Thread: Over 100 alternatives to neo-Darwinism

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

Non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution and their authors

So in other words there are still mechanisms for the theory of Evolution, which is sometimes inaccurately called "neo-darwinism".

How many of those were published in "Nature" or the "Genome Research" journal?

The list is fairly useless I agree. There is no information on when the publications were published, what journal they were in, etc... So at this point its a list of names and titles that ones is asked to take on faith as relevant.

Just from the titles, the great majority look like pseudo-science.

I have never liked terms like "Darwinism" or "neo-Darwinism". It makes me think of a belief system. I prefer simply evolution (or biological evolution), which encompasses everything that contributes to the changing of organisms over time. A lot of those entries address issues that simply add to the theory of evolution, not refute it. Finding mechanisms other than natural selection does not refute evolution. This is obvious to anyone who knows anything about evolution, but is a point often missed especially by evolution deniers.

I get the impression that "Darwinism" is mainly used by those attacking evolution (as a concept, or specific theories related to it) precisely because they want to present it as a belief system. Or maybe because they assume every form of knowledge is based on faith and the teachings of an individual, rather than evidence and critical analysis.

Why do most of the respondents on this thread seem to think forests offering is somehow an attempt to dispute evolution?

I'm not sure all those articles are disputing evolution, per se, but they are offering alternative mechanisms most of which seem to be pure mumbo-jumbo: "Spiritual Agencies", "Lamarckism", "Archetype creationism", "spiritual evolution", "Chaos theory" (really?), "Anthroposophy", "Zero point field", "Consciousness", "Cosmic Force", "Orthogenesis", "Holism", "Devolution", "Theosophy", "Vitalism", "entelechy", "Extraterrestrial intervention", "Panbiogeography", "typostrophism", and on and on.

I'm afraid I see no evidence of any of these being science.

Originally Posted by John Galt

Why do most of the respondents on this thread seem to think forests offering is somehow an attempt to dispute evolution?

Its not immediately obvious what his personal convictions are, but as far as I can see most respondents have been commenting on the linked material, rather than addressing forests personally.

In any case, the list is interesting and is found on a site that is pretty interesting as well, i.e. Take on Darwin.

Originally Posted by Strange

I get the impression that "Darwinism" is mainly used by those attacking evolution (as a concept, or specific theories related to it) precisely because they want to present it as a belief system. Or maybe because they assume every form of knowledge is based on faith and the teachings of an individual, rather than evidence and critical analysis.

No the list is not about attacking evolution, it is trying to improve evolution.

Evolution is a fact, but Darwinism, neo-Darwinism theory (now termed the modern synthesis) is just an interpretation of evolution which claims the main mechanisms driving evolution are natural selection and random mutation, yet lots of observations do not prove this theory.

There is still room for debate in which mechanisms are driving evolution now and in the past, and if evolution occured gradually or in bursts.

But as scientists such as Goodwin, Pivar, Lipton or de-Faria have pointed out evolution can occur without natural selection, and some of these scientists consider themselves non-Darwinian as random mutation and natural selection are not causing any kind of evolution. The mechanisms must be elsewhere - internal factors for example, or outside of the cell.

Originally Posted by Kukhri

How many of those were published in "Nature" or the "Genome Research" journal?

Yes theres a great deal of sillyness on the list, but the author has compiled basically every alternative evolutionary mechanism that has been proposed in the last 150 years. There does not seem to be such a list anywhere else.

Scientific mechanisms which have been published in scientific journals include the symbiosis of Lynn Margulis, Bruce Lipton mechanism of signals from outside of the cell. Neo-Lamarckism of Edward Steele. Stuart Pivar - self-organization of embryological processes. Antonio Lima-de-Faria - autoevolution and the molecular drive of Gabriel Dover. Theres also some others I will try and find some links for them.

In any case, the list is interesting and is found on a site that is pretty interesting as well, i.e. Take on Darwin.

Yes its an interesting website, it appears to be owned by a philosopher who is critical of natural selection and is searching for an alternative evolutionary non physical mechanism, while contributers include an ecologist who is a searching for a physical mechanism to replace natural selection, and Stanley Salthe a biologist critical of natural selection amongst a few other fringe scientists.

Originally Posted by forests

There is still room for debate in which mechanisms are driving evolution now and in the past, and if evolution occured gradually or in bursts.

I agree completely. And much debate like that is taking place in the scientific community. I would trust them to advance our understanding of the many processes involved rather than a philosopher with specific biases.