Explanatory remark: This question arose in a discussion about intelligent design and whether it can be considered a valid scientific theory. See here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Intelligent_Design_ID_be_considered_a_valid_scientific_theory

To cut the discussion short (only kidding) we could go directly to the following question: Considering their scientificity, what is the advantage of neo-darwinism over alternatives that include "intelligent design"?

Answer: Neo-darwinism as a paradigm can be replaced by a new paradigm of higher explanatory value. Such a paradigm shift is similar to the falsification of a hypothesis in that the old paradigm fails in the light of newly raised data. Something that can arguably not be said about "intelligent design" claims.

Is 'neodarwinism' a theory or a paradigm or neither? Can paradigms be falsified? How do scientific paradigm shifts work?

Explanatory remark: This question arose in a discussion about intelligent design and whether it can be considered a valid scientific theory. See here:

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_Intelligent_Design_ID_be_considered_a_valid_scientific_theory

To cut the discussion short (only kidding) we could go directly to the following question: Considering their scientificity, what is the advantage of neo-darwinism over alternatives that include "intelligent design"?

Answer: Neo-darwinism as a paradigm can be replaced by a new paradigm of higher explanatory value. Such a paradigm shift is similar to the falsification of a hypothesis in that the old paradigm fails in the light of newly raised data. Something that can arguably not be said about "intelligent design" claims.

The "intelligent design" explanation is not certainly subject to "evolution", because is more near to myth and faith. Neo-darwinism, instead, as every scientific attempt to understand the World, can be modified and improved. The "intelligent design" is not a dialectic way, and (my apologies for the next word-game) is both, unquestionable and a sophism.

I love the following idea (that I find brilliant) read in the last book of Richard Dawkins: The Evolution is less a theory than a theorem. "The theorem of Evolution".

These are times of respect for all cultures and beliefs, but respect must be a feedback! Do the Evolution...

Thank you, Michael. I like the way that you articulated the contrast, namely, by considering which is the more scientific approach, ND or ID? I recommend that you apply my definition of science (from Garden of Ediacara, Columbia U. Press, 1998) as real but incomplete knowledge about the world.

Frederico, you have made an important point. Do be aware, however, that theorems may be rejected if they exhibit logical flaws. A growing chorus of voices is insisting that this is the case for ND. Not all of this criticism is derived from a faith perspective. See my 2009 book Paleotorus (Meanma Press) for further consideration of this point.

Yes, you are right. I promise to read your book,

best,

Federico, please read both books. If I may say so in all humility, The Garden of Ediacara (1998) was misunderstood by many (?most) people who read the book ca. 2000.

Is Neo-Darwinism falsifiabie?

Mark, how can "real, but incomplete knowlegde about the world" be a reasonable definition for a process, a compendium of methods, a way of reasoning/ of approaching problems, a social/cultural activity?

Why should I stretch the percieved importance of an outcome of science (incompleteness) if it is a necessary consequence of preset methodological limitations (e.g. only how?-questions, no why?-questions allowed, no untestable hypotheses allowed).

I was somewhat irritated about the teleologizing in your writings, not because I think it should be a taboo in sciencewriting but because it is left unclear to the reader that your discourse had just left the firm ground of science. Criticism of neo-darwinism can be done without that (i.e. within science) I think.

"Is Neo-Darwinism falsifiabie?"

I guess it is. But will depend of what we are calling neo-Darwinism. If by neo-Darwinism we use Romanes, the coiner of the term, definition, i.e. think that ALL explanations’ of evolution will involve ONLY natural selection of random variations that proceeds always gradually, we need to find that exists directed variation that shapes micro and macro evolution without a non-random survival and/or reproduction process to really falsify neo-Darwinism.

If one uses ND as the same as Modern Synthesis, more thing will have to be falsified, like drift, speciation, paleontological patters, poplyploidy, hybridization, etc.

And I guess that in that case, we are dealing with a meta-theory, so to me, besides being a historical mistake make that equation: neo-Darvinism = Modern Synthesis, it just leads to confusion when answering questions like that.

