Register to reply

What is the Difference Between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinianism?

by kyphysics
Tags: darwinism, difference, neodarwinianism
Share this thread:
kyphysics
#1
Jun14-14, 01:08 AM
P: 12
I've heard both terms used and can't figure out what people are talking about when they discuss neo-Darwinianism. What's the difference/similarities between them? Thank you guys so very much!

...and if there is yet another type of Darwinianism I'm missing, then please feel free to add that too!
Phys.Org News Partner Biology news on Phys.org
Reptile Database surpasses 10,000 reptile species
Scientists name new species of cetacean: The Australian humpback dolphin
Sieving for genes: Developmental regulation of important plant phloem components discovered
Ryan_m_b
#2
Jun14-14, 04:57 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,407
Darwinism is simply the original set of ideas that Darwin proposed about evolution. After half a century of research and new discovery the modern synthesis (often refered to as neodarwinism) was formed that took into account many phenomenon that Darwin did not know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...nary_synthesis
kyphysics
#3
Jun16-14, 01:35 AM
P: 12
Quote Quote by Ryan_m_b View Post
Darwinism is simply the original set of ideas that Darwin proposed about evolution. After half a century of research and new discovery the modern synthesis (often refered to as neodarwinism) was formed that took into account many phenomenon that Darwin did not know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_...nary_synthesis
Gotcha. So, it's Darwinism + ____ ideas. It's basically adding onto Darwin's ideas rather than negating anything or proposing anything radically different. Just sort of an updated version of Darwinism, given new scientific discoveries?

Ophiolite
#4
Jun17-14, 08:16 AM
P: 274
What is the Difference Between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinianism?

Quote Quote by kyphysics View Post
Gotcha. So, it's Darwinism + ____ ideas. It's basically adding onto Darwin's ideas rather than negating anything or proposing anything radically different. Just sort of an updated version of Darwinism, given new scientific discoveries?
That is correct. After Darwin published On the Origin the concept of evolution was rapidly accepted by the scientific establishment, but debate continued over the cause. Natural selection, Darwin's hypothesis, fell out of favour.

Then, at the turn of the century the work of Gregor Mendel on hereditary, was independently rediscovered by three researchers. This was associated with the concept of mutations and it was these that were seen as the source of new species, with no need for the intervention of natural selection.

Next, in the 1920s Sewall Wright, J.B.S. Haldane and R.A.Fisher did brilliant work on population genetics that provided the foundation for the Modern Synthesis. This was formalised and wrapped into "everyday" biological thought by Theodosius Dhobzansky, Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson in the 1930s and 40s.

Today, in the light of more recent discoveries, some researchers feel evolutionary theory has moved sufficiently far to justify a new name. My own view is that " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
atyy
#5
Jun17-14, 08:54 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,400
Quote Quote by Ophiolite View Post
That is correct. After Darwin published On the Origin the concept of evolution was rapidly accepted by the scientific establishment, but debate continued over the cause. Natural selection, Darwin's hypothesis, fell out of favour.

Then, at the turn of the century the work of Gregor Mendel on hereditary, was independently rediscovered by three researchers. This was associated with the concept of mutations and it was these that were seen as the source of new species, with no need for the intervention of natural selection.

Next, in the 1920s Sewall Wright, J.B.S. Haldane and R.A.Fisher did brilliant work on population genetics that provided the foundation for the Modern Synthesis. This was formalised and wrapped into "everyday" biological thought by Theodosius Dhobzansky, Ernst Mayr and George Gaylord Simpson in the 1930s and 40s.

Today, in the light of more recent discoveries, some researchers feel evolutionary theory has moved sufficiently far to justify a new name. My own view is that " a rose by any other name would smell as sweet".
No. Natural selection is still considered a mechanism of evolution that is consistent with genetics.

http://www.nature.com/scitable/topic...aptation-34539
http://www.nature.com/scitable/knowl...-flow-15186648
Ophiolite
#6
Jun17-14, 09:10 AM
P: 274
It seems that I have been unclear in my exposition. OF course natural selection is not only considered a mechanism of evolution, but along with mutations as one of the primary mechanisms.

Clearly I should have explicitly stated that work of Haldane et al brought natural selection back into the theory as a central element. (There is the danger of being over familiar to the point one forgets to state what seems to be obvious.)

Thank you for clarifying for any who may have been misled by my lack of explicit comments.
atyy
#7
Jun17-14, 10:12 AM
Sci Advisor
P: 8,400
Quote Quote by Ophiolite View Post
It seems that I have been unclear in my exposition. OF course natural selection is not only considered a mechanism of evolution, but along with mutations as one of the primary mechanisms.

Clearly I should have explicitly stated that work of Haldane et al brought natural selection back into the theory as a central element. (There is the danger of being over familiar to the point one forgets to state what seems to be obvious.)

Thank you for clarifying for any who may have been misled by my lack of explicit comments.
Ha, ha! Great!


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Social Darwinism Social Sciences 9
Darwinism: Where is the theory? Biology 2
Social Darwinism? Current Events 9
Quantum Darwinism Quantum Physics 3
Darwinism not testable General Discussion 8