Over 100 Alternatives To Darwinism

[forests]

Theres been a list compiled here of over 100 alternatives to the mechanisms of the modern evolution synthesis, dont worry this has nothing to do with creationism. There appears to be some decent alternatives such as the mechanism of molecular drive, or symbiosis driving evolution instead of natural selection. see the list here (and yes theres also some metaphysical ones):

 

 

Non Darwinian evolution mechanisms

 

 

What do you think about some of these?

Edited February 23, 2012 by forests

[Rade]

Yes, there are many valid alternatives to "natural selection", and they all support the basic premise of Darwin, that gene frequencies within populations can change over time due to either random or non-random reproduction of phenotypes. It just so happens that the majority of documented examples suggest that the specific non-random process Darwin called "natural selection" is the most common cause. A well studied random process that can lead to changes in gene frequency is called genetic drift, so, this would be one of the 100 alternatives to natural selection mentioned. Only if evolution was a valid theory would one expect such a diversity of ways that nature would allow for changes in gene frequencies over time. Three cheers for the evolutionary scientists that they now have found 100 different ways to verify the validity of evolutionary theory. Darwin would be proud to see how his thinking on the issue has evolved.

 

But, I object to calling any of these 100 alternatives to natural selection as being non-Darwinian. This is pure hogwash. Darwin was well aware of alternatives to natural selection. To say a hypothesis concerning evolution is non-Darwinian requires that the mechanism of change in gene frequencies cannot be explained by laws of nature, that is, it is an appeal to the supernatural and special creation and other such religious myths that fall outside Science.

[forests]

Yes, there are many valid alternatives to "natural selection", and they all support the basic premise of Darwin, that gene frequencies within populations can change over time due to either random or non-random reproduction of phenotypes. It just so happens that the majority of documented examples suggest that the specific non-random process Darwin called "natural selection" is the most common cause. A well studied random process that can lead to changes in gene frequency is called genetic drift, so, this would be one of the 100 alternatives to natural selection mentioned. Only if evolution was a valid theory would one expect such a diversity of ways that nature would allow for changes in gene frequencies over time. Three cheers for the evolutionary scientists that they now have found 100 different ways to verify the validity of evolutionary theory. Darwin would be proud to see how his thinking on the issue has evolved.

 

But, I object to calling any of these 100 alternatives to natural selection as being non-Darwinian. This is pure hogwash. Darwin was well aware of alternatives to natural selection. To say a hypothesis concerning evolution is non-Darwinian requires that the mechanism of change in gene frequencies cannot be explained by laws of nature, that is, it is an appeal to the supernatural and special creation and other such religious myths that fall outside Science.

 

Rade you obviously do not understand the history of evolution. I suggest you might want to get a copy of The Eclipse of Darwinism: Anti-Darwinian Evolution Theories in the Decades Around 1900 by Peter Bowler, in the book he lists 100s of Non-Darwinian evolutionists from Lamarckists to proponents of orthogenesis or the mutation theory all of these scientists hated Darwin but were evolutionists, they believed natural selection was overhyped and flawed, nothing to do with evolution, these scientists were promoting completey non-Darwinian evolution theories, but were still strict evolutionists.

 

Please do not confuse evolution (a fact) with Darwins theory. Darwins ideas are just an interpretation, not evolution itself. Evolution is a fact, but the mechanisms driving evolution there is still alot of theory involved with.

 

Any mechanism which attempts to replace or revise natural selection is "non-Darwinian". Darwin supported natural selection dogmatically, so so does neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis).

 

However some non-Darwinian evolutionists have pointed out that evolution occurs without natural selection at all. Indeed many scientists from Goodwin, Waddington to even Pivar have pointed out the problems with natural selection and how it is not driving evolution at all. Lynn Margulis who was a staunch opponent of random mutation and natural selection being the sole evolutionary mechanisms was a critic of neo-Darwinism and proposed the main mechanism of evolution as symbiosis, she considered her a non-Darwinian evolutionist.

 

Any scientist who challenges and rejects the random mutation/natural selection paradigm can be considered non-Darwinian.

 

To say a hypothesis concerning evolution is non-Darwinian requires that the mechanism of change in gene frequencies cannot be explained by laws of nature, that is, it is an appeal to the supernatural and special creation and other such religious myths that fall outside Science.

 

This comment reveals you no nothing about the history of biology whatsoever! Many of the Non-Darwinian mechanisms that have been proposed are not supernatural or religious in nature (check the list), they are perfectly natural.

[CraigD]

This comment reveals you no nothing about the history of biology whatsoever! Many of the Non-Darwinian mechanisms that have been proposed are not supernatural or religious in nature (check the list), they are perfectly natural.

At the risk of being snarky, I’d say your comment, Forests, suggests that you are either careless, or know little of English language spelling :), but know how to use hyperbole.

 

:naughty: Hyperbole – posting statement like “this X reveals you know nothing about Y whatsoever” – is considered rude and offensive behavior, and is against our site rules. Please don’t do it other than in a friendly, joking manner – in which case, such hyperbole won’t be considered rude or offensive.

 

Theres been a list compiled here of over 100 alternatives to the mechanisms of the modern evolution synthesis

…

Non Darwinian evolution mechanisms

 

What do you think about some of these?

Some of them, such as Lynn Margulis’s ”symbiosis” theory, I’m a longtime fan of. Others, like Rupert Sheldrake’s “morphogenitic fields”, I’m a staunch opponent of. I’ve read a lot by both these and other biologists and “para-biologists”, and had some direct interaction with some and their supporters and critics, so feel comfortable and familiar with some of the list of “mechanism/theories” in Darryl Smith’s list.