Anyway, by current evidence we know that some probabilistically non-random (although not directed for a specific goal) variation exists, along and due previous selection of random ones, and that some variations are not totally gradual in phenotypic effects. This does not falsify neo-Darwinism, but demands to expand it.

Daniel,

I do not consider that it is necessary for a meta-theory such as modern synthesis to be falsifiable in order to be scientific. Quantum gravity theories are presently not falsifiable but are scientific. The whole concept of paradigm was invented in order to demonstrate that Popper's falsifiability criteria for determining what is sciencific from what it is not, is too narrow. I think that falsifiability is a sufficient condition for a theory to be called scientific but this is not a necessary condition for a meta-theory to be scientific. The concept of fasifiability is still very interesting and usefull.

Modern synthesis is such a huge incomplete construction work. In order to be fasifiable a theory needs to be completed which is obviously not the case for the modern synthesis. The modern synthesis now includes many different pathway of evolutionary production, all regulated by natural selection.

Daniel, could you imagine what would be theoretically necessary for a biological evolutionary theory to be called an alternative to the modern synthesis?

Louis

A totally agree with you on Popper's criteria.

I guess that a real alternative to modern synthesis (or to an extended synthesis that also have natural selection as a regulator) would have to shows that natural selection per se, is not important to achieve adaptation, i.e. that only a Lamarckian evolution is sufficient to explain evolution, by inner or external influence that directed variation that are oriented to a adaptative goal.

Our cultural evolution precedes a little like that, but the generator of directed variation, the brain, evolved by natural selection of brains varieties, as evidence shows. Darwinian evolution can produce Lamarckian-like mechanisms to generate biased variation that nevertheless natural selection filters at least as a purifying selection.

So, if natural selection is involved, I would not talk of alternative.

Daniel,

It is unfortunate that on the thread where I asked the question if there is an scientific alternative to the modern synthesis that the discussion has mainly focused on the defense of the modern synthesis by the experts against those who do not like the modern synthesis. I would have prefered that the experts who work within the modern synthesis would try to invent something else. Not because the current modern synthesis is broken but just for the fun of speculating. If one day, an alternative PARADIGM is invented, it will invented by the experts who work presently within the modern synthesis. I insist on the word paradigm because it necessitates that a community of scientists works in cooperation towards a new type of framework; it is not a single idea from a single scientist.

With mammals and birds the offspring lives for a while with the parents offering a time period where direct transmission of behavioral knowledge is possible. Mammals and birds have higly developed behavioral learning capacities which allows the Baldwin effect (Larmark-like) to be more effective. The word "culture" starts to have meaning at this level of evolution and a certain amount of biological knowledge can be stored culturally instead of being genetically encoded. So there is a gradually passage from biological to cultural evolution that occurred before the evolution of humanity. But abstractly speaking, we can qualify as cultural all biological knowledge/relations which is not biologically encoded but which is there in the relations between organisms. These relations are not directly encoded but the existences of these relations form a realm of evolutionary possibility for the evolution of the organisms. So in a certain abstract way to conceive culture, we can say that culture plays a role at all stages of evolution. Natural selection will always be involved with whatever new paradigm that is offered. What is central to a theory of evolution is not the selection side but the creation/spontaneous emergence and the stabilisation/transmission/learning of the creation.

I don't understand the question, as there is no further explanation beyond it. First, what is meant by "a valid theory"? Is that a theory that is logically coherent (ie, is a true theory) or one that is well supported by empirical evidence? And second, what is neo-Darwinism? In my view, the term "Darwinism" by itself is unfortunate, as it gives the impression of something ideological or value-laden. Evolutionary theory isn't of that sort. Second, the term neo-Darwinism is not well defined and has been used in a number of meanings. In my view, which I don't think is particularly original, the matter is about two theories: (1) The theory of evolution, of a tree of life, and (2) the theory of natural selection - the process by which organisms are modified during evolution. Both of these are overwhelmingly supported empirically, and logically coherent. They are as solid as are other major theories in the natural sciences. So what's the problem? Hypothetically, those theories may be proven wrong in the future, of course, like any theory - but that is as unlikely as to prove theories of gravity or of plate tectonics fundamentally wrong. Or maybe more. For all practical purposes evolution is a fact, and it is likewise a fact that natural selection is the major means by which organisms have evolved. Empirically, both of these theories are falsifiable - but they have not been falsified. And natural selection has the extra quality of being algorithmic, as pointed out by Dan Dennett: if the premises of variability, heritability and overproduction are true, natural selection follows by necessity. This is not to say that natural selection is the only evolutionary process. But it is the main process to explain the diversity of living beings today (and in the past - and the future).

