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: 15
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
'Office life' of bacteria may be their weak spot
Transparent larvae hide opaque eyes behind reflections
Peacock's train is not such a drag
Ryan_m_b
#2
Jun14-14, 04:57 PM
Mentor
Ryan_m_b's Avatar
P: 5,490
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: 15
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: 288
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: 8,799
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: 288
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: 8,799
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!
Murdstone
#8
Aug28-14, 04:46 PM
P: 37
The Neo-Classical Synthesis has proved to be problematic. It is occurring to some that just because something works, it is not necessary that this explains everything.

A very convenient out for Biological Evolution has been

"Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important."

This works once the attribute has been introduced to the population.

However, when one is considering a novel feature the mechanics do not work - well.

Sexual reproduction injects a hurdle that is not found when one is experimenting with bacteria and such.
Ophiolite
#9
Aug29-14, 02:01 AM
P: 288
Quote Quote by Murdstone View Post
The Neo-Classical Synthesis has proved to be problematic. It is occurring to some that just because something works, it is not necessary that this explains everything.
I am not aware of any serious biologist who thinks that the current theory explains everything. (Please name names, if you think there are.) If anyone thought this they would discontinue their research. I'm no expert on logical fallacies, but your statement has the look and feel of a strawman. Perhaps I have misunderstood you, or you were using hyperbole.

Quote Quote by Murdstone View Post
"Thinking in terms of populations, rather than individuals, is primary: the genetic diversity existing in natural populations is a key factor in evolution. The strength of natural selection in the wild is greater than previously expected; the effect of ecological factors such as niche occupation and the significance of barriers to gene flow are all important."
It would be nice to know who said this and where. i.e. citation.

Quote Quote by Murdstone View Post
This works once the attribute has been introduced to the population.
If it works, what is your problem with it?

Quote Quote by Murdstone View Post
However, when one is considering a novel feature the mechanics do not work - well.
Please give an example, with proper citations.


Quote Quote by Murdstone View Post
Sexual reproduction injects a hurdle that is not found when one is experimenting with bacteria and such.
What is the nature of this hurdle? Please give examples, appropriately supported by detailed argument, or peer reviewed research.


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