Talk:Neo-Darwinism

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please do not revert 

message: 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. Hrafn42TalkStalk 17:32, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  'Why 'Neo'-Darwinism' section 

message: The citation to http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/n-Darwin.htm is to "a discussion/debate site by teens, for teens". This is not even close to WP:RS! Hrafn42TalkStalk 03:27, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Other non-[[WP:RS]] citations

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Interesting and thanks - I see the point and cannot fault it. --Memestream 12:21, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal for deletion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: "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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)

text: Memestream.  Please, this ship has sailed.  Move on.  OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 22:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Page break - Problems reconciling citations 

message: 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)
thread_title: Agreed!!

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Sentence that makes no sense