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
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:08 PM
12
12
08
PM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:00 PM
12
12
00
PM
PDT
"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.htmlbornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:50 AM
11
11
50
AM
PDT
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.htmlbornagain77
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:45 AM
11
11
45
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:36 AM
11
11
36
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:32 AM
11
11
32
AM
PDT
The "theory" has changed but one thing remains the same-> lack of supporting evidence. ;)Joe
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:31 AM
11
11
31
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:29 AM
11
11
29
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:13 AM
11
11
13
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
11:10 AM
11
11
10
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:53 AM
10
10
53
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:33 AM
10
10
33
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
10:24 AM
10
10
24
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
09:03 AM
9
09
03
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
08:58 AM
8
08
58
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
05:26 AM
5
05
26
AM
PDT
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
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
03:12 AM
3
03
12
AM
PDT
Let's keep it empirical, please.rich
August 27, 2014
August
08
Aug
27
27
2014
12:08 AM
12
12
08
AM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
11:50 PM
11
11
50
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
11:07 PM
11
11
07
PM
PDT
A powerful retort DK. Really.Upright BiPed
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
06:51 PM
6
06
51
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
06:35 PM
6
06
35
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
05:36 PM
5
05
36
PM
PDT
OT podcast: How We Know Intelligent Design is Science http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-22T21_03_01-07_00bornagain77
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:54 PM
4
04
54
PM
PDT
podcast: Non-Religious Skeptics of Darwinian Evolution http://intelligentdesign.podomatic.com/entry/2014-08-25T15_07_31-07_00bornagain77
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply