Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

FYI: Who invented the term neo-Darwinism?

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
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
August 30, 2014
August
08
Aug
30
30
2014
07:13 PM
7
07
13
PM
PDT
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
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
05:31 PM
5
05
31
PM
PDT
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
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
05:28 PM
5
05
28
PM
PDT
ok, I admit it! I invented the term neo-Darwinism. So sue me.Mung
August 29, 2014
August
08
Aug
29
29
2014
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:09 PM
9
09
09
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:06 PM
9
09
06
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:16 PM
6
06
16
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:45 PM
3
03
45
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:36 PM
3
03
36
PM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PDT
... that was following Joe @85Silver Asiatic
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:24 AM
8
08
24
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
08:23 AM
8
08
23
AM
PDT
There, that wasn't so difficult was it? You are now an expert on evolution.Joe
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
06:29 AM
6
06
29
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
05:43 AM
5
05
43
AM
PDT
Silver Asiatic- That isn't quite true. I would say that evolutionism- whatever flavor- predicts change and/ or stasis. ;)Joe
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
05:15 AM
5
05
15
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
04:58 AM
4
04
58
AM
PDT
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
August 28, 2014
August
08
Aug
28
28
2014
03:37 AM
3
03
37
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:52 PM
10
10
52
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
07:24 PM
7
07
24
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
06:23 PM
6
06
23
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:08 PM
5
05
08
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:59 PM
4
04
59
PM
PDT
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=EKO5mtdA0o4bornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:53 PM
4
04
53
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:49 PM
4
04
49
PM
PDT
Moose Dr, perhaps you can e-mail Dr. Tomkins?bornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
04:15 PM
4
04
15
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
03:39 PM
3
03
39
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply