. So the OP and Larson are in sync. So 1895 looks good. jerry
I think that a variation of this topic is rather important. The history of the term neo-Darwinism informs the greater questions: 1 - When the ID community refers to neo-Darwinists, do we do so with "prejudice"? Are we seeking to insult our opponents, or merely to define them? I, for one, only use the term as a definition, not as an insult. 2 - Is there a term that carries less sense of prejudice that we should use instead of neo-Darwinist? Recently A-B suggested that we use the term "evolutionary biologist". This conversation broke down into nonsense. It does not work. To give the title "evolutionary biologist" to every grade-school child who buys into the current model totally diminishes those who have worked hard to obtain a Ph.D. in their chosen field. To eliminate the opinion of others with relevant doctorates because their doctorate isn't in "evolutionary" biology is just as nuts. I contend that for the anti-ID community to protest our use of neo-Darwinist to describe them is, well, paranoia. Moose Dr
A here is a bit more history on the rise and fall of Neo-Darwinism:
Modern Synthesis Of Neo-Darwinism Is False – Denis Nobel – video http://www.metacafe.com/w/10395212 ,, In the preceding video, Dr Nobel states that around 1900 there was the integration of Mendelian (discrete) inheritance with evolutionary theory, and about the same time Weismann established what was called the Weismann barrier, which is the idea that germ cells and their genetic materials are not in anyway influenced by the organism itself or by the environment. And then about 40 years later, circa 1940, a variety of people, Julian Huxley, R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane, and Sewell Wright, put things together to call it ‘The Modern Synthesis’. So what exactly is the ‘The Modern Synthesis’? It is sometimes called neo-Darwinism, and it was popularized in the book by Richard Dawkins, ‘The Selfish Gene’ in 1976. It’s main assumptions are, first of all, is that it is a gene centered view of natural selection. The process of evolution can therefore be characterized entirely by what is happening to the genome. It would be a process in which there would be accumulation of random mutations, followed by selection. (Now an important point to make here is that if that process is genuinely random, then there is nothing that physiology, or physiologists, can say about that process. That is a very important point.) The second aspect of neo-Darwinism was the impossibility of acquired characteristics (mis-called “Larmarckism”). And there is a very important distinction in Dawkins’ book ‘The Selfish Gene’ between the replicator, that is the genes, and the vehicle that carries the replicator, that is the organism or phenotype. And of course that idea was not only buttressed and supported by the Weissman barrier idea, but later on by the ‘Central Dogma’ of molecular biology. Then Dr. Nobel pauses to emphasize his point and states “All these rules have been broken!”. Professor Denis Noble is President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences.
,,You can pick up the rest of the high points of Dr. Nobel's talk at the two minute mark of the preceding video I referenced, or you can watch the entire video here:
Rocking the foundations of biology - video http://www.voicesfromoxford.org/video/physiology-and-the-revolution-in-evolutionary-biology/184
Here is a more recent talk by Dr. Nobel:
Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology – Denis Nobel – July 2013 – video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzD1daWq4ng
Here is the paper that accompanies the preceding video:
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Denis Noble - 17 MAY 2013 Excerpt: The ‘Modern Synthesis’ (Neo-Darwinism) is a mid-20th century gene-centric view of evolution, based on random mutations accumulating to produce gradual change through natural selection.,,, We now know that genetic change is far from random and often not gradual.,,, http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1113/expphysiol.2012.071134/abstract “The genome is an ‘organ of the cell’, not its dictator” - Denis Nobel – President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences http://musicoflife.co.uk/
Of course, having the primary tenants of Neo-Darwinism empirically falsified has not, as far as I can tell, dissuaded many Neo-Darwinists from still believing their theory is true. Which only goes to show, once again, that Neo-Darwinism is not a true science but a pseudo-science. As Dr. Hunter has pointed out on numerous occasions, it has never been about the science in the first place.
"Religion drives science and it matters" Cornelius Hunter "Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought." ~ Cornelius Hunter
bornagain77

Leave a Reply