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
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sites use the term 'Darwinism' and 'Darwinian evolution' is an intentional strategy rather than an innocent use of an outdated term.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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:33 PM
1
01
33
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:18 PM
1
01
18
PM
PDT
"iron out most of the wrinkles"??? That's really good :)gpuccio
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:11 PM
1
01
11
PM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
01:09 PM
1
01
09
PM
PDT
All those people mentioned in the OP as coining "neo-Darwinism" are/ were CREATIONISTS- CREATIONISTS I tell you! LoL! :)Joe
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:30 AM
10
10
30
AM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:29 AM
10
10
29
AM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
10:09 AM
10
10
09
AM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PDT
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
August 26, 2014
August
08
Aug
26
26
2014
08:46 AM
8
08
46
AM
PDT
1 2 3 4

Leave a Reply