Is Neo-Darwinism on the way out?

Faith & Science Conversation
41

Princeton doesn’t have a “Department of Biology,” nor do the vast majority of research universities. Biology is taught in a set of departments, such as Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (EEB), Molecular and Cellular Biology, and so on. This has been true for decades.

EEB departments are widespread in research universities. I believe that one of the first – if not the first – EEB department was founded at my alma mater, the University of Arizona, when I was an undergrad there in the early 1980’s. The major research journal of EEB is TREE, published by my colleagues. This is not new.

1 Like
42

Look for the work of David Reznick, Peter and Rosemary Grant, and Hopi Hoekstra for starters. Or read on plant evolution and natural selection, which Darwin emphasized significantly. All involve selection outside the lab. Laboratory selection experiments are so numerous that I can only assume that you know about them but somehow don’t think they are relevant.[quote=“Relates, post:35, topic:34877”]
That Malthusian Survival of the Fittest is wrong?
[/quote]

I assume that this unscientific phrase refers to situations in which there is overproduction of offspring. As there is, to absurd extremes, in thousands of lineages of organisms. Natural selection under these conditions is nearly inevitable. I cannot even imagine how you will argue that it is “wrong.”

43

@glipsnort

Thank you for your response.

Lactase persistence is clearly an adaption to the environment. The Darwinian view is that species change independently of the environment. That is clearly not true. It says that alleles compete to determine which are fit without definition as to what that means.

Lactase persistence is not based on conflict and is based on using the resources available in the environment in the mast effective and efficient manner to make the ecology work for all.

I am not in favor of the EES, but I am against the Darwinian view of the Selfish Gene and see ecology as the basis for its replacement as I have outlined in my book, Darwin’s Myth.

44

That’s false. Wasn’t true in 1859, isn’t true now.

1 Like
45

It’s not only false; it’s completely backwards. The whole point of Darwinian evolution is that it explains how organisms adapt to their environment.

2 Likes
46

Do you mean Dawkinsian? Darwin certainly never espoused anything of the sort, not least because he did not know what a gene was.

Natural selection means selection by the environment. It looks to me like what you are arguing so hard against has less to do with a scientific understanding of evolution and more to do with nonscientific caricatures or straw men thrown up to make evolution look bad.

2 Likes
47

@Lynn_Munter

Lynn,

I am arguing against a specific evolutionary view which is espoused by one Richard Dawkins who claims to be a disciple of Darwin and has been the spokesman for NeoDarwinian evolution for our times. The Selfish Gene has been proclaimed as a classic and I find few persons who disagree.

Now I certainly understand that not all scientists agree on everything, but as far as I can determine and I really have heard no refute this, Prof. Dawkins is the leader of NeoDarwinian thinking and certainly its leader in interpreting the meaning of evolution today.

If I overgeneralize about what Dawkins says to make people think I am talking about all evolutionists, I apologize. I try to make this clear in my book where I have more time and space to develop my thoughts. That is why a book is better than the internet.

Dawkins has tried to channel Darwin, who is his ideal. In many ways I find he has. The view Survival of the Fittest, which Darwin did not originate, but accepted as the meaning of Natural Selection goes well with The Selfish Gene.

48

@glipsnort
@sfmatheson
Lamarck’s view of evolution was that life forms evolve totally dependent on their environment. Darwin’s view when the other way, and Dawkins & Co. follows Darwin.

Ecology says that life forms evolve interdependently with their environment, and I follow ecology as does Niche Construction Theory which is very new.

49

Lamarck’s view was that environmental effects were incorporated into organisms and passed directly to their offspring. Darwin’s view was that environmental effects changed offspring through the mediation of natural selection. Your claim that Darwinian evolution occurs independent of the environment is simply wrong.

2 Likes
50

I say that it is not scientific because it has not been scientifically verified. On the contrary Natural Selection takes place because the Earth’s environment is constantly changing, which results in the necessity for organisms to change and adapt, or become extinct.

51

And that is false. Egregiously so.[quote=“Relates, post:50, topic:34877”]
On the contrary Natural Selection takes place because the Earth’s environment is constantly changing
[/quote]

That’s one reason it takes place. The claim that this is only when it takes place is indefensible.

I don’t think we need to continue. These ideas do not need to be vetted further, because they are completely wrong.

1 Like
52

Well, to say that it is the only reason that it takes place maybe a stretch, but certainly it is the primary reason.

The problem with your approach and basically the whole neoDarwinian approach is because it is done in a vacuum, rather then in the context of real evolutionary events.

For instance let us take an evolutionary event that most people, even school children, are familiar with, the extinction of the dinosaurs. If Darwinian evolution were true, the extinction of the dinosaurs would have been caused by conflict between dinosaurs and mammals, but this is not true. The extinction of the dinosaurs was caused by climate change which caused the loss of the habitat of the dinosaurs, that is ecological change.