Creationism ("Intelligent Design") does not produce testable predictions. Evolutionary theory does.

Trond, Your analysis is excellent but needs to be taken one step further as follows.

1) Tree of Life, ancester-descendant relationships. I believe that we have very wide consensus in the scientific community on this.

2) Natural selection leads to modification. Scientists must accept this, at least for well-documented instances of microevolutionary variation.

To these two must be added:

3) the major form-generating process(es). The NeoDarwinism cum Modern Synthesis claim that natural selection does virtually all of this has been falsified (due to insufficient geological time). This is big news for science. New hypotheses are racing to fill the void. For example, does symbiosis (symbiogenesis) drive macroevolutionary change? Does it involve dynamic programming modules (DPMs) or changes to the egg cell membrane field? Are apparently teological outcomes purely due to natural selection, or are other factors involved? If so, what are they?

Mark,

"the major form-generating process(es). The NeoDarwinism cum Modern Synthesis claim that natural selection does virtually all of this has been falsified (due to insufficient geological time)"

I guess that maybe is due the fact that natural selection is historically associated with gradualism. But Natural selection does not demand that variations are strict gradual to be important.

I'm not so sure that there was insufficient geological time for macroevolution by extension of micro, you are referring to Cambrian explosion specifically? If so, symbiogenesis was part of the answer as the rise of eukaryotic cell, what does not invalidate natural selection role too, especially in genes exchange between organelles and nuclear DNA.

http://www.docentes.unal.edu.co/vcorredore/docs/nrg-123-04_Timmis%2B%2B.pdf

For evolution of different body plans, genetic background, probably present in unicellular organism that originated Cambrian multicellular, is also being unfolded:

http://211.144.68.84:9998/91keshi/Public/File/41/338-6104/pdf/217.full.pdf and references.

Dear Mark,

You obviously know a lot more than me about evolutionary transitions in body form. But I don't think any evolutionary biologist would object to a statement that, sometimes, rather big changes in body form have happened relatively quickly (in terms of evolutionary time). As far as I have understood, there's a good number of hypotheses around that may explain such things - but also much left to be understood.

As regards the "third process" in your response to me (above), however, I'd like to emphasize that that is not about selection but about what produces the raw material for natural selection to act upon. Traditionally, the main processes generating novelty have been mutation and recombination (as you surely know as well or better then me, but just to remind readers), but there is likely more on the list, as you emphasize in your (3) argument (the symbiosis idea for the evolution of eukaryotes is obviously a classic). Whether changes are small or big, natural selection will weed out the bad ones and preserve the good ones.

So, as far as I can understand, your puzzle is about what creates new variants, and whether classical theory have the full answers to that. However, whatever those processes are, they don't weaken the case for evolution by natural selection. Darwin had no (well, little) idea what created novelty and no (or worse, a wrong) understanding of inheritance, but that didn't preclude him from understanding or being right about evolution by natural selection. I'm not saying it's unimportant to understand the processes producing novelty, but any current limitations in such understanding does in no way undermine the two basic theories of evolution: the tree of life, and natural selection. As far as I can judge.

ps: I don't think it is universally agreed that 'gradual evolution' cannot explain the changes we have seen, due to insufficient time. This is not my area of expertise, but my impression is that most experts would see this differently. And, more importantly, and as alluded to at the start of my response, I don't think anyone would claim that evolution has proceeded at a constant pace, at all times and in all lineages. So I ask myself if the "neo-Darwinist position that you criticize is "a straw man" - someone who doesn't exist in the real world of science. We should be careful not to portray unsolved puzzles in evolution as a problem with evolutionary theory as such, as creationists like to do.

