What is the Difference Between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinianism?

In summary: Ha, ha! Great!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 is not determined by the number of individuals surviving, but by the number of different genetic variants that are present in a population."
  • #1
kyphysics
676
436
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! :wink:
 
Biology news on Phys.org
  • #2
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 referred to as neodarwinism) was formed that took into account many phenomenon that Darwin did not know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
  • #3
Ryan_m_b said:
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 referred to as neodarwinism) was formed that took into account many phenomenon that Darwin did not know about:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_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?
 
  • #4
kyphysics said:
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".
 
  • #5
Ophiolite said:
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/topi...g-mechanisms-of-evolutionary-adaptation-34539
http://www.nature.com/scitable/know...election-genetic-drift-and-gene-flow-15186648
 
  • #6
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.
 
  • #7
Ophiolite said:
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!
 
  • #8
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.
 
  • #9
Murdstone said:
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.

Murdstone said:
"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.

Murdstone said:
This works once the attribute has been introduced to the population.
If it works, what is your problem with it?

Murdstone said:
However, when one is considering a novel feature the mechanics do not work - well.
Please give an example, with proper citations.
Murdstone said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
The so-called Modern Synthesis includes our knowledge of genetic inheritance and now also the nature of genetic information (DNA usually, RNA sometimes) and genetic variation. With molecular tools we can see examples of "evolution" in progress, such as novel gene duplications or losses (such as felines losing the sweet taste receptor gene by random mutation, and hummingbirds acquiring a new one by modification of a different gene).

The specific issue about sexual reproduction, while posing a challenge for evolutionary biology, is not considered a serious argument "against evolution" by anyone I know. The problem is that sexually reproducing organisms by definition only transmit some of their genetic variation to their descendants, whereas asexual (i.e. cloning) organisms transmit all their variation. A simplistic interpretation therefore would be that sex cannot have "evolved". A more nuanced view is that there must be compensating factors, and many such have been proposed. Since it is difficult to do a true evolution experiment over a short time span, tests of these various hypotheses are simply difficult to test. But not implausible. Think about this though: random mutation of our genomes happens all the time (directly observed by DNA sequencing in families), and many such mutations are toxic (obvious by interpreting their effects on the genes in which they life). Sex provides a way to get rid of such toxic mutations, though it also risks losing rare beneficial new mutations. There must be a balance, such that sex is ultimately beneficial. Even organisms like bacteria also trade DNA, which suggests that pure asexual cloning is not the best way for species to survive over long evolutionary time spans and changing environments - although some apparently truly asexual ancient species are known, and of course are of great interest.
 

1. What is the main difference between Darwinism and Neo-Darwinianism?

Darwinism refers to the theory of evolution proposed by Charles Darwin, which states that species evolve through natural selection and survival of the fittest. Neo-Darwinianism, on the other hand, incorporates the modern understanding of genetics and the role of genetic mutations in evolution. In other words, Neo-Darwinianism builds upon the principles of Darwinism by adding the concept of genetic variation and inheritance.

2. How does Neo-Darwinianism explain the origin of species?

Neo-Darwinianism suggests that new species arise through genetic mutations, which can result in individuals with advantageous traits that allow them to survive and reproduce more successfully. These advantageous traits are then passed on to future generations, leading to the formation of new species over time.

3. What evidence supports the theory of Neo-Darwinianism?

There is a significant amount of evidence from various fields, such as genetics, paleontology, and molecular biology, that supports the theory of Neo-Darwinianism. For example, the discovery of DNA and its role in genetic inheritance, along with the fossil record showing transitional forms of species, provide strong evidence for the role of genetic mutations in evolution.

4. Can Neo-Darwinianism and other theories of evolution coexist?

Yes, Neo-Darwinianism is not the only theory of evolution, and there are other proposed mechanisms for how species evolve. For example, the theory of punctuated equilibrium suggests that evolution occurs in rapid bursts followed by long periods of stability. However, Neo-Darwinianism is widely accepted and is compatible with other theories of evolution.

5. What are some criticisms of Neo-Darwinianism?

One criticism of Neo-Darwinianism is that it does not fully explain the origin of complex traits, such as the human brain. Some critics argue that the probability of random genetic mutations leading to such complex structures is too low. Additionally, the role of other factors, such as environmental influences, in shaping the evolution of species is still a topic of debate.

Similar threads

  • Biology and Medical
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
801
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Classical Physics
Replies
10
Views
472
Replies
4
Views
656
  • Engineering and Comp Sci Homework Help
Replies
4
Views
699
  • Programming and Computer Science
Replies
1
Views
599
  • Biology and Medical
Replies
1
Views
3K
Back
Top