Talk:Neo-Darwinism

This article was nominated for deletion on 18 September 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus/keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Molecular Biology: Genetics This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale. This article is supported by the Genetics task force (assessed as High-importance). Evolutionary biology Mid‑importance This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

It has been proposed here that this article is merged with modern evolutionary synthesis. Does anybody have any objections? --Steinsky 00:54, 11 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Although there were no objections to merging, there was no discussion here and no consensus here either. I have made my objections clear on other pages, and am now restoring this article in its own right.

Please give this a chance to develop. It is not a POV fork, as has been suggested, but an attempt to get to the meaning of the term more accurately and put right the error of assuming that Neo-Darwinism is the same thing as teh Modern Synthesis, as suggested on Modern evolutionary synthesis.

I am quite prepared to give references and citations to support everything I write here, to show that this is not POV.

Furthermore, you will see that I am not pushing an alternative view of evolution in any way, and I say nothing against the modern synthesis. I'm trying to make a subtle distinction that is recognised in many places. I also want to lay out the history of the term, which is not modern, or 'creationist' and has been used by most mainstream evolutionists and is found in many books and papers. --Memestream 12:40, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

One of my aims, in restoring this page, is to make it possible to improve the other pages modern evolutionary synthesis and Evolution and Origin of Species, concentrating more strictly on what they mean. For example, my suggestion that the modern synthesis is strictly a historical consensus, was accepted in that article, and yet that statement conflicts with the other statement (restored by other editors) that Neo Darwinism is an alternative term. The term Neo-Darwinism appears many times in the other articles, and yet it surely cannot be used as an alternative to modern synthesis when it clearly existed before the synthesis. By separating out the term we get out of the mire, and can edit properly. --Memestream 13:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

JoshuaZ: I object strongly to your reversion of a new article which has taken many hours to create. Your comment that it is completely unsourced is ridiculous, given that the article is filled with citations and references. It contains no OR, and no POV statements. I am going to revert back, and ask that you enter into detailed discussions here regarding anything that you consider POV or OR. The only grounds for insisting that this page be merged would be if it contained nothing different from another page. In fact it makes clear in great detail the fine distinctions, not always understood, between Neo-Darwinism, and the Modern synthesis. --Memestream 15:44, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is by far the largest section in the article. It has precisely two citations, at the end of the first phrase in the second sentence. Neither are to WP:RSs -- they are to the International Society for Complexity, Information and Design (a pro-ID Creationism organisation) & a Tiscali portal 'encyclopaedia' of unknown provenance. Neither therefore belong in a wikipedia article. Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was shocked to read that ISCID is an organisation that is pro-ID and creationism, as I would want to avoid such sources. But are you right? I can find no reference to creationism on their pages, and several of the people listed there are claimed to hold high positions in respected universities. Perhaps you are just deducing that they are creationist because they study complexity, but if so I think that is your POV only. Is there anything wrong with Tiscali, other than that it has no claim to authority? Those cites are given in support of the claim that the term neo-Darwinism is "commonly used to refer to currently accepted mainstream ideas about evolution." Do you think that this statement is untrue, or are you just unhappy with the value of the citations. If the former, what do you think neo-Darwinism is (presumably you accept that the term exists and is or has been used)? If the latter, I'm happy to look for alternative cites, and would welcome help with that. Actually I think it could be argued that the 'provenance' of the cites is irrelevant, since they are being used as primary sources to demonstrate only that the term is used in the way stated, not as secondary sources that state the fact that they are so used. Better to add more cites though. --Memestream 19:21, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is a fact that the term neo-Darwinism is very widely used in articles by creationists, and a Google search turns up many such articles, but I suggest that this is just because a battle is currently being waged in the US by the creationist movement against - well, against Neo-Darwinism. What else are they to call it? To call it Darwinian evolution would be quite wrong. To say they were against the Modern evolutionary synthesis, would be innacurate too, a bit like a flat-earther saying he was against Newtons latest writings, because the modern synthesis was a historical event, and science has moved on. I've added some text to this effect as it deserves mention in the article, given the apparent frequency of such misunderstandings. --Memestream 19:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The International Society for Complexity, Information and Design was founded by William A. Dembski. Of course, it is part of the ID movement. JoshuaZ 20:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, and thanks, I hadn't followed up the name on Wikipedia, and am quite happy to accept what is said there. Nevertheless, that doesn't change a thing, because as I have said above, I am only using that site as a PRIMARY source in evidence of the fact that the term is used in this way. I am thus not relying on the authority of the site as comment. Nothing I read on creationist sites leads me to suppose that the term neo-Darwinism is anything but the name of the current theory of evolution. It certainly isn't being presented as something other than that, or, to use OrangeMarlin's term "obnoxious". I hope you can agree on that. --Memestream 20:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is going from bad to patently absurd: could somebody please tell me the relevance of the 'entrance' page of a bookstore website to this paragraph?[1] Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 03:13, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation to http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/n-Darwin.htm is to "a discussion/debate site by teens, for teens".[2] This is not even close to WP:RS! Hrafn42^Talk_Stalk 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I note the strong support for deletion, but find the reasons given there very confused. Assuming you all get your way, then let me ask you the following questions:

1 Are we to assume that neo-Darwinism means the same thing as modern synthesis?

2 If yes, then surely a redirect is inappropriate?

3 If yes, then how will you deal with the uncontested fact (stated in modern synthesis before I came along) that the term was in frequent use before the synthesis, coined by Romanes?

3 If no, then how will you justify a redirect to a page which fails to even mention the term in the introduction because one editor insists on removing it on grounds that it is an "obnoxious" term?

4 If no, then how will you resolve the problem that modern synthesis uses the term without qualification several times in later text.

I suggest that you are shooting yourselves in the foot, and preserving a self-contradictory article. Shame, when I've worked so hard to present the facts so clearly. --Memestream 23:26, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please acknowedge the fact that in order to demonstrate that a term is used in a certain way it is not necessary to find a 'reliable source' that says so, it is only necessary to find sources that use it that way, and present them as primary evidence. It's a simple logical fact isn't it, and totally in accordance with WP?

Unfortunately, many Wikipedians have a phobia against primary sources, because in some cases primary sources can be cherry-picked to advance an original argument, as discussed in WP:PSTS and WP:SYN. --Itub 11:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting and thanks - I see the point and cannot fault it. --Memestream 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Let's write a section, based on reliable sources, that we can add to the History of evolutionary thought article that deals with this concept. The article can then be a redirect to this section.

The best reference I have found on this is:

Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.

This identifies three stages in the development of evolutionary theory. Quote below:

1. Darwinism

Historically, this stage is represented by the 1859 publication of Darwin's book On the Origin of Species. Specifically, it refers to the Darwin/Wallace principle of natural selection as the major driving force in evolution. Since Darwin (1859, 1872) accepted Lamarck's principle of the inheritance of acquired characteristics as a source of biological variability, it is equally fair to call this the Lamarck/Darwin/Wallace period of evolutionary thought.

2. Neo-Darwinism

This stage in the development of evolutionary theory can be traced to the German zoologist/cytologist A. Weismann (1892) who provided experimental evidence against (Lamarckian) inheritance and who postulated that sexual reproduction (recombination) creates in every generation a new, variable population of individuals. Natural selection then acts on this variation and determines the course of evolutionary change. Hence, neo-Darwinism (i.e., the expanded theory of Darwin) – a term that was coined by Romanes (1895) – enriched Darwin's original concept by drawing attention to how biological variation is generated and by excluding Lamarckian inheritance as a viable mechanism for evolution. Wallace (1889), who popularized the term Darwinism, fully incorporated the novel conclusions of Weismann and was therefore one of the first proponents of neo-Darwinism.

3. Synthetic theory

This novel system of hypotheses for evolutionary processes originated between 1937 and 1950 (Mayr 1982). In contrast to Weismann's (1892) and Wallace's (1889) neo-Darwinian concept, the synthetic theory incorporated facts from such fields as genetics, systematics, and paleontology. Hence, the term neo-Darwinian theory should not be confused with the synthetic theory (or the phrase neo-Darwinian synthesis; see Mayr 1991; Reif et al. 2000; Junker 2004).

This is a reliable source defining the term precisely and setting it in its historical context. Tim Vickers 23:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:PROVEIT first you'd have to establish that it's even notable/significant enough a viewpoint for inclusion there. A single source is not enough, nor is it a promising start. Odd nature 00:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A second reliable source making the same distinction is The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis Reif W-E. Junker T. Hoßfeld U. Theory in Biosciences, Volume 119, Number 1, 1 March 2000 , pp. 41-91(51) DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004

Quote:

Most biologists and historians of biology agree that at least three major historical stages in the development of the theory of evolution can be distinguished:

a) Darwinism: This is Darwin's theory, which emphasized the power of selection and accepted both hard and soft (ªLamarckianº) inheritance.

b) Neo-Darwinism: This term was coined by George John Romanes to denote the ªthe pure theory of natural selection to the exclusion of any supplementary theoryº (Romanes 1895, p. 12), presented by Alfred Russel Wallace and especially August Weismann. Weismann (1885) had refuted both Lamarckism and pangenesis and emphasized the selection and perpetuation of favorable characters.

c) The Synthetic Theory of Evolution originated in the early 1930s, or according to many authors from 1937 to 1950. The historical processes that led to the Synthetic Theory and its exact content will be discussed below. It is sufficient to say here that Weismann's neo-Darwinism and the Synthetic Theory cannot be equated. In contrast to neo-Darwinism the Synthetic Theory includes modern genetics, population genetics, systematics and theories of speciation and macroevolution (based on paleontology, The synthetic theory of evolution 43 comparative morphology and developmental biology). In addition, within the Synthesis non-selectionist factors of evolution, especially isolation, chance events, and population size are emphasized. Selection is regarded as important, but only as one of several evolutionary factors (Gayon 1998, p. 319±354; for an alternative chronology of the history of Darwinism see Mayr 1998).

Reading the first section of the modern evolutionary synthesis article, I see this definition and historical usage is already made clear. I've added one of the above references to the "modern synthesis" article, which deals with the concept in a much clearer fashion that this article does. Tim Vickers 00:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

TimVickers: I'm glad to see constructive discussion, but you seem to be acknowledging that neo-Darwinism is a valid term that is in use, and therefore I think it deserves a page. It has been pointed out that some 45 other Wikipedia articles link to neo-Darwinism still, despite it having been a redirect. This suggests a need for a page. Many of those articles are about famous figures - Gould, Lewontin, etc, and are not talking about a historical useage so far as I can see, so wouldn't a redirect of those links to a history page be quite unsatisfactory? I think you are giving undue weight to the idea that the term is historical only. Many people seem to fail to see that the original historical use might have been intended to mean 'the latest theory'. References to early use, for example by Romanes in relation to the particular theory of Weissman and others are I think the result of misunderstanding by their authors. Romanes called Weismanns ideas neo-Darwinian because they were the latest ideas being accepted. He did not intend the term to refer to those theories forever as a historical term. I don't claim to be able to prove that, but it's the only interpretation that is consistent with the fact that so many major figures like Gould and Dawkins use the term to refer to current theory. Similarly, I suggest that other writers make a similar mistake in saying that neo-Darwinism is the same as the modern synthesis. It once was, for a while, but things moved on, and so should the thing we call neo-Darwinism. Do you understand what I'm saying? It's not easy to 'prove', or demonstrate, but in the end its the only way to make sense of the term in respect of all the useages. If I am right, then taking just selected sources is not the whole answer, because, no matter how authoritative they seem, and are, this is a term that is widely misunderstood, and they are making mistakes. Is this OR? WP:OR encourages source-based research, but of course not new synthesised theories. I think that if source based research is necessary to decide how a term is used, in a world where it seems to be often used in ways that conflict, then that is not OR. --Memestream 11:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quotes from other wikipedia pages that link here:

While we can't use these quotes to support the article, I suggest that if many of the articles clearly use the term to refer to a modern theory, and we redirect the term to a historical context, then we are probably getting it wrong.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea "Dennett also accuses various competing neo-Darwinian ideas of making use of such supposedly unscientific skyhooks in explaining evolution, coming down particularly hard on the ideas of Stephen Jay Gould." - Note the useage to refer to ideas, not one idea. Totally in line with what I am suggesting.

Gaia philosophy "Depending on how strongly the case is stated, the hypothesis conflicts with mainstream neo-Darwinism." - Clearly applied to current theory.

Stephen Jay Gould "It should be noted that Ernst Mayr in this quotation is not speaking of Gould in particular, and does not mention him by name, but is speaking of many critics of the Neo-Darwinian Synthesis generally." - here we have the assumption (wrong I think, because such useage denies the historical use) that the modern synthesis is the same thing as current neo-Darwinism.

Richard Lewontin "Lewontin has long been a critic of traditional neo-Darwinian approaches to adaptation." - clearly again a reference to more than one theory. --Memestream 11:55, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Orthogenesis "such examples are entirely consistent with the modern neo-Darwinian theory of evolution." - note the modern theory, in line with my suggestion.

Nonzero Indeed, this concept of "inevitability" and to what extent various things were inevitable within the framework of natural selection is a frequent argument among proponents (and opponents) of Neo-Darwinism. - reference to current theory again.

Howard Bloom "He also founded the Group Selection Squad, a team of forty scientists who championed group selection and multi-level selection over commonly accepted Neo-Darwinian theories. - clear reference to current theories, not one particular theory.

Hopeful Monster "His thesis however was universally rejected and widely ridiculed within the biological community, which favored the neo-Darwinian explanations of R.A. Fisher, J.B.S. Haldane and Sewall Wright." - here is an ambiguous example, it is consistent with both the idea that neo-Darwinism means modern synthesis, or the idea that it means the currently accepted theory (at that time). The latter interpretation is to be favoured as consistent with the other examples. --Memestream 12:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Evolutionary developmental biology "Others, drawing on findings of discordances between genotype and phenotype and epigenetic mechanisms of development, are mounting an explicit challenge to neo-Darwinism." - Definitely modern use, on a totally scientific genetics page.

I suggest from the above, Tim, that despite their unquestioned credentials we must conclude that your sources do not serve to define neo-Darwinism. Their use of the term is not incorrect, in that neo-Darwinism was indeed a term used to refer to refer to the thory of Weismann/Wallace, this is only because that was the latest non-Lamarckian theory AT THAT TIME, but they do not make clear the fact (and do not need to, since they are explaining evolution not defining the term) that the term is, and was widely used to refer to current theory. --Memestream 12:15, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate the passion for the misuse of terms. A number of biological terms have semantically changed. Like the word "gene" has a different meaning now than thirty years ago, but I see no one making that distinction every time the word is used. I think the modern synthesis article clearly makes the distinction so noted above by Tim. I agree that many subarticles lack continuity nor clearly make the distinction of the word usage. I think the issue becomes would be better served to have a separate article or clearly make the distinction in existing subarticles. The word "epigenetics" suffers the same misusage and has a separate article, but it also develops the modern usage of the term. This article, at present, is only a stub and deals with the historic usage and misuse. I would love to see a plan to expand this article as it has the rudiments to be a separate article. I think we need more input because I think we all agree on the misuse of the term but differ on how best to solve the problem. Regards GetAgrippa 13:31, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are missing something GetAgrippa. There have been persistent attempts to remove the use of the word neo-Darwinism from the article Modern synthesis, and while some editors have repeatedly put it back into the intro there, on the grounds that the article gets redirects from neo-Darwinism, it has just been removed again. I think you agree that the term is used very frequently to refer to current theory do you not (the evo devo article is just one example). Surely then, it is wrong to exclude all attempts to define it other than as historical, on the grounds that it is an 'obnoxious' term used by creationists! I made several attempts in modern synthesis to explain the term, but got nothing but abuse. Hence my attempt to separate it out and get it discussed properly. --Memestream 13:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DaveSouza: Thanks for the supporting vote to keep, and you are welcome to rewrite, but I think you too are missing something in that your quoted source equates modern useage with reference to the modern synthesis, and I don't think that is usually so. Rather I think modern useage reflects the need for a term that refers to CURRENT ideas or the current theory, whatever that is perceived to be, as distinct from the modern synthesis, which they regard as historical and not quite what they mean to refer to. If you look at the examples of useage on the wiki pages that link here (see above) I suggest that only one regards the terms as meaning 'modern synthesis' while several use it to refer to 'modern theories' in the plural. There is certainly a need for such a term. It's very hard to write about current ideas without calling them Neo-Darwinian, partly because there is no adjectival form of 'modernsynthetical' and partly because the synthesis is a cut and dried historical fact, at least to many, and not work in progress. --Memestream 13:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there is more to this issue than meets the eye. I will explore to see if I can get a better grip (hee, heee-no pun intended). Get use to the abuse that is just a granted around here. If you are not making headway in other articles then you need to rally other sympathetic editors in your defense. I have been attacked a few times and accused of being a creationist sympathizer once (weird feeling and utterly frustrating). It is difficult to fix a problem if no one admits there is one or there is resistance because of what borders as a pathologic fear (sorry guys I empathize but I don't want to be manipulated by creationist fears so we lose NPOV). I can see you are frustrated (and well warranted!), perhaps it is time for a break and you can work on Evo-devo hint, hint. Like I say I see the rudiments of an article, perhaps the epigenetics article would offer a framework to address the issue. A survey of the literature does indicate an ambiguity of the term modern synthesis so it a historical fact and perhaps still ongoing. If there is no consensus in the literature it will be difficult to create one. I don't know if an encyclopedia is the forum to address the issue. Let me read up before I remove my foot from my mouth and it ends up in my ass. GetAgrippa 14:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memestream, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Please find some alternative papers or reviews that discuss what the term means. Tim Vickers 16:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Eugenics - Why is there no readily recognisable disscusion on 'Social Darwinism' and neo-Darwinism that sometimes easily get confuse/conflated in popular use, feminist, sociological and political discussion. And I suggest we need to detail or outline the historical link between the two areas; the science and the social philosophy and politics. I understand the desire to keep clear of any suggestion of racism or eugenics in modern geneticists, clinical and agricultural sciences and beyond for personal, practical and politically sensitive reasons; but if anywhere should discuss and clear this up, the article should. A 'see also' link to the social darwinism article might be woefully inadequate, and 'not to be confused with' will not suffice, but either or both might be rationally considered the very least appropriate. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_eugenics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacism https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=sHXEBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122&lpg=PA122&dq=neodarwinian+racist+eugenicist&source=bl&ots=t7Sb3rLC-w&sig=v6EQJlZwGfpIuyR3eGbIStgZe1w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CEAQ6AEwBmoVChMIlsngiPPTyAIVSJyACh3mWAUf#v=onepage&q=neodarwinian%20racist%20eugenicist&f=false http://www.19.bbk.ac.uk/articles/10.16995/ntn.583/ Kathybramley (talk) 16:10, 21 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This article was a redirect for well over three years. Then the following material was added on September 18, 2007. Here's what I removed. ... Kenosis 21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

==Why 'Neo'-Darwinism==

{{Original research}}

There is no one theory of Neo-Darwinism. The term is commonly used to refer to currently accepted mainstream ideas about evolution [3] [4][5]^{[failed verification]}, which cannot properly be called 'Darwinian' since Darwin's hypothesis regarding the origin of the variation necessary for natural selection, which he called Pangenesis, is no longer accepted by most geneticists.

Darwin recognised several problems with his theory, which he was unable to solve. In 1859, when his seminal book The Origin of Species was published, nothing was known of DNA or genes, and very little about cell biology. He could not conceive of Mutation which is now considered to be the source of novel material in the evolutionary process. His theory of Pangenesis, which he published in The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, hypothesised that Gemmules, his imagined forerunners of genes, carried information to the next generation by accumulating in the germinal cells or zygotes and that they changed in response to use or disuse of the organs from which they were thrown off. Though Darwin did not acknowledge any debt to Lamarck, this was essentially a form a Lamarckism, now rejected by most mainstream scientists.

Despite the title of his book The Origin of Species Darwin did not explain speciation, and he recognised a problem. For natural selection to produce adaptive evolution, he considered that the changes in individual organisms that were the material for selection had to be small. Only then could successive generations move towards an optimum state for any trait. If the changes, whatever their origin, were too large, then they would constantly 'overshoot' the desirable optimum, producing offspring that were forever badly adapted. This requirement for small change or Gradualism seemed destined to lead to stabilising selection, which was inconsistent with the observed fact that different species have somehow broken away and become very different from each other.

Darwin also assumed that characteristics were the result of 'blending inheritance'; the mixing of contributions of both parents. In his book The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication, he presents abundant evidence from animal and plant breeders, as well as common experience with human offspring, suggesting that in general some sort of average of the two parents was produced, though he recognised sports or throwbacks as the exception that was to him a mystery. He could not see how such blending might lead to anything other than the gradual dilution of variation, to the point of eventual elimination, which conflicted with the possibility of speciation. -->

== History and Useage ==

The Ukranian I. I. Schmalhausen used the term in his seminal work Factors in Evolution which his colleague Theodosius Dobzhansky, described by Steven J. Gould as the central contributor to the modern evolutionary synthesis described as very important to the synthesis. He says, (p175) "The Lamarckians based their theory on the premise of an already existing individual adaptability and did not examine its origin while the Neo-Darwinians regarded it as unimportant since they assumed that the results of individual adaptability, being non-inheritable, have no evolutionary value." He also says, (p198), "Unfortunately, the more recent advances of genetics have promoted the spread of neo-Darwinian concepts. Morover, adaptive modifications generally have not been accorded any place among the factors of evolution."

The widely used school textbook Biology a Functional Approach says: "The Darwinian theory reappraised in terms of modern genetics is sometimes called neo-Darwinism."

Richard Dawkins uses the term to when referring to current ideas, saying "that idea means quite a complicated mixture of things" but does not explicitly distinguish it from the ideas of the modern synthesis [6].

Steven J. Gould, one of the most published evolutionary theorists of modern times, used the term neo-Darwinism frequently [7].

Creationist articles often refer to the term neo-Darwinism, a fact that has led some people to conclude that the term is an invention of the creationist movement, or in some way associated with creationist ideas. That this is not so is apparent from the readily traceable history of the term, which goes back to the nineteenth century. It is usually used quite properly by creationists, who need a proper name for the current theory they wish to criticise. To refer to the current theory of evolution, which like all scientific theories must always be open to criticism, as the modern evolutionary synthesis would not only be clumsy, but it would be inaccurate, evolutionary theory having moved on somewhat since the historical synthesis of the 1930's.

== The Modern Synthesis ==

Following a period of great turmoil and argument around the start of the twentieth century, scientists from the various disciplines of systematics, population genetics and the newly developing cell biology and genetics attempted to solve these problems. The debate, triggered by William Bateson reached a peak in the 1930's and 1940's and its outcome, summed up in Julian Huxley's Evolution, the Modern Synthesis in 1942 became known as the modern evolutionary synthesis.

== Disagreement over the term ==

There is much confusion currently over the term Neo-Darwinism. Some see it as a pejorative term invented by the Creationist movement, apparently unnaware of it's current widespread use by mainstream scientists such as Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins, as well as its early origins in the nineteenth century. Some, especially in the creationist movement, confuse the issue totally by suggesting that the modern synthesis is something much more modern than it really is (for example 'invented by Futuyma') [8]. Others regard it as a historical curiosity, belonging only to the nineteenth century, but succeeded by the Modern evolutionary synthesis. Many, including Richard Dawkins, use the term to mean 'theory that came out of the modern synthesis' [9]. That Neo-Darwinism does not mean the same as 'the modern synthesis' is apparent from the fact that the term existed before the period of the synthesis, and was used during the development of the synthesis.^[1] In modern use, the term is useful as a way of referring to current ideas without necessarily restricting them to the historical consensus arrived at some seventy years ago which strictly speaking constitute what is known as 'the modern synthesis'.

21:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

There are some scientifically valid reasons to keep the attention to the historical meaning of Neo-Darwinism well defined. First, Mayr and Gould-- perhaps the most historically-minded and prolific of the biologists who established the terms in which we critically inspect the Evolutionary Synthesis-- were not interested in late-19th century evolutionary theory per se. They were, however, interested in what pre-Mendelian theorists had produced that other post-Synthesis did not consider. In the article as it stands now, for example, Gould is cited as an authority who tells us that the question was whether or not Wallace's strict Darwinism (panselectionism) could explain speciation. According to Romanes writing in 1895, this was not so. Rather, the problem in play was adaptation. In short, Mayr and Gould should not be taken as neutral or even the most careful of historians. Second, the conflation of 19th-century Neo-Darwinism with the panselectionism of a Synthesis-era Darwinian like R. A. Fisher are very, very different things. The discovery of Mendel's idea and the development of theoretical population genetics as a way to represent all of evolution in genetic models has no possible analogue in the 1890s moment. So to argue that the panselectionism of Wallace and Fisher are equivalent is to also to leave the Darwinism of the Evolutionary Synthesis uninspected. The modern scientific articles cited suggest that working biologists miss the point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BaldwinEffect (talk • contribs) 03:26, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article states:

“

Although some scientists continue to refer to modern evolutionary theory as "Neo-Darwinian", this is technically incorrect.

”

However, neither citation for its incorrectness is readably available online, there is no explanation as to why it is "technically incorrect", nor is there any explanation as to the difference between "Neo-Darwinian" & "Neo-Darwinism". This is more than a little annoying. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 09:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the best citations, such as books, are not readable online. Yes, it's annoying. Note that this sentence was not in my original article. --Memestream 12:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was not my point Memestream (and I don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys whose sentence it is). My point was that baldly stating that it is "incorrect" without offering any intimation why (either directly, or through an easily accessible citation) is annoying and uninformative. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant parts of the citations are: From citation (1) p260

"3. Synthetic theory - This novel system of hypotheses for evolutionary processes originated between 1937 and 1950 (Mayr 1982). In contrast to Weismann’s (1892) and Wallace’s (1889) neo- Darwinian concept, the synthetic theory incorporated facts from such fields as genetics, systematics, and paleontology. Hence, the term “neo-Darwinian theory” should not be confused with the “synthetic theory” (or the phrase “neo-Darwinian synthesis”; see Mayr 1991; Reif et al. 2000; Junker 2004)."

From citation (6) p146

"Furthermore, the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."'

Hope this helps. If anybody wishes to have a Pdf of the first citation e-mail me. I can only access the non-copyable text of the second, since it is in JSTOR. Tim Vickers 16:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the second quote to the article to avoid this confusion in the future. Tim Vickers 16:05, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

To properly contrast the correct use of "Neo-Darwinian" versus "Neo-Darwinism", I think we need to clearly delineate whose theory each applies to (the Mayr quote only delineates "Neo-Darwinism", also it needs some word(s) such as "using" or "use of" at the front of it to make semantic sense) & how those theories differ. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:17, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this lack of context is why I think making this a section in the History of evolutionary thought article would be the best option. Tim Vickers 17:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That might be best. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:45, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It might even be worth while producing a "glossary" section at the end of that article providing a summary/contrast of what all the terms ("Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinism", "Neo-Darwinian", "Modern Synthesis", etc) mean. They are frequently used more or less interchangeably in the political debate, leading to a blurred impression of their meaning. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Newcomers, and those assessing the request for deletion, should note that the article as it now stands is nothing like the one I wrote and defended.

I will not revert, as I wanted to give Tim and others an chance, but I want to say that I sincerely believe it is now very very wrong. In response to TimVicker's friendly approach on my talk page, I have written a long reply there on what I call the problem of 'semantic inversion'. I believe that the problems on this page arise because some secondary sources have taken material out of context, for example taking George Romanes use of the term in a sense that he did not intend. This is a very real problem of spreading 'bad memes' and, as I have tried to explain on my talk, not about pushing POV. I suggest there that 'authoritative sources' have to be filtered, by wikipedia editors, for this semantic error, to which they are prone, because their writers do not always have the in-depth overview that is needed to avoid falling into the trap. Other editors might like to read what I wrote there and reconsider. I am interested to know whether others can understand what I am saying regarding 'semantic inversion' there, and my hope is that if they do they might start to see this page (and others like Evolution) in a whole new light. Please don't quote OR or POV or such things at me glibbly. I do understand the rules, so far as they go, and am not out to break them deliberately or create a war. I hope my explanation goes deeper, showing that the rules need more careful interpretation if Wikipedia is to become a high quality source rather than just a powerful amplifier of other's miconceptions. --Memestream 11:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to say that you don't understand the rules, but I'm pretty sure that you and I don't understand them in the same way. ;-) My understanding is that Wikipedia aims to dispassionately reflect what the "reliable sources" tell. If it turns out that every source is wrong because they commit what you consider a semantic error, that's too bad. We have to write what they say, and when the best sources change, update the article accordingly. You could write articles about this semantic inversion for reputable journals on biology education, history and philosophy of science, etc. and then we could cite them. But Wikipedia can't be the first place to publish your research that proves that everyone else is wrong. That's my interpretation of the OR policy. --Itub 11:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I anticipated that I might get a reply like that, Itub, but suggest to you that it isn't that simple. What if two sources 'get it wrong' and one seems to get it right according to primary sources. Is it OR to judge the secondary sources for their cogency in terms of primary sources, and select the one source to quote, perhaps commenting on why the sources might actually be wrong. I think not, though we must proceed carefully and openly, and I think that the rules on OR, when they refer to 'source based research' allow some room for this. Citing sources is good, but there is a danger that some editors, in crying out for citations from other encyclopedic sources, are dragging down good articles. In this case I'd be happy to see comments that 'some sources are inconsistent' but in the end Wiki-editors do have to use judgement and debate.

I could, and might write an article for Wikipedia on this (there are many 'essay' articles). It's interesting that you suggest that I write in journals, because I suspect such articles, while they could be used to support my case for the 'semantic error' on my talk page, would still not help in editing the article. Journals, in general, don't suffer from the error so much, it's the secondary sources. How do you improve the secondary sources? Perhaps they should be talking to us, here? Or perhaps there is a case for us trying to do a bit better than the secondary sources, by just being a bit more careful in how we phrase things, after all, we are not here to just cut and paste from encyclopedias, are we. I think there is such a case, and that it can be done within the rules. Do you understand what I am saying about 'semantic inversion'. If so, do you see that this, in itself, is not OR, or my theory, it's proper use of language in relation to thought, as studied by experts in semantics, and as such applicable to us all when we use language. If I can get you to see that, and apply it to your editing of articles, I suggest that I am not pushing a POV, I'm just working towards better understanding, and that once you see that some stuff is simply wrong, because of semantic errors, then you will see that you are quite entitled to try to correct the error, just as you are entitled to correct the grammar. --Memestream 12:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if the primary source said that the atomic weight of chlorine is 35.45 and you have one secondary source that says 35.45 and another that said 35.54, you could discount the latter as a typo. But with the use of language things are more subjective. You are saying that a certain interpretation of a statement by Romanes is not "what he really meant". How are we going to decide that without falling into original analysis and interpretation? Something similar happens when looking at how Dawkins or Gould use the term. They often use it in passing, without defining it explicitly. We could certainly quote the definitions they give, but making an analysis of how they use it is OR. This is the same problem discussed in the guidelines about neologisms (WP:NEO), which I think have some applicability here, despite neo-Darwinism not being a neologism. A relevant part of the guideline is "we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term—not books and papers that use the term."

I think I understand your idea of semantic inversion, but in my opinion it amounts to hairsplitting that is not useful in an article about science. That's why (or because?) I'm a scientist and not a philosopher or linguist. Yes, "evolution" can refer both to the object/phenomenon being studied and to the theories that are used to explain it. And as Filll pointed out to you before, the same happens with terms such as radioactivity, relativity, electromagnetism, and quantization. But that doesn't mean we need to waste half of the introduction to the article on fine semantic distinctions and history. It is perfectly normal in science to have the ideas about the phenomenon itself intertwined with the theories about it, and that doesn't cause a problem in my opinion. As an example, how can you discuss the atom as an object without involving some atomic theory?

Back to the Neo-Darwinism article, I'm not completely happy with either version. The new one still has unverified claims, and reflects a bit the paranoid reaction that some people here have when they see the term. But still, I think I like it better, as the old one had parts (especially "Why Neo-Darwinism?") that read like an essay.

I suggest you write for a journal because a peer-reviewed article specific to this topic, whether you call it secondary or not, would certainly be an excellent source to cite. I suggest the working title "The history and usage of the term 'Neo-Darwinism'". Since you have researched this topic "harder than anyone on the planet", getting it published should be easy. :-) --Itub 13:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is hardly surprising that the rewrite is nothing like the original. The original was almost purely unsourced, or cited to sources that were ludicrously unreliable. It appeared to spring Athena-like from Memestream's head. If they want something resembling the original to find its way back into the article then they'll have to find WP:RSs for that view. Otherwise we will quite simply go with the view that is sourced. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 15:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to be more specific before calling my sources 'ludicrously unreliable'. Some are primary sources, and I accept the special care needed when using primary sources so as not to do OR, but I did cite Britannica online which says, "Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics". That's along way from 'mostly historical'. Is that not a good source? Likewise many others. --Memestream 16:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I already have been SPECIFIC. All these are already listed above: an ID group with notoriously low editorial standards, the 'entrance' page of a bookstore website & "a discussion/debate site by teens, for teens". Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 17:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi iTub: Don't take that last claim too seriously, I just meant it's getting to feel like that. :-) Perhaps I should start using these smily things!

I wrote my original article in some haste, and I would agree with you now about "reads like an essay", and I am not sure about the section on useage. I can't agree that I'm splitting hairs over the semantic issue though.

Let's take that sentence about Romanes that you raise above. I am not saying that the sentence is "not what he really meant" I'm saying that it is not necessarily what he meant, and more importantly, that the sentence does not reflect the evidence available, but adds to it by making it specific. Romanes coined the term and used it when referring to Weissman/Wallace theory: that I accept from evidence. Will I accept that Romanes coined the term to mean the theory of Weissman/Wallace? No way, because I don't think he did. It's not splitting hairs, its vital and just careful use of language.

What I say is let's be very careful to phrase everything on Wikipedia so that it adds nothing in the way of limitation, and be particularly aware of the semantic traps. Be aware, in other words, that by the simple rules of language and semantics, which we all intuitively use, if often sloppily, the fact that Romanes used the term when referring to the Weissman/Wallace theory COULD be because that use constituted ONE valid use, with reference to ONE theory, as part of a HIGHER inclusive category of 'new-Darwinian-like theories' covered by the term Neo-Darwinism. Similarly with Dawkins, I do not know absolutely what he would tell me the term means, and I observe that it is hard to deduce from his use exactly what he does think it means, but I do know for sure that he does not mean to refer to the Weissman/Wallace theory as such because to assume that he does would turn much of what he says into nonsense.

I might have a go at editing the new version now. First sentence fine, no problem. Second sentence, NO WAY, because as soon as you say "it's useage is mainly historical" you make a definite statement implying that it is little used today, and that is, as I see the evidence, the very opposite of the truth. The latter part of the sentence about Mendel etc is fine. Third sentence: "The term was first coined by Romanes" - so far so good - "to refer to the idea that evolution occurs solely through natural selection" - NO WAY! "To refer to" carries added meaning, especial in the context of "first used" because it implies that he MEANT it to refer ONLY to that theory, and we have no evidence for that. I think if he were alive today he would still be using it, but he would not be referring to Wallace any more, he would be using it in the same way he used it back then, to refer to any new-Darwinian-like theory. How do I know that for sure? I don't, but I do know that to consider it a 'higher incorporating category' as I do, is to make sense of both his useage and other useage, so lets be very careful not to suggest that he meant it in a more specific way than he perhaps/probably did, when we have absolutely no evidence of the specific intent.

Further on, the statement "Weismann's demonstration that the gonads were separated from all other body tissues" gives me big problems. Firstly, it's important to use the exact words Weissman used, and I don't think gonads comes into it (my gonads are most certainly not separated from the rest of my body tissue - YET I here you say:-) Yes Weismann worked on cells and made a suggestion which came to be known as the Weissman Barrier, in relation to germ-cells and somatic cells. I've made many corrections in this regard on other pages where there was a tendency to confuse the Weismann barrier with Crick's central dogma of biology. The latter talks of DNA to RNA, not somatic to germ cells, and those who understand know well that these are quite different things. Elsewhere, in Pangenesis and Gemmules I've corrected statements that Darwin thought gemmules travelled in the bloodstream, and referred to Darwins detailed denial in a Nature article which I found reproduced in facsimile online. Orginal research? No, think I am quite entitled to stop what amounts to libel of Darwin (or would if he were around) by use of his words in a primary source). I hope you agree.