The claim (by Darryl Smith) that natural selection is tautological is an old one (mostly linked to Spencer's phrase "the survival of the fittest"). But it has been refuted over and over again by philosophers of science (see, for instance, works by Elliot Sober and Dan Dennett).

Selection is being demonstrated in species in the wild, as well as in selection experiments in the lab. The view that the concepts of fitness and selection have ruined evolutionary biology runs counter to the immense successes of science adopting this framework ever since Darwin, and in particular during the last half century. Those interested in the topic should consult any major textbook in evolutionary biology (e.g. those by Futuyma) or in philosophy of science (e.g. Sober, Ruse, Dennett) for arguments and evidence.

I don't like being explicitly critical as I now am, but those not familiar with the topic in question should be informed that Smith's view is not shared by many evolutionary biologists, or by the leading theoreticians in the field. Instead, studies of selection and fitness are very much alive and kicking. Now, Smith could in principle of course be right even if his view is not a scientific majority position, but I don't think there is any evidence that he is. I don't quite understand why the claim that natural selection is tautological comes up again and again when it has been so properly refuted long ago.

Dear Trond,

Mathematics is the science of tautology. 2+2 = 4 is a tautology.

I am not saying that natural selection is a tautology, but if we assume it is then it would be even more certain and usefull than if it is not. If natural seclection would be as certain as 2+2 = 4 then it would not undermine it but even elevated the certainty of the proposition to the level of mathematical certainty.

Like Louis rightly puts, some people thinks that says NS is a tautology, and therefore wrong is not an absurd.

Besides, the relative fitness criteria is sufficinet defined to make ridiculous the claim: Who survives? The fittest; Who's the fittest? The one who survives.

Fitness is a criteria for differential reproduction or replication, used in a comparative analysis between different individuals of a given population and in a given context and time.

Re Louis' entry: I think we can safely say that natural selection occurs with mathematical certainty given its three premises (variation, heritability, overproduction) are fulfilled (which are empirical questions). What is not mathematically certain is that natural selection in each particular case considered is the major force of evolution. That is an empirical question, in which natural selection must be analyzed along with other forces (e.g. genetic drift).

As mentioned above, the claim that natural selection is tautological has been dealt repeatedly by philosophers of science, and has been refuted. We may of course "assume it is" (without claiming it), as Louis suggests, but I don't think that makes much sense in light of its refutation. I think we are left with the study of evolution and natural selection being fundamentally empirical sciences that should be judged by their correspondence with the observable world as well as theoretical coherence. So far, the score is superb on both counts.

It was refuted and well done. Is not because some people like Jerry Fodor keeps not understanding the refutal and repeating the same unlogical statement that it becomes valid. Crationism was also refuted, and we will never have them stopping writing books on that and not accepting evolution.

Let's look the main critic of Fodor with an example:

"The crucial test is whether one’s pet theory can distinguish between selection for trait A and selection for trait B when A and B are coextensive: were polar bears selected for being white or for matching their environment? "

Even a rational child would understand that this dychotomy is artificial, since the white color trait is exactally what makes it match with environment. And they speak like evolutionary biologists can't test their hypotesis. They did a book based on a total misinterpretation of Gould & Lewontin paper on spandrels. What they don't got, is that spandrels are by- products of ANOTHER trait, an adaptation, that by the way where result of natural selection.

Far from deny natural selection...

Re Darryl's entry: the fact that some repeat the tautology claim (I've seen the book you refer to) does not make it more true.

I notice that you collect works critical to natural selection. That makes me wonder what you're after: collecting support for an a foregonei conclusion, or collecting/considering evidence broadly to draw a conclusion that follows from the evidence? If one does the latter, it is very hard to avoid the conclusion that natural selection is extremely well supported. There is a reason why basically all evolutionary biologists considers natural selection the main process of evolution. With the wealth of evidence presently at hand, this is not a matter of prejudice. It is a matter of overwhelming evidence. This is not the place to lay out the evidence - I rather refer to any major textbook of evolution for ample examples.