 

I fear, without strong foundation, as I don’t know Smith or his personal motives, that his list is intended as a “teach the controversy/wedge” attack on science, but in itself, I find it, like any collection of writing about ideas, or simply lists, a thing of beauty. I wish it didn’t arbitrarily stop at listing 100 people/paper/theory triples, and wish I had the time to quickly read each of the references in it, and add some columns of my own. As I’ve not much spare time, I’ll have to content myself with doing so slowly.

 

:thumbs_up Thanks for linking to it, Forests. I hope that, by following sensible rules of good conduct and science, we can find enrichment in it, and move this thread back from its present home in strange claims to a legitimate place in the biology forum.

[Rade]

Forest, as I mentioned, I agree there are many alternatives to natural selection, and I find no problem with the suggestions of Bowler that it was many years after Darwin published "On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection" before biologists came to accept natural selection as a primary mechanism involved in changes in gene frequencies in populations (but of course others completely disagree with Bowler and argue there is ample historical evidence that natural selection was widely accepted by biologists well before the begin of the 20th century). You should know that Darwin accepted parts of Lamarck thinking and in the final sentence of the introduction to "The Origin" Darwin writes..." I am convinced that Natural Selection has been the main but not exclusive means of modification", hardly the dogmatic selection fanatic you paint Darwin to be. Thus to be a Darwinian does NOT demand that one only accept natural selection, that is a false premise. Given that Darwin would agree with many of the 100 alternatives that you cited, none of those that he would agree with can be called "non-Darwinian". What remains from the list are either those explanations falsified by experiment or those that appeal to causes outside known laws of nature.

Edited February 25, 2012 by Rade

[sman]

While none of this threatens my Darwinian view of biological evolution, I’m perplexed by something else: Why Darwinism? And why not other scientific paradigms? Why, for instance, are there no lists on the web of non-relativistic theories of gravity? TakeOnEinstein.com, or something. Relativity is at least as well-known & not nearly so buttressed with observation nor confluent across the natural sciences. Granted, I know less than nothing about GR, but it seems to me much easier to assail, and the attacks on Darwinism, the above included, are invariably launched by those who seem to know less than nothing about it.

[bravox]

While none of this threatens my Darwinian view of biological evolution, I’m perplexed by something else: Why Darwinism? And why not other scientific paradigms? Why, for instance, are there no lists on the web of non-relativistic theories of gravity?

A friend of mine used to say that physicists were the most honest type of scientists, and evolutionary biologists the less honest ones.

 

Not that I doubt evolution but I do recognize some aspects of it stand on very shaky ground, seem too contrived, and were never demonstrated empirically except by induction.

 

I would say the same is true of advanced physics, with their black holes and black matter and the subatomic particle zoo and so on. I guess evolutionary biology is on the fringe as much as advanced physics, hence the lack of acceptance by the public at large.

Edited March 30, 2012 by bravox

[sman]

 

Not that I doubt evolution but I do recognize some aspects of it stand on very shaky ground, seem too contrived, and were never demonstrated empirically except by induction.

 

Like what?

 

I would say the same is true of advanced physics, with their black holes and black matter and the subatomic particle zoo and so on. I guess evolutionary biology is on the fringe as much as advanced physics, hence the lack of acceptance by the public at large.

 

I would not attack advanced physics because, again, I know nothing about it. But, if I had to do it, I'd at least do a little reading on it first. The opponents of Darwinism, in my experience, don't bother with this.

[bravox]

I would not attack advanced physics because, again, I know nothing about it.

I said "the public at large". The press keeps pushing evolutionary biology (and modern cosmology) down people's throats all the time. Nobody talks much about electronic circuit design or fluid mechanics, because those things are of little consequence to the average person.

 

With evolution and cosmology there is more than the science, there is both an entire conception of the universe as a sort of mindless machine, as well as the notion that we are smart enough to understand it. Not everyone can easily accept those notions, particularly the latter.

 

But, if I had to do it, I'd at least do a little reading on it first. The opponents of Darwinism, in my experience, don't bother with this.

It is a truism that anyone who criticizes Darwinism does not understand it.

[sman]

With evolution and cosmology there is more than the science, there is both an entire conception of the universe as a sort of mindless machine, as well as the notion that we are smart enough to understand it. Not everyone can easily accept those notions, particularly the latter.

 

Alright. So biology & cosmology are in the same camp, if we draw the lines just so. But my question is: what is it about Darwinism that draws so much fire from “the public at large”, where a theory like Relativity - or anything else I can think of - doesn’t?

 

Maybe, for instance, it’s that General Relativity can be expressed precisely with abstruse mathematics that are hard to understand, where Darwinism cannot be articulated with anything but sloppy language. “Survival-of-the-fittest”- maybe - lures us into thinking that the thing is easy to understand - and to criticize.

 

 

It is a truism that anyone who criticizes Darwinism does not understand it.

 

I basically agree, though I wouldn’t put it so superlatively. (I mean, it’s science, after all. And, like all good science, awaiting falsification. If that weren’t allowed… it wouldn’t be so solid.) It’s a small point, a subjective one, and not at all authoritative, but, IMHO, Darwinism is unassailable, placing it on a different shelf than other scientific paradigms. So you see how that puts a pinch of paradox in my perplexion.