You point to Filll's examples of radioactivity, relativity, electromagnetism, and quantization, which I did not respond to before. They are interesting. Is radioactivity the study or theory of radioactivity. I would say NO, it's the phonomenon, and, significantly, there is no article on Radioactivity as it redirects to Radioactive decay, which starts with a definition as process which I am fairly happy with (though I might be tempted to insert 'thought to decay' to emphasise that science is 'work in progress'. I would also want to emphasise that radioactivity was first known by its effects (like killing Mme Curie after fogging her plates) long before it was understood as any sort or process.

Relativity doesn't have an article either! Have I discovered a tendency for 'semantic inversion' to exist alongside non-ideal redirects? There's a page on Theory of relativity which corectly limits itself to the theory. I might be tempted to make a page on Relativity that started something like "Relativity is the manner in which objects relate to one another in space and time, without space or time being the fixed phenomena that we imagine them to be according to everyday Newtonian understanding." In other words, it's a FACT supported now by observations, regardless of theory. Interestingly, that FACT existed before Einstein, and gave rise to inexplicable results in solar calculations - we didn't need the theory for relativity to exist.

Electromagnetism gets it wrong too, starting with "is the physics of". So look up Physics and you read "is the science of matter". It's all wrong! Electromagnetism was observed before there was any science about it, and today the theory of electromagnetism is every bit as controversial as that of Evolution, being very much tied in with relativity and the current dilemma over the massive imaginary construct of string theory.

So there, I don't think any of those pages get it right, and they are all the worse for it! Regards --Memestream 16:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memestream, you seem to place pedantic correctness ahead of common sense. Relativity is a perfectly good disambiguation page that points to articles on many common usages of the term including principle of relativity which describes what you are talking about. More importantly just because a term was originally used to mean one thing does not mean it can not come to have other usages. Nor does the fact that Ernst Mayr or anyone else doesn't like one of the new usages make it incorrect if it is common enough. The original longer version of this article was way too POV, but I can live with the shorter version as long as the following are done. 1) The wording is made a little more NPOV so that is says that "some people have said that the using the term neo-Darwinsim for the ideas of the modern synthesis is incorrect because..." rather than "the usage of the term neo-Darwinsm for the ideas of the modern synthesis is incorrect" as the usage is far too common and the sources too much in conflict for us just to declare the usage incorrect. The wording on the creationists usage needs to be made a little more NPOV also (something like: Creationists frequently use neo-Darwinsim as a pejorative term for all modern evolutionary theory.) 2) The modern evolutionary synthesis needs to have a link back to this one. Something like "Some people have used the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the ideas of the modern synthesis." I think that would address all the concenrs in a practical workable manner. Rusty Cashman 22:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have made an attempt to address the POV concerns. Rusty Cashman 00:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"It's usage is mainly historical, since modern evolutionary theory includes many ideas, notably Mendellian genetics and genetic drift, which are not found in Darwin's work.[1]" This sentence is surely gibberish, is it not? Firstly it's use is not mainly historical, though it has been used in the past. Secondly, the reference to genetic drift etc is a quote taken out of context (re Romanes), which could equally be used to say that it is modern. I'll change it. --Lindosland 11:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've made some changes to correct inaccuracies regarding Weismann. I must also point out that the statement about the modern synthesis arising after 1950 is quite wrong, it was over by then, having started in the 1930's. I'm afraid that enthusiasm for the use of respectable citations can perpetuate, or introduce through word changes, errors which anyone with a knowledge of the field would never make. Don't take my word for it, just look at modern evolutionary synthesis. Also, the reference to 'panselectionist followers of Fisher' is very strange, since Fisher, though his maths is regarded as central to the synthesis, was by no means the only player, or the major one. In Wikipedia panselectionism redirects to a page that makes no mention of Fisher! --Lindosland 12:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do not claim to have provided citations for the changes I have made. These can be added later, but I feel it would be good to get some agreement here on the facts first.--Lindosland 12:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lest there is any question over the source of the Dawkins video I have put back in ext links, Dawkins own video page links to Google as a convenient host for his video's - it is official. --Lindosland 13:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No. That's not how we are going to proceed. Provide reliable sources here and then we can discuss adding what the sources say to the article. Tim Vickers 14:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

'Cut and paste' editing is not how Wikipedia normally works in my experience. Nor is it normal for an editor to 'lay down the law' on how a page proceeds, especially on an immature page that does not have a long history of consensus. I'm not looking for a fight, Tim, and as far as I can see you have accepted many of my changes, which is good, from which I might have expected you to grant that I have a point about lifting sentences from sources out of context. --Lindosland 14:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be against the inclusion any reference to frequent current use by scientists of the term. Is that right? If not, what sort of citation would you consider necessary. I would like to cite the online video by Dawkins and the online text of an excellent lecture by Gould, both of which I have put in external links. They are primary sources, which seems very appropriate to me in this instance, or are you going to insist that this is OR. If the latter, I think this is a very extreme and peculiar use of the term OR. --Lindosland 14:22, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not commented on my assertion that later statements, such as that the modern synthesis took effect from 1950, are wrong. I want to say that the term has been used by many people since Romanes, and I have a whole lot of primary sources to demonstrate this. Are you really going to stop me doing that on grounds of OR? If so, you will make these articles very much the poorer. It is clear to me that using primary sources to justify a claim is not OR unless by the juxtaposition of the sources I am providing evidence for a novel conclusion. I am doing nothing of the sort, as can clearly be demonstated by reference to pages of Wikipedia, like modern synthesis. I suggest that you must provide evidence of a novel claim, not just demand secondary sources that say exactly what I am saying. That's 'cut and paste' editing, and we have had more than enough demonstration here of the nonsense that can lead to - especially when an editor decides to replace 'germ cell' with 'gonads'! --Lindosland 14:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"solely through natural selection of inherited characteristics, as proposed by Alfred Russel Wallace and August Weismann". But that's exactly Darwin's theory!! Another example of the 'cut and paste' problem. I've changed it to reflect the difference. I was tempted to put "of random changes in inherited characteristics, but there are problems with that, as it so much more complicated. --Lindosland 15:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What you need are reliable sources explicitly discussing the meaning of the term and preferably contrasting it with other terms to make the distinctions clear. As we have discussed before, Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources. Please read the policy. You can't use quotes from an individual using a term to make any statement about how commonly a term is used. For example, I could find a modern quote of somebody saying "egad", but to go from such a quote to any statement about the frequency of use of this term in modern English would be original research.

The relevant part of the source I an citing for when the modern synthesis was developed states:

"Synthetic theory - This novel system of hypotheses for evolutionary processes originated between 1937 and 1950 (Mayr 1982)."

From Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (6): 255–76. PMID 15241603.

What reliable source do you have that contradicts this? Tim Vickers 15:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with this source, but a big objection to the way you keep misrepresenting sources through grammatical and semantic errors in your own rephrasing of them. The article says, "Since about 1950 the modern evolutionary synthesis was developed,..." Firstly this is grammatically horrible, as you can't say 'since', and follow it with 'was developed' because it was developed before 1950. "Since about 1950, when the modern synthesis reached it's completion" would be fine (except that use of the term neo-Darwinism to refer to the synthesis didn't just start on 'completion' of the synthesis (there was no such completion anyway) it was ongoing. Quite simply the synthesis was not developed after 1950, and the article doesn't say it was, it says it originated between 1937 and 1950 which I agree with! --Lindosland 17:09, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, I have no problem with the essence of the quote regarding Erst Mayr's comment, but it was made some time ago, when Romanes reference had more relevance, and must not be taken out of context to suggest criticism of modern use by Dawkins Gould etc today. I've changed this slightly. --Lindosland 17:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no 'pejorative' use in any of the quotes in the item you cite. The quotes use it correctly, and often even define it correctly. They use it in their explanation of why they oppose it, but that is not pejorative use. If you want to say that "anti-creationists sometimes use it pejoritively in the belief that it's somehow a term defiled by association with creationist sites", then I'm with you. I would add that "both creationists, and scientists use the term widely, to refer to the latest ideas incorporating the modern synthesis". I think I'll put that up and hope we can agree. If you do, then as far as I'm concerned we are there, and have a bloody good page! --Lindosland 17:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Before you object any more to the idea of current use Tim, I'd like to suggest that your cite supposedly in support of pejorative use is a primary source in that I don't think is literally says anywhere what you are saying, and you have made a wrong deduction. It's a perfectly good cite, applied to the text as I have altered it, and would be balanced by a primary source cite alongside it regarding use by scientists - I suggest the Gould lecture. --Lindosland 17:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The text on pejorative usage isn't mine, that was added by dave souza. I don't think noting what creationists talk about is very important, so I simply removed this sentence. As to saying that some people say it is incorrect to use "neo-Darwinian" as a synonym for modern evolutionary theory, the two sources I cite for this (the ones I quoted from above) are from 2000 and 2004. I don't think the situation will have changed much in three years, so the "(at the time)" qualifier is unnecessary. Tim Vickers 22:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The bits I added were backed up by TalkOrigins Archive citations, which iirc have been removed. No big deal. .. dave souza, talk 22:58, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think you've missed the point Tim. You've presented the material out of context. Yes, the article is up to date, but the reference was to a statement long ago! Do you have any objections to the following citations being used in support of current useage?