Regardless of how many offspring the dinosaurs might have had, no matter how much conflict there might have been, if there had not been any climate change or other ecological change, the dinosaurs would still be around and going strong because they are very well adapted and suited to their environment.

No change in environment, no change in biology. That is a fact, whether you like it or not, and that is why Darwinian evolution is false.

53

I’ll return to this point. If you look at the papers – the ones you requested we provide, and that you said don’t exist – you will find that they all treat the events they describe as instances of natural selection. The entire world of biology thinks that lactase persistence is a case of Darwinian evolution, for example. The only person I know of who disagrees is you. What you are attacking is not the actual view of working biologists, but a construct you have invented yourself.

4 Likes
54

@glipsnort

Steve,

Again the question is not whether Natural Selection exists, but how it works.

I say it works based on how well an allele is adapted to its environmental niche. This is what I call ecological natural selection.

Darwin accepted Survival of the Fittest based on Malthusian population theories, which does not involve evolution, but involves the struggle for life. Dawkins still goes by Darwin’s Natural Selection and as far as I can tell rejects the role of ecology in natural selection and evolution.

A big part of the problem as I see it is that most people do not make the distinction between the Darwinian theory of evolution which is a theory and the fact of evolution itself which is not a theory but a reality.

There are two very different theories of how Natural Selection works. I think that it is very important to distinguish between the two for reasons I state in my book and determine which one is true. Some people seem to think they are both true, but that is not so.

I understand that this creates some confusion, because people are not used to thinking this way. However if we are committed to find the truth about life and science, this is the price we need to pay.

It seems to me that there is already confusion in the scientific community that I am trying to straighten out. It doesn’t do much good if we don’t listen carefully to one another.

Darwin’s view was that environmental effects changed offspring through the mediation of natural selection.

I do not read Darwin that way, but more importantly neither does Dawkins & Co.

“It may be said that natural selection is daily and hourly scrutinizing, throughout the world, every variation, even the slightest; rejecting that which is bad, preserving and adding up all that is good; silently and insensibly working and whenever opportunity offers at the improvement of each organic being in relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life.” Charles Darwin in The Origin of the Species.

@benkirk
I did not respond to the example of sexual selection primarily because I could not make that link work properly. It appeared to be linked to a paper on peacocks. While I have not studied sexual selection among peacocks, I have studied it among lions.

With lions the struggle to be the Alpha Male is important because he is the source of unity of the pride. In the pride the females do the hunting as a group. The Male is important to protect the pride from danger and also to scavenge, which is an important source of food.

Here is where his strength and size are necessary to the pride. Even so it has been noted that an effective Alpha male is also a good leader in that he works to build relationships with all the members of the pride. I would expect that something similar is going on with the peacocks and hens. Tail feathers somehow indicate social status, which is part of their adaption to their environment.

55

You say that, and then go on to quote Darwin:

… which says exactly the same thing in different words.

2 Likes
56

Again that is your reading. I would like for you to explain how you came to this conclusion. Again I am sure that Dawkins does not read it this way, nor do I know of anyone else who does. Have you read What Darwin Got Wrong. which deals with the question as to what is the source of Natural Selection.

57

By reading the words. “In relation to its organic and inorganic conditions of life” means "in relation to its environment. [quote=“Relates, post:56, topic:34877”]
Have you read What Darwin Got Wrong. which deals with the question as to what is the source of Natural Selection.
[/quote]
No. I’ve read your posts here, and that is more than adequate to judge your understanding of natural selection.

I don’t see any point to further discussion.

2 Likes
58

This would seem to mean then that Natural Selection (that is the ecology) is constantly examining every variation, rejecting the bad, preserving the good, and improving each organic being in relation to its environment.

Again I know Dawkins & Co. do not buy this. It is a stretch to say that the ecology works on itself without any confirming statement.

I do not have to be convinced that ecology is the basis for Natural Selection. That has been my position from the Git Go.

What Darwin Got Wrong argues convincingly that Natural Selection requires a Selector. They do not suggest that Ecology is the Selector, nor did anyone else in this discussion.

The question for this discussion is “Is neoDarwinism on the way out?” My response is Yes, because Ecology is on the way in. This is evident in the neoDarwinist response E. O. Wilson’s book, The Social Conquest of the Earth.

59

@Relates,

Roger, What?!

You think there is a time when Nature/Ecology is not affecting every variation? You use the phrase “examining every variation” <<< … but since that makes Natural Selection or Ecology “alive”, I presume you mean “affecting”, driving, influencing, etc etc.

So when would the environment/ecology not be influencing life?

60

George,

Please read the whole stream of thought.