Apparently. This, at least, is the latest incantation. Repeat it often enough, and it is so. So what has actually died? What elements of Darwin’s theory(/ies) of evolution have been buried? I can certainly think of one – his theories of variation were wrong, superseded by Mendel, which simultaneously solved one of his dilemmas. But is that it?
62 thoughts on “Darwinism is dead”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This link seems appropriate.
Corneel,
On a side note, I love the form of expression of those Victorian writers. It can be hard to parse sometimes, but often delightful. I wonder if they spoke like that?
Some people are fond of invoking Kuhn – a bizarre reading of Kuhn that has a more recent paradigm ‘revolutionarily’ revert to the old. 🙂
It’s passed on! This theory is no more! It has ceased to be! It’s expired and gone to meet its maker! Its a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn’t nailed it to the perch it’s be pushing up the daisies! It’s metabolic processes are now ‘istory! It’s off the twig! It’s kicked the bucket, it’s shuffled off it’s mortal coil, run down the curtain and joined the bleedin’ choir invisible!! This is an ex-theory!!
Has Darwinism ever been actually alive?
Let’s see…
Even Lenski says Darwin mainly breaks down but he doesn’t think its bad…
After 30 years of experiments and 70 000 of generations of bacteria Darwin mainly breaks down…It’s not bad for a theory that never was alive in the first place…;-)
Obviously people have been pretending, for the last 150 years or so, that Darwinism is alive and kept the “dead corpse” of Darwinism on the respirator but does this belief really make the difference? 😉
Goodness, ‘Darwinism’ is supposedly at the same time in the process of being resurrected or at least revivified by an atheist biologist/anthropologist in New York who likens himself as a ‘member’ of the Intellectual Dark Web (& who is now fawning for stage time with Bret Weinstein re: group selection), David S. Wilson, along with my buddy another atheist Eric Michael Johnson. https://evolution-institute.org/toward-a-new-social-darwinism/ The latter couldn’t answer the simplest of questions I put to him over lunch in Vilnius about “things that don’t evolve.” He couldn’t come up with anything, thus confirming the ‘universalistic’ ideology of evolutionism that he and many others have embraced.
Dawkins apparently coined & used the term ‘Universal Darwinism.’ Evolutionary economists prefer the term ‘General Darwinism.’ And then there’s ‘Literary Darwinism’ (what an amazingly brilliant idea! Not.). All the while an old-but-new ‘Darwinism is Dead’ choir is now singing again.
The natural scientists who pretend to have overcome Darwin’s name in their particular natural sciences, as limited and specialised as those sciences now are, still don’t know what to do with the names associated with theories of evolution. They don’t substitute Margulisism, Gouldism or Eldredgism, there’s no Mesoudiism or Lalandism, or Jablonkaism or Lambism, or even Nobleism that has taken the place of Darwinism. So what is there left to do but have a big complaint festival, perhaps led by Swamidass who will insist that ‘Darwinism is strictly scientifically falsified,’ when one can’t ‘falsify’ an ideology.
The almost complete ignorance and lack of understanding about ideology by natural scientists, who were never trained in and didn’t take a course in ‘philosophy of science,’ ‘sociology of science’ (they rarely teach this in the ‘West’) or ‘science studies’, deeply biases the conversation, turning it into sophistry and posturing too quickly to bother listening to the natural scientists themselves address ‘Darwinism.’
If any natural scientist here responds mocking what I wrote above, simply ask them patiently and carefully to distinguish the ideology of Darwinism from the natural science (Darwinian evolutionary theory) that Darwin actually ‘produced’ as his contribution to world knowledge. They will every one of them simply not be able to do this with coherency that would pass an undergraduate course in the fields of knowledge identified above.
The truth is that many atheists & agnostics themselves *want* ideological evolutionism to be true. That is exactly the reason why they do not and oftentimes even when pressed, will not deem themselves as evolutionists, even though there is no other more accurate or more appropriate term to describe their fetish with evolutionary ideas blasted on high volume in inter-disciplinary ways across the academy today. Indeed, this is what Mary Midgley meant in speaking of “Evolution as a Religion,” by which she meant not evolutionary science, but evolutionistic ideology.
Leaving Darwin aside entirely or renaming the ideology makes little difference to this massive intellectual & even spiritual problem we face among natural scientists and philosophists of science today.
Molecular evolution has become far more interesting than extrapolating from fossils (although they are complementary).
Darwin assumed that variations would be visible in terms of appearance or capabilities. We now know that most variation is invisible, or at least transparent, to selection.
One prominent meaning of “Darwinism is dead” is that we have discovered the importance of neutral and nearly neutral evolution at the molecular level. Of course, Darwin didn’t know there even was a molecular level, much less that most of his genome (which again, he didn’t know about) was junk.
What it most certainly doesn’t mean is that natural selection isn’t an important force in evolution.
“Darwinism is Dead” is a meme promulgated by Joshua Swamidass at his blog Peaceful Science, while at the same time asserting that he hates memes.
I don’t think the mechanism of inheritance (theories of variation) counts, because according to Swamidass Darwinism died in 1968 as a result of work by Kimura and others and it was the neutral theory that “killed” it.
Joshua continues to promulgate the claim in spite of he fact that it is demonstrably false and those willing to disagree with him about it at his blog are hard to find.
The wikipedia article on neutral theory states it nicely:
But facts rarely matter in the culture wars.
The appeals to selectionist theory to refute Behe are telling. In the grand scheme of things it would appear that Joshua himself is a Darwinist, even though he objects to being labelled as such.
Gregory,
I was quite clear that I was referring to Darwinian aspects of evolutionary theory, I thought, and even reread it with you in mind just to be sure.
J-Mac,
One experiment, whose restrictive conditions tend towards minimisation of natural selection, is hardly suitable material on which to base a refutation of the entirety of natural selection. Particularly when the Cit+ strain is actually an example of natural selection. In these conditions, it arises repeatedly, beyond the generations with the potentiating mutation.
Yes, I know what you are going to say next. It’s not a frigging whale, or some such tosh.
One issue that plagues these discussions is in seeing neutrality and non-neutrality as dichotomous. They aren’t; they are facets of a single process on a continuum: population resampling, with varying degrees of bias, including none. The idea that bias had been falsified by instances where it is absent would be nonsensical.
Even the Discovery Institute is saying that Neutral theory, founded by Kimura, killed off Darwinism:
For once, I actually agree with the Discovery Institute. The only question is when they will start addressing the modern theory of evolution instead of the theory that was thrown out 50 years ago.
I eagerly await Joshua’s post at his site about how he agrees with the DI!
😀
As an avowed “not a Darwinist” I also eagerly await him adding his name to the “Dissent from Darwinism” list maintained by the DI.
How else would we know what was under selection and what was not under selection?
That all evolution takes place only by positive selection.
Oh yeah!
“..Darwin dispelled this notion in The Origin. In a single chapter, he completely replaced centuries of certainty about divine design with the notion of a mindless, mechanistic process — natural selection — that could accomplish the same result. It is hard to overestimate the effect that this insight had not only on biology, but on people’s worldview. Many have not yet recovered from the shock, and the idea of natural selection still arouses fierce and irrational opposition. (p. 115)” – Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True.
I guess John Harshman, and many others, have not recovered yet either “…from the shock, and the (ir) idea of natural selection still arouses fierce and irrational opposition…” Who would? 😉
Once the DI admits that people can be on the dissent list and still accept the theory of evolution, then perhaps more people could be convinced to sign it. As it stands, the dissent list is nothing more than a propaganda tool DI uses to fool the public into thinking there is an actual debate in science over the validity of the theory of evolution.
So since Darwinism is dead, are we now all Ohnanists? 🙄
No more than physicists are Einsteinists and Plankists. Naming theories after people was more of a Victorian thing, and was largely abandoned a while ago.
I think dazz was indulging in a bout of homophonic humor…
😮
Profuse apologies if I’m wrong about that…
That’s not the same issue. Neutrality is a reasonable null hypothesis for any test of selection. It is not a universal conclusion, and therefore has not ‘falsified Darwinism’ (understood as NS in this instance) in any sense worth crowing about. If neutral, the null isn’t rejected, in that instance. Darwin even pointed out – and you yourself have quoted the relevant passage – that some variants would be expected to be neutral.
Who – including Darwin – ever advanced such a position?
If that wasn’t funny just call me wanker 😂
If they think Darwinism is dead, who are they referring to when they use the term ‘Darwinist’? I know, it’s perennial equivocation.
dazz,
Nah, I wouldn’t do that. I only use that term of abuse when I’m throwing shade at a Nobel Laureate…
Darwinist is their term for the Boogeyman. It’s a lot easier to get your followers riled up about the evil “They” than addressing the reality of science.
This is, if memory serves me correctly, how Joshua Swamidass defines it, and how he says the Discovery Institute defines it. I think it’s a straw man.
darwinism is not dead. Darwinism is just that biology evolved from this bodyplan to that. Including going from primitive operations to glorious complexity.
Thats Darwins idea and the minor details of how is not darwinism.
Evolutionary biology, on a intellectual curve, is dying.
Indeed variations would not bring complexity, then genes/mendel didn’t help, then goulds PE undecut fossil evidence for evolutionism, then others looking close at details found things didn’t add up.
yEC always was a thorn in the side and showed how silly it was and ID was a intellectual kick to the head that has them reeling still.
In our time evolutionism will be announced as dead as a dodo.
Not that things didn’t change bodyplans but not from selection on mutations.
Since its not based on biological scientific evidence it lingers as long as this detail is not importent. however science will demand a reckoning all the non origin biologist scientists will say DON’T BLAME ME. IT WASN’T my study obviously. Don’t blame the scientific community or science.
Blame Darwin and his hapless gang.
Joshua@PeacefulScience:
“Where are the Darwinists? They no longer exist.”
If Darwinism is the claim that all organismal attributes, whether molecular or phenotypic, physiological or genetic sequence, owe their existence in a species, or fixation in a population, exclusively to actions of natural selection, then Darwinism has been dead when Darwin wrote The Origin of Species. Even Darwin himself didn’t believe that, and in actual fact both allowed and argued for non-adaptive evolutionary change.
If there are or have been people who believe that Darwin’s theory actually was only and entirely about natural selection as the only or exclusive mechanism besides the one that generates variation, then they have simply misread Darwin, or extended his theory into an exaggeration he never even intended himself.
Mung,
Swamidass’ (more than) occasional sloppy communication efforts are nevertheless, I believe, not intentionally duplicitous like the DI’s strategic unstated refusal to distinguish ‘intelligent design’ from ‘Intelligent Design’ and to blatantly ignore real ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorists’ & ‘design thinking’ in their heavily ideological narrative. Instead they take upon themselves victim status in order to act as ‘courageous design theorists based at the DI’. What gullibility they require of their supporters and proponents, when facing those two issues alone would sink their movement quickly. “It ain’t easy being green!”
Why would anyone want to support a dead body or an idea? What could be the reason? Faith? Blind possibly?
I absolutely love the idea of neutral selection replacing Darwinism. Imagine explaining the development of the eye now.
Well, you see, if you start with a light sensitive spot on the skin, and then you get a small mutation, a mutation that doesn’t really help with anything, but as luck would have it it just spreads through the population. Then you get another mutation, that turns that light spot into a liquid filled sphere. Again, not very useful, in fact not useful at all likely, but it doesn’t kill you at least. But wait for it, there will be better to come. The sphere gets a pupil. Wait, wait, that’s not the good part. But at least it ain’t the bad part. Another lucky mutation creates an optic nerve. Now what good is an optic nerve mutation, without the right connections in the brain to utilize it? None, of course! But so what, it won’t kill you to have a useless optic nerve, probably. So one day your neighbors will also have a useless optic nerve. And lucky for them, because one day, yes indeed one day, its going to turn out that this optic nerve comes in very very handy!
You see kids, this is how you get an eye! Isn’t it amazing!! Let’s teach this one in school. Brilliant! Swamidass, I think you are on to something! Everything is useless until the magic day it becomes useful.
I want to donate money to the Neutral Theory Institute. If you are an atheist, and you believe in this, boy do you really want to be an atheist bad!
Brilliant!
Gregory,
You falsely and , hate to say, maliciously accuse mankind out of proportion to evidence.
Please stop and play nice.
Robert Byers,
Do tell exactly what is false in what I wrote? It was certainly not directed to ‘mankind,’ but rather to IDists at the DI, a rather tiny subset of people.
It would be easy to show I am wrong by giving examples and providing evidence, supposedly available in the literature, of *ANYONE* at the DI properly and adequately distinguishing ‘Intelligent Design’ from ‘intelligent design’ (actually Howard Ahmanson has done this, though Meyer, West and co. seem to have ignored him) or real ‘design theory,’ ‘design theorists’ & ‘design thinking’ from the IDM’s ‘Intelligent Design theory,’ ‘Intelligent Design theorists’ and ‘Intelligent Design thinking’.
The fact that Robert also won’t provide any examples reveals why my calm, patient, clear criticism is so on-point. The DI’s double-talking is already amply on display and can be found with little difficulty by reading the DI’s website or ENV.
It is surely not ‘malicious’ simply to calmly, carefully and without any anger or vitriol point out again & again the grand flaw in the DI’s argument, the great Elephant in the Room of IDism that Meyer, West, Nelson, Behe, Johnson, Axe, Gauger, Wells, all deny or just won’t admit is actually there. Why do they deny these things? Because it would serve to end their ‘big tent movement’ by exposing their ideology for what it actually is, instead of what they are pretending it as?
Leave it to Robert to try pulling the rug over that Elephant in the Room, based on whatever rationale he can conjure up handy to use at the present moment. The steady, well-intended, yet pointed criticism, nevertheless, still stands unanswered by the DI & the IDM.
That they never talk about wall rugs?
Anyway, what does it have to do with Darwinism being dead?
Long live the neutral theory! Its not useful now, but one day when we finish assembling, boy what good fortune we shall have!
phoodoo,
You are a bit inclined toward the dichotomous, aren’t you? If it’s not all neutral, it must be all non neutral, and vice versa? Now where was that Behe quote? Ah, here we go: It has been my experience that one very common way for opponents to try to discredit an argument is to exaggerate it, to ignore distinctions an author makes, and/or to change carefully qualified claims into bizarre absolutes.
Allan Miller,
So, walk back the neutral part then?
Just how insignificant is this neutral part? Did it make the cornea, and rods and cones, but not the pupil part? Or did the neutral part only make the liquid filled ball, and tear ducts?
Just how powerful, (or unpowerful) is the new neutral theory going to be? Just like sort of helpful, sometimes? Don’t you see how ridiculous that looks?
The neutral part is so insignificant, and yet Swamidass and Larry Moran are writing pages and pages about how important it is.
Hey, look, I am a big fan, please teach this more in schools. Will be great for laughs.
Then all the students can say, wow, teacher, I had no idea you smoked so much pot.
Yeah, because evolution must proceed by adding large parts to the structure using the available tools one at a time, as we would do if we were building something, right?. I agree that’s unbelievably stupid. Keep mocking it, phoodoo, keep mocking your own beliefs, someday you might notice the irony
Joshua is a believer in the power of constructive neutral evolution. It just doesn’t seem to be have involved in many of the examples used to allegedly “refute” Behe. Those examples for the most part involve, wait for it … selection.
But selectionism is dead, along with Darwinism. And the neutralist/selectionist controversy never really took place.
Irony stacked on irony stacked on irony. The power of of cumulative irony. If it weren’t for rust the earth would be covered with it.
Nobody believes that Mung. Just ask Rumraket.
Here you go buddy:
Genotype versus phenotype.
Genotype–phenotype distinction.
And then last but not least:
Neutral theory of molecular evolution.
From this last one we get:
So just to make sure you can follow along, evolution “at the molecular level” means at the level of gene sequences. So mutations in DNA sequences, the sequences of A, G, C, and T deoxyribonucleic acids that make up an organism’s genome.
This is a different level than the level of phenotype, which are the visible physical characteristics of an organism (including it’s behavior).
Rumraket,
Do you think there can be a lot of Darwinian selection at the molecular level? How would that work exactly?
Alleles getting fixed at a higher than neutral rate, for instance?
Darwinian selection is Godlike. It can operate at any level imaginable.
https://evolution-institute.org/focus-article/reaching-a-new-plateau-for-the-acceptance-of-multilevel-selection/
At least selection does operate 😜