Farlex encyclopedia, which opens with, "Modern theory of evolution, built up since the 1930s by integrating the 19th-century English scientist Charles Darwin's theory of evolution through natural selection with the theory of genetic inheritance founded on the work of the Austrian biologist Gregor Mendel".[10]

Britanicca online says: "Theory of evolution that represents a synthesis of Charles Darwin's theory in terms of natural selection and modern population genetics."[11] --Lindosland 23:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Molwikpedia says: "Theory of evolution and human origin derived from Darwinism which, supported by scientific advances in cytology, biochemistry, genetics, etc. denounces the influence of the environment on the evolution of the species, and the heredity of acquired characters.... Other theoris of evolution and human origin are Synthetic Theory (Dobzhandsdy, Mayr and Simpson), Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Eldredge and Gould) and Neutralism Theory (Larmore and Rawls)." [12]

No, non-peer reviewed unsigned articles in general encyclopaedias and Wikis cannot be used to contradict academic reviews. That would be giving undue weight to non-expert opinion. The 2004 review states clearly (read the quote above) that using this term in 2004 to mean the modern synthesis is incorrect. However, you could use the encyclopaedia references to support a statement that "Some scientists and popular publications such as the Encyclopaedia Britanicca use this term.." Might this solve our problem? Tim Vickers 23:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It certainly helps and I'd go with that. I also offer then, a book, by a well known author I consider of good standing:

"Evolution" a book by Mark Ridley, says: "The image opposite is of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), painted in 1840. His insights are still essential to neo-Darwinism as practised today." - A clear statement by a well respected writer on evolution that neo-Darwinism 'is indeed practised today'. [13] --Lindosland 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You say 'cannot be used to contradict acedemic reviews, but I do not believe that I am trying to contradict those reviews. They say 'it was used historically' I believe. That is not the same as saying 'only historically'. I'm saying that it is used currently too (which I happen to believe is the major use, which is why I'm trying hard here). --Lindosland 23:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've formatted those refs and removed the citation of the astronomer Fred Hoyle (although he was a prominent figure he was, to be perfectly frank a crank who gave his name to a huge variety of outlandish and wrong ideas) Anyway, citing a physicist isn't needed in a biology article if you are already citing Gould and Dawkins. The website about Ridley's book may not have been written by him, indeed it probably wasn't, so I reworded this to the "academic publishers Blackwell Publishing". I'm OK with this version. Tim Vickers 00:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I must object to your POV view of Fred Hoyle. He was a heretic, but he was knighted and got the next best thing to a Nobel prize, and many honours. I think that calls for a lot of respect. There is nothing wrong with outlandish and wrong ideas in science, it proceeds by them. Darwin's Pangenesis could be called wrong and outlandish, as could Weismann's germ plasm theory which was complex and bizarre. Finally, Hoyle was not just a physicist and astronomer. I attended a lecture by him at university on his panspermia theory of evolution, also presented at the Royal Institution. If they let him in, it's not for Wikipedia to trash him.

Your sentence "scientists like the publishers" seems ridiculous to me. You are not prepared to give a man who got high awards in science the time of day, but you are happy to call Blackwell publishers 'scientists'. You have a very strange POV about science Tim. --Lindosland 10:35, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hrafn: Hoyle was cited as a major scientist who used the term. He doesn't have to be a major figure in evolutionary biology (though I might claim he was as he had a major theory that is still discussed). He was a top scientist, a Fellow of the Royal Society (one of the most respected and ancient institutions in science), and knighted by our queen. Have some respect! --Lindosland 11:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've reworded the sentence you found problematic. Tim Vickers 15:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindosland: As I said, Hoyle is not a major figure in evolutionary biology. "Neo-Darwinism" is a term in evolutionary biology. Therefore his opinion holds no weight on the subject. And no, he did not have a "major theory" -- he had a hypothesis which, he never researched. Additionally neither panspermia nor its main rival abiogenesis are part of the field of evolutionary biology, as both are concerned with the stage of life immediately before evolution started to occur. Hrafn^Talk_Stalk 16:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "eccentric genius" fits Hoyle perfectly. His astrophysics was superb, but his biology was dreadful. A famous, perceptive and influential scientist, but not one to quote as an authority in the biological sciences. Tim Vickers 17:25, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Who's quoting him as an authority. Personally I'm not sure I count anyone as an authority in this difficult ongoing subject, and I think that's a good way to be. I simply quoted Hoyle as an example of a scientist who used the term, and I think the fact that he was on the fringe of accepted theory makes it a better quote when added to the others for balance, I'd quote a creationist if I didn't think you'd go berserk; not to stir, not because I think they are right, but because they are major users of the term. By the way, Hoyle did write the 'mathematics of evolution' and was said to have penetrated deeply into population genetics [14]. I've not read his work, and I'm not saying it has any merit necessarily, but I have studied Fisher (which is more than Ernst Mayr and Dobzhanski ever did), and I happen to think he got it wrong. Not that any of that is relevant - we're not here to discuss the truth, as I say, Hoyle was a scientist beyond dispute, and he used the term, beyond dispute. --Lindosland 21:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Punctuated equilibrium is a theory of evolution inasmuch as it is a theory and relates to evolution. Taken with other ideas expressed by Gould it leads to an overall theory in which the balance is shifted to multi-level selection, just as Dawkins theory leads to ultimate reductionism. This is all part of current theory. Only a fool would regard the modern synthesis as the ultimate fixed explanation of evolution. I wish you would accept a broader viewpoint on these pages. --Lindosland 22:02, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed an incorrect assertion that punctuated equilibrium and "neutralism" are "theories of evolution and human origin" that was copied from an unreliable source. Punctuated equilibrium is not a theory of evolution in the same sense as the neo-Darwinian theory or the Modern Synthesis. It deals with the specific aspect of the rate and tempo of evolutionary change and has little to do with human origins any more then the origins of any other species. The "neutral theory" of Charles Larmore and John Rawls is actually about liberal politics and the philosophy of government, (link) and has nothing to do with evolution at all. I'm surprised anybody could take a website like that seriously. This article should focus on the term neo-Darwinian, rather than making completely inaccurate digressions into unrelated topics. Tim Vickers 22:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm surprised that an editor would make such bold allegations without at least looking up the term on wikipedia first and realising that he just didn't know enough. Take a look at Neutral theory of molecular evolution by Kimura, an offshoot of the modern synthesis. I make no claims for the status of websites, I judge the accuracy of their content. --Lindosland 12:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You copied and pasted the text "Other theories of evolution and human origin...are Punctuated Equilibrium Theory (Eldredge and Gould) and Neutralism Theory (Larmore and Rawls)."" from this website. The neutral theory of molecular evolution has nothing to do with the two philosophers that are cited. Try putting "Larmore Rawls neutral" into Google you get these hits. (link). This is simply nonsense. Please do not copy text from websites you cannot verify and do not understand. Tim Vickers 15:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, that was a lousy website, but I knew there was a 'neutral theory' of evolution and you might have just pointed out that they had the wrong names and sought to put the matter right by finding a better cite if you must demand a cite for every sentence entered! You seem intent only on reducing this page to the very bare minimum by obstructing rather than cooperating in building it. --Lindosland 17:06, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of this page is to give the background of the various uses of the term neo-Darwinism over the years. One of those uses happens to be to refer to the ideas of the modern evolutionary synthesis. That doesn't make this the right place to discuss alterations to or exentensions of the synthesis. The is History of evolutionary thought were it infact is discussed.Rusty Cashman 17:40, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please be clear that I regard neo-Darwinism as primarily THE term used by EXPERTS to refer to the modern theory of evolution. It has a history, with specific meanings at certain times, but overwhelmingly it is the term used today by experts to refer to current theory. This is so 'blindingly obvious' that it can only be deduced from primary sources demonstrating useage. Secondary sources of high quality do not bother to define it. Assuming I am right, then this page must become the main page receiving redirects from 'theory of evolution' and similar. Modern synthesis must be stripped down to the historical meaning of that term (with a proviso that some consider the synthesis ongoing), and much material from modern synthesis and Evolution must be moved to this article. Evolution must be turned into a much broader page covering social evolution as well, and describing the fact of evolution primarily, and how establishing this was Darwin's main achievement, as he remained puzzled by the source of variation, but linking to neo-Darwinism for the mechanism as now best understood. Finally, having got away from the limited landmark of the 'modern synthesis' we must include under neo-Darwinism modern ideas that have advanced us beyond the synthesis, and explain that it is very much still a subject for debate among experts. Explaining, for example how epigenetics, the threat to Weismann's barrier by the discovery of reverse-transcription, and other current developments have caused many scientists to pause for thought. Only with such a proper, honest, and open approach can we expect creationists and newcomers to take evolutionary biology more seriously, as work in progress with much still to be solved, rather than arrogant 'fait accompli'. The polarisation that has taken place in the US between creationists and anti-creationists should not be allowed to turn these pages into a dogmatic defence of Evolutionary theory.--Lindosland 16:14, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

By the way. Since I restored this page, and since it is up for deletion, do you not think it should be allowed to express my understanding of the matter, so that it is my case for it's existence that is being judged. If the purpose of this page was, as you say, 'to give a background to various uses over the years, I would never have restored it, I would simply have written on history of evolutionary thought. Please see discussion at wikipedia:verifiability for a discussion where I have been told that if I define the term (as 'the modern theory of evolution) the burden of proof is on other editors if they wish to say otherwise. In other words, show me a secondary source that says 'the term neo-Darwinism is not in current use' or 'not used by current scientists'. --Lindosland 16:22, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What part of ""Verifiable" in this context means that any reader should be able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source. Editors should provide a reliable source for quotations and for any material that is challenged or is likely to be challenged, or it may be removed." means that the burden of proof is on editors removing unsourced material? This appears to be a naming issue, as much as anything, and a POV fork of evolution articles will not survive. See also NPOV: Undue weight, NPOV: Making necessary assumptions, NPOV: Giving "equal validity" and Content forking. .. dave souza, talk 16:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree, it doesn't, but I was told that it did at the page where that policy is discussed! Only by one editor, but policies can be ambiguous and are changeable. I have a problem with 'reliable source for any material that is challenged'. This is not specific enough. Does it mean a reliable source for the exact words (usually a secondary source) or for demonstation of meaning (which I argue could be, and perhaps should be, given that secondary sources often get things wrong, a primary source). --Lindosland 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two reviews

• Kutschera U, Niklas KJ (2004). "The modern theory of biological evolution: an expanded synthesis". Naturwissenschaften. 91 (6): 255–76. doi:10.1007/s00114-004-0515-y. PMID 15241603.
• The synthetic theory of evolution: general problems and the German contribution to the synthesis Reif W-E. Junker T. Hoßfeld U. Theory in Biosciences, Volume 119, Number 1, 1 March 2000 , pp. 41-91(51) DOI: 10.1078/1431-7613-00004

Here are two free-access webpages.

• The Modern Synthesis of Genetics and Evolution Laurence A. Moran, Dept. of Biochemistry, University of Toronto.
• Synthetic Theory of Evolution: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories Behavioral Sciences Department, Palomar College, San Marcos, California.

Hope this helps clear up this confusion. If you have some reliable sources that state that neo-Darwinism is the correct term for modern evolutionary theory and that the modern evolutionary synthesis is not correct, please list them below. Tim Vickers 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tim: The first free access article, by Moran, is one you've quoted before, and I believe I have said that I condsider it's author quite simply to be mistaken, although there is a big element of you using sentences out of context. For example, when he says,"by the 1940s the classic Neo-Darwinian view was replaced by a new concept that emphasized genetics and took pains to exclude all mechanisms except natural selection. This new version was called The Modern Synthesis after the title of a 1942 book by Julian Huxley," he is right in that the neo-Darwinism he was referring to, of Wallace, was indeed replaced, back then, but that says nothing at all to disprove a possible new use of the term neo-Darwinism today. I am asserting that there is a major new use, and no, this is not about confusion and your cites don't clear it up in any way. While I say that Moran was correct in that statement in a very limited context, he is mistaken in his overall view of modern evolutionary theory in that he is confused over the use of terms, and ignorant of the modern use of the term neo-Darwinism. I reject this source, as I think I am entitled to. I think primary sources give the lie to it, and that is my evidence that it is wrong. If you still consider that OR, well fair enough, but the evidence is there, and in the absence of secondary sources that define modern use we have a problem of whether to accept primary evidence of use. To use only the sources that do not define a modern use is not a way out of the problem, as old uses do not in any way disprove modern use.

I have no problem with the modern synthesis, or the fact that some consider that term to include ongoing work. Thus your second cite, entitled "SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION: An Introduction to Modern Evolutionary Concepts and Theories" implies by that title such an extension of meaning. Again it's totally irrelevant. The article is not about neo-Darwinism as such, and as far as I can see (it's a long series of chapters), nothing in the article disproves the concept of a modern meaning for neo-Darwinism. If you think it does, please quote the chapter and sentence. --Lindosland 23:04, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here you are.

From the first 2004 reference:

This novel system of hypotheses for evolutionary processes originated between 1937 and 1950 (Mayr 1982). In contrast to Weismann's (1892) and Wallace's (1889) neo-Darwinian concept, the synthetic theory incorporated facts from such fields as genetics, systematics, and paleontology. Hence, the term neo-Darwinian theory should not be confused with the synthetic theory (or the phrase neo-Darwinian synthesis; see Mayr 1991; Reif et al. 2000; Junker 2004).

From the second 2000 reference:

p43 - "The Synthetic Theory of Evolution originated in the early 1930s, or according to many authors from 1937 to 1950. The historical processes that led to the Synthetic Theory and its exact content will be discussed below. It is sufficient to say here that Weismann's neo-Darwinism and the Synthetic Theory cannot be equated."

From the third web reference:

Some scientists continue to refer to modern thought in evolution as Neo-Darwinian. In some cases these scientists do not understand that the field has changed but in other cases they are referring to what I have called the Modern Synthesis, only they have retained the old name.

From the fourth web reference:

We now understand that natural selection is just one of a number of processes that can lead to evolution. This knowledge has resulted in the development of a more complete understanding of genetic changes that is usually described as the synthetic theory of evolution. This is essentially a combination of Charles Darwin's concept of natural selection, Gregor Mendel's basic understanding of genetic inheritance, along with evolutionary theories developed since the early 20th century by population geneticists and more recently by molecular biologists.

From Meyer's 1984 paper

"...the term neo-Darwinism for the synthetic theory is wrong, because the term neo-Darwinism was coined by Romanes in 1895 as a designation of Weismann's theory."'^[1]

Now could you please list the sources that state that neo-Darwinism is the correct term for modern evolutionary theory and that the modern evolutionary synthesis is incorrect. Thank you. Tim Vickers 23:24, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The specific quotes you give are interesting in that they are specific enough to demonstrate that a problem exists.

From the second reference lets take: "It is sufficient to say here that Weismann's neo-Darwinism and the Synthetic Theory cannot be equated."

In the fourth quote we have a pretty solid statement that includes modern developments specifically in what is calle 'the synthetic theory'

So if Weismann's neo-Darwinism is not the synthetic theory, and the synthetic theory is the current theory, then it follows logically that Weismann's neo-Darwinism is not the current theory of evolution. Does it follow from this that neo-Darwinism is not the current theory of evolution? No it doesn't, because what is referred to is 'Weismann's neo-Darwinism'.

Is Weismann's neo-Darwinism the only neo-Darwinism? Not necessarily. Nothing in the quotes says that it is. It could be. Or it could be that neo-Darwinism is just a term that means 'new Darwinism' and so can be, and is, used to refer to any theory that meets such a description.

How do we know which it is to be? Well if it's the first, ie it's a purely historic term, then much of what is currently written by experts makes no sense. If we interpret neo-Darwinism to mean 'Weissmans neo-Darwinism which is not the synthetic theory' then every time the term appears in the writings of Gould, Dawkins etc we are confounded. What on earth are they talking about? Certainly not an out of date superceeded theory, that's for sure, and obvious to all. Conclusion: neo-Darwinism has to be 'any new Darwinian-based' theory. Hence, used today it means 'the current evolutionary theory'.

Now it's interesting to note that the references refer to the 'synthetic theory'. Are we entitled to deduce that by this they mean 'the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis'. Not at all, since nothing quoted says or implies this. By a similar reasoning process to the above we can arive at the simple conclusion that the term 'synthetic theory of evolution' is used to refer to 'modern theory including the latest ideas'. In other words, the 'synthetic theory' is 'neo-Darwinism' when the terms are used today, but there was a historical 'deo-Darwinism' of minor significance attributed to Weismann and Wallace immediately after Darwin, and there was also a historical synthesis, named the 'modern evolutionary synthesis' by Huxley, which was left behind as a historical milestone and superceeded by the latest form of neo-Darwinism also known as the 'synthetic theory'. That is the only conclusion that logically fits ALL the facts. --Lindosland 23:58, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please list the sources that state that neo-Darwinism is the correct term for modern evolutionary theory and that the modern evolutionary synthesis is incorrect. Thank you. Tim Vickers 00:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You have not read carefully, an followed the logic of what I have written. The point is, it cannot be refuted logically. No, as I've said many times I can't give sources that say this in so many words, when I can then I will, with glee, but until then I am simply pointing out that any other conclusion leads to inconsistency in the article and implies conflict between your sources. That is not satisfactory. If sources were all correct they would never conflict. When they conflict something in them is wrong. Either my interpretation is correct, or your sources are wrong. It takes a logical mind to see this, and I'm sorry if you don't, but maybe others will. I cannot make it simpler. Follow it slowly, step by step. --Lindosland 00:07, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you have no sources stating what you argue, then it can't be included in the article. That's as simple as it gets. Tim Vickers 00:09, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I understand from the speedy reply that you don't want to listen to me. I will not waste my effort any more on you. I believe my explanation above entitles me to remove your edits and sources if we are going to play by strict rules, because I have proved they conflict, but I'm not going to do that because this thing has to be resolved. Lets try a simple question:

Do you think that neo-Darwinism does not have a current meaning of 'the latest evolutionary Darwin-like theory'? --Lindosland 00:13, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that, as the article currently states, the people who make a distinction between these two terms say neo-Darwinism does not refer to current evolutionary theory, while some people use the two terms interchangeably. However, I have never seen any source stating that using the modern evolutionary synthesis for current evolutionary theory is incorrect. If you provided one then I would read it with interest. Tim Vickers 00:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, I may have some that say or imply that it refers to a historical event. However, that is not the main issue here, which is what neo-Darwinism means.

Interestingly though, editors at modern evolutionary synthesis have stated that, "This synthesis was produced over a period of about a decade (1936-1947)". It doesn't take much intelligence to deduce from that statement that if it was produced between those dates then it does not include recent developments and so cannot refer to the current theory. Don't tell me I can't cite Wikipedia, I know that, but its the same editors saying different things which is not right is it?

Here's a quote: "the Darwinian theory reappraised in terms of modern genetics is sometimes called neo-Darwinism." (Biology, a functional aproach: 1971 M.B.V Roberts, 1st ed p571) It's a classic textbook widely used.) Good enough? --Lindosland 00:27, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Another quote: "When the Modern Synthesis was formulated, developmental biology (and developmental genetics) were not even sciences. Embryology was left out of the Modern Synthesis, as most evolutionary biologists and geneticists felt it had nothing to contribute." [15] 'Developmental biology 6th ed'

'Embryolology was left out of the modern synthesis'. So it's over then, they left it out; so the 'modern synthesis' has to be a closed episode in history and not the current synthesis, otherwise you could not say it was left out, it would be in. --Lindosland 00:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that's only one interpretation. I read that as "it was left out, but we've fixed that now." The context around that might mean my interpretation is wrong, but as it stands right now, I'm not sure if they mean what you think they mean. I find Tim's explanation quite compelling. (Of course, I'm no expert.) This past tense explanation applies to all of the quotes you've provided as near as I can tell. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Ben, I thought 'it's only an interpretation' but what about that sentence, 'when the modern synthesis was formulated'. If these writer really thought the synthesis was ongoing, would they not surely say 'when it was first formulated'. Can you 'formulate' something that is ongoing? It's not ideal evidence I agree, but there's a lot of stuff like this, and taken my way it all makes a lot more sense. After all, the name comes from the title of a book, and that book said what it was, summed it up, a bit of history. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lindosland (talk • contribs) 01:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'd say you can formulate a synthesis/theory and still have that synthesis/theory adjust as new facts become known. Why not? Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"All the first quote says is that the terms are sometimes equated. This is stated in the article already. The second source is interesting but does not state that neo-Darwinism is the correct term. Find a source that says "Using the term "modern evolutionary synthesis" for current evolutionary theory is incorrect, the correct term is "neo-Darwinism". Only a clear statement like that, the equivalent of the multiple quotes I provided above, would allow you to add your POV to the article. Tim Vickers 00:48, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Another quote: "In the 1920's there occurred a synthesis between Mendelian genetics and Darwinism, whos champions had earlier been at each other's throats." [16] 'There, occurred ...' No mention of modern genetics, just Mendelian genetics. A bit of history long over. Can you really interpret it any other way? This is from a serious textbook 'The Philosophy of Biology, an episodic history'. --Lindosland 00:52, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can, but it's pure supposition. The synthesis occurred in the 1920s. Since then, it gets updated as necessary. Other sources already suggest as much, as far as I can tell. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 00:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lindosland, the poor horse died a long, long time ago. Please, let it rest in peace. Tim Vickers 01:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

And let you and others quiety merge this article with 'history of evolutionary ideas' as happened before. No!

I cannot guarantee I will ever 'prove' that the modern synthesis is only taken to be historical - clearly there are multiple uses, but I think the term neo-Darwinism wins as the preferred current term because it does not suffer this problem of ambiguity. That's why so many current writers use it to refer to the modern theory. If there is any ambiguity in using neo-Darwinism to refer to modern theory then it is of a very obvious and minor nature, easily put aside, since modern use is clearly seen not to refer to the Wallace/Weissman form of neo-Darwinism which was definitely a short-lived affair. I don't want this article relegated to the history page as some are intent on, calling it a POV fork. I didn't create it as a POV fork, only to clarify a difficult issue. --Lindosland 01:11, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me it suffers from the exact same sort of ambiguity. Just look at the comments from others on this term. I definitely grant you that, just like with the synthesis term, it is used by respected scientists in the field of evolution to refer to the modern state of things, but that appears to be true of the modern synthesis usage, as well. Some people use one term to refer to a historical theory and the other to refer to the modern theory (and vice-versa), and others use the terms interchangeably. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"A century later, Eldredge and Gould (1972), Stanley (1979), and others postulated punctuated equilibrium as an alternative to the gradualism that characterized the Modern Synthesis." [17]." I believe punctuated equilibrium has established some credibility in the modern theory, and here we have a statement that it was an alternative, not part of an ongoing synthesis. --Lindosland 01:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"In the attempt to comprehend the present separation between evolution and development much attention has been paid to the split between genetics and embryology in the early part of the century with its codification in the exclusion of embryology from the Modern Synthesis. This encourages a characterization of "evo-devo" as the integration of developmental genetics with Neo-Darwinism." [18]

That seems an interesting quote, relating three terms. Again it seems to say the modern synthesis left out part of what is now the modern theory, making modern synthesis historical. --Lindosland 01:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't your second quote say the exact same thing about Neo-Darwinism, however? As I said before, it seems you can find sources that consider both terms to be historical. Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 01:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"The principal claims of this evolutionary synthesis became the foundations of modern evolutionary biology. Many of the following points have been extended, exemplified, clarified or modified." [19] --Lindosland 02:00, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you've provided several sources that say that the synthesis term refers to a historical theory and not the current theory. But, do you accept that (a) there are sources that say that the synthesis term does apply to the current theory, and that (b) there are sources (such as the one you provided) that say that the neo-Darwinism term refers to a historical theory and not the current theory? My point is that it seems that both terms suffer from the same problems of ambiguity. (Again, this is as a lay-person who can't judge the relative strengths of the sources.) Ben Hocking ^{(talk|contribs)} 02:03, 28 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do accept that there are sources that say that the synthesis term applies to current theory, and I am not opposed to saying that, but I think on balance they are in the minority, and I also think that they carry less weight, because they often betray ignorance of the special meaning relating to Huxley's book, so that perhaps we could say something to that effect.

With the term neo-Darwinism I am not convinced that it is ever used with a purely historical meaning. My point here is that use by Romanes to refer to the theory of his time was entirely consistent with the single meaning I support of 'new-Darwin-like'. Suppose someone in a hundred years' time writes, "Dawkins used the term to refer to the twentieth century theory of selfish genes" Does that mean the term refers only to that specific theory? No, we are only entitled to conclude that he used it as many others have down the years to refer to the latest theory as he knew it. --Memestream 13:37, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Memestream. Please, this ship has sailed. Move on. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Much of this very intensive discussion is far more illuminating and relevant then the actual article. Yet the article itself remains perfunctory (and misleading) - nearly a year after the discussion petered out. So what was the point? There is no shortage of citations establishing that "neo-Darwinism" is currently extensively used to denote the present state of evolutionary theory. That the term was coined in 1895 is now only of minor historical interest. The key ingredient in present neo-Darwinism, that was absent in the days of Darwin, Weismann, et al. is "genetic mutation". Is it not astonishing that "mutation" is nowhere mentioned in the article that sparked off the discussion?Ericlord (talk) 19:08, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the current version of the article, that essentially claims that Encyclopaedia Britannica uses the term anachronistically. First (Wikipedia nationalism):

1. Wikipedia has a much larger set of critical readers, who immediatelly can give their opinion - Britannica is a closed committee product – while encyclopedias shouldn't be cited whenever primary and secondary sources are available, it is not much worse to cite Wikipedia than citing Encyclopaedia Britannica, which to me seems like preparing for utter failure,

Secondly:

2. words change meaning, if a new definition is provided, the article could reflect two different meanings, the older and the newer - however buzzwords aren't "terms", they're principally language abuses, and I believe adding "neo-" to an ole' good ism use to be buzzwords, unless the opposite is proven by citation.

... said: Rursus (bork²) 08:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"As part of the disagreement about the mechanisms of evolution, Samuel Butler called the British naturalist Alfred Russel Wallace strongly opposition to Lamarckism, for Neo-Darwinism [1][2]. "

This makes no sense whatsoever. It is not a proper English sentence. Can someone please fix it? Betaneptune (talk) 23:57, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that M.I.S.'s edit on 24 June 2019 introduced a bunch of material with incorrect grammar and other style issues. I'm not qualified to evaluate the intellectual merits of the content, which may well be an improvement, but there's definitely some copy-editing needed to bring this up to an appropriate standard of writing. Ideally someone could compare M.I.S.'s edits to the revision as of 14:05, 9 February 2019 and take the best of both? Goldenband (talk) 18:54, 8 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]