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
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:47 PM
4
04
47
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:43 PM
4
04
43
PM
PDT
DK, SETI scientists obfuscate when they detect designed signals, but claim not to know the 'creator'.Box
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:39 PM
4
04
39
PM
PDT
DK: "Creationists are honest about the identity of the designer/creator. IDers obfuscate." I agree. But other creationists are free to disagree.Acartia_bogart
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:36 PM
4
04
36
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:32 PM
4
04
32
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:25 PM
4
04
25
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT
Could wd400 please link to this alleged "modern evolutionary theory".Joe
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:19 PM
4
04
19
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:16 PM
4
04
16
PM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.com/darwinism/laszlo-bencze-so-evolution-is-a-poor-at-predicting-results/ etc.. etc...
bornagain77
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT
Didn't think so.Upright BiPed
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
04:04 PM
4
04
04
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:42 PM
3
03
42
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:34 PM
3
03
34
PM
PDT
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#2bornagain77
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
BA, are you really claiming variation in genotype doesn't create variation in phenotype?wd400
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:30 PM
3
03
30
PM
PDT
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://uncommondescent.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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
03:24 PM
3
03
24
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:29 PM
2
02
29
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:22 PM
2
02
22
PM
PDT
A-B Do you have the capacity to fairly articulate the distiction that IDist make between ID and creationism?Upright BiPed
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:18 PM
2
02
18
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:15 PM
2
02
15
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:10 PM
2
02
10
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT
Silver Asiatic, I don't know, could you?wd400
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:51 PM
1
01
51
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:35 PM
1
01
35
PM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply