Talk:Non-Darwinian evolution

	This Evolution related article has been awarded SILVER status for quality. We like it, and you should too! See RationalWiki:Article rating for more information.

Non-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design

In the section "Non-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design" we say:

• "Unfortunately most religious creationists and intelligent design advocates usually equate evolution with "Darwinism" and it is clear many of these authors out of dishonesty do this on purpose."

What is unfortunate about this? The RW article Darwinism defines it as:

• "The word Darwinism is shorthand for evolution by natural selection, named after Charles Darwin, the scientist who first developed, popularised and gathered evidence for the theory."

So I'm left confused. To be honest, the whole thrust of the "Non-Darwinian evolution and intelligent design" section seems a bit confused.--Weirdstuff (talk) 17:42, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Darwinism is not evolution, it just another name for natural selection. Creationists confuse "Darwinism" with evolution in an attempt to make out scientists are disputing the fact of evolution, when in reality they are only disputing the role of natural selection not evolution. DinoCrisis (talk) 18:08, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Apart from the quote from the Darwinism article above the introduction RW article on evolution states:

• "Evolution occurs as random genetic changes build up over time, and those that prove to be negative, or harmful, are weeded out as the organisms that have them are rendered less able to compete with the general population."

So although natural selection may not exactly be "evolution" surely its pretty essential to the theory.--Weirdstuff (talk) 18:16, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree selection does occur and is important in evolution, but this article is for the non-Darwinian evolution ideas, these scientists deny that natural selection has an important role and some of these scientists have gone as far as to say it does not exist at all in evolution. DinoCrisis (talk) 18:27, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ DinoCrisis. I see a lot of quote-mining of critics of neo-Darwinism by creationists in an attempt to make controversies internal to evolutionary biology seem as if there is a challenge to the entire theory itself. The constant quote mining of Stephen Jay Gould is probably the archetypical example, although less literate critics (cough Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini cough) often provide grist for their mill as well. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 20:22, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree and the problem is when we start to see things like this link becuase some of these mechanisms have been described as "non-Darwinian" it has given extra ammo to the creationists who usually misunderstand it all. DinoCrisis (talk) 22:29, 13 September 2012 (UTC)

Theres an interesting paper here The next evolutionary synthesis: from Lamarck and Darwin to genomic variation and systems biology DinoCrisis (talk) 01:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Niche Construction

There has been a slight controversy amongst some scientists over niche construction, I am thinking of adding a section on it to the article at some point. These are some of the articles I have dug up which may help:

• Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology
• Beyond Darwin: On the role of niche construction and self-organization in evolution
• Uexkull and the post-modern evolutionism
• EvoDevo and niche construction: building bridges
• Perspective: seven reasons (not) to neglect niche construction
• Rethinking adaptation: the niche-construction perspective
• Evolutionary consequences of niche construction and their implications for ecology
• Rethinking Adaptation Full Paper

Also papers on self-organization:

• The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm

Others:

• Evolutionary Developmental Biology Offers a Significant Challenge to the Neo-Darwinian Paradigm

DinoCrisis (talk) 07:18, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Baldwinian evolution

I'd be very interested in seeing this covered here. I don't know about missionality, though This is more out of personal curiosity. Do creationists contest it?--"Shut up, Brx." 19:34, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

I need to read up on this. I am quitting rationalwiki permanently at the end of this week, but if I get time I will add a section. DinoCrisis (talk) 20:31, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Okaay...--"Shut up, Brx." 23:55, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Article not clear

This article is not clear, is non-Darwinian evolution the main position? What is it's over all current status ? 212.219.63.253 (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)

The main position by 2020 will have ditched Darwin, there is a new synthesis in the works containing Lamarckian factors. Carl Woese in his paper Biology's next revolution wrote "Refinement through the horizontal sharing of genetic innovations would have triggered an explosion of genetic novelty, until the level of complexity required a transition to the current era of vertical evolution. Thus, we regard as regrettable the conventional concatenation of Darwin’s name with evolution, because other modalities must also be considered." [1] Lucytaylor (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

equating "Darwinian" with "accepted"

I was shocked by the ludicrous opening statement:

It should be remembered that "alternative medicine" which actually works is called "medicine". The same care needs to be taken with "Non-Darwinian evolution" - if were generally accepted it would be part of the modern synthesis.

What an absurd suggestion! It seems to (1) equate Darwinian with Modern Synthesis, (2) equate what "actually works" with what is "generally accepted", and then (3) equate the former pair with the latter pair! This certainly does not hold true if one defines the Modern Synthesis as a substantive scientific theory. If the MS is a definite theory consisting of a finite set of claims, then obviously it might represent an error of omission (lacking something that "actually works", like saltations) or commission (including a proposition that fails, like "natura non facit salta").

Even if we use a wishy-washy definition of "the modern synthesis", not as a legitimate scientific theory, but as an ever-changing school of thought, then it still would not follow that what "actually works" is automatically included.

It is certainly not in keeping with SPOV to imagine that Darwinism is somehow magically true and must automatically encompass all truths.^{— Unsigned, by: Arlin / talk / contribs 17:07, 2 January 2015‎ (UTC)}

Human-directed evolution

How does human-initiated evolution (crops, animals etc) fit into the Darwinian/non-Darwinian structure? (Accidental consequences from the provision of new environments or allowing otherwise separated communities to interbreed would be effectively Darwinian.)

There are going to be some orthogenetic aspects to Darwinian evolution - but more in the sense of 'the consequences are...' (the 'ur-4-limb-5-digit creature' survived and led to us, the 'ur-6-limb-6-digit creature' did not; and 'all the other examples we can think of').

It has been said that 'transmission of information/memes' is strongly Lamarkian. 82.44.143.26 (talk) 15:17, 8 August 2017 (UTC)