Again re Darryl's entry, now about the book by Fodor and Piatelli-Palmarini: none of those guys are evolutionary biologists. Their book has been widely criticized for incorrectly portraying evolutionary biology before criticizing it. Here's the conclusion of a review by Ned Block and Philip Kitcher (the latter a leading philosopher of biology):

"We admire the work that both Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini have produced over many decades. We regret that two such distinguished authors have decided to publish a book so cavalier in its treatment of a serious science, so full of apparently scholarly discussions that rest on mistakes and confusions—and so predictably ripe for making mischief."

http://bostonreview.net/BR35.2/block_kitcher.php

Natural selection is only a part of the evolutionary process. This part of the process creates nothing but eliminate part of what is created. It is kind of self-evident that what is created (whatever the process of this creation) and whatever the process of transmission of this creation that if an organism is not as well adapted than the other in the same populationcn, then on average these less adapted organism will produce less offsprings. I really have a hard time seeing a hole in this logic and I do not really understand why this part of the modern synthesis could be debated. What could be debated and should be debated are all the possible methods for creating biological novelties and their respective impacts and all the possible methods/process of storing/transmitting these biological novelties. I am not an expert and I would like the experts to correct my logic if it is wrong.

Louis,

You are right in pointing that what needs to be debated are mechanisms involved in origin of novelty and inheritance. But i can't agree that natural selection creates nothing, since the long term patterns and complex adaptations are in some sense part of the creative role of selection too. In the words of Peter Godfrey-Smith:

"It is obvious that natural selection can be important in distribution explanations.

It is less obvious that selection can have a crucial role in origin explanations as well. In a proximal or immediate sense, new variants appear in an evolutionary context via processes like mutation and recombination. And it can seem odd to say that selection, which has to do with sorting things that already exist, can somehow bring new things into existence. But natural selection can reshape a population in a way that makes a given variant more likely to be produced via the immediate sources of variation than it otherwise would be.

Selection does this by making intermediate stages on the road to some new characteristic common rather than rare, thus increasing the number of ways in which a given mutational event (or similar) will suffice to produce the characteristic in question. Some kinds of novelty can be produced easily by an evolutionary process without this role for selection, but other kinds—complex and adapted structures—cannot."

Daniel,

I understand the role of selection that is explained in this paragraph but nowhere I see an argument for saying that selection alone creates anything. Mutation and reproductive amplification of these mutation are doing the creative part. If you juxtapose random mutation, selection and reproduction the total process is necessary a creative evolutionary process I agree, but the selection part of this whole process is not creating novelties although it is necessary for the whole evolutionary process to work. Selection creates a space for creation.

Yes Louis,

Alone, selection cannot create something indeed. And that was never an argument of neo-Darwinism that I'm aware, only a straw man, used by when critics o NS says: "selection is not creative, so a new paradigm must reduce (or deny) the role of selection". I think it's role is in the right place , and as you said, not something that need to be so much debated.

Selection stabilishes some directions that are essential to acumulation of variantions that compose complex and elaborated phenotypic adaptation or trends in macroevolution. No complex eye or brain would exist without it, nor some mechanisms of biased novelty generation.

I am writing to you from Nevada where we are starting a expedition to study Triassic strata and fossils. Wish us luck. Thanks to all contributing to this important discussion. My primary concern is that there is a hidden logical fallacy here, in other words, the connection between mutation-selection-novelty is so tempting an explanation, so seemingly all-embracing in its apparent explanatory power, that we end up missing something important. We may be dumbfounded when we finally realize that we were missing the authentic source(s) of novelty! Even more astounding is that we did not realize that it was absent from classical theory. They may be biologically unsophisticated about it, but I think that this is what Jerry Fodor and Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini are trying to say. They are sounding an alarm.

That expedition sounds great! Best of luck! Whether or not the alarm sounded by F & P-P is a false or a justified one it sounds like excellent work... As with all other matters of science, I go with intersubjectivity: as long as all findings and interpretations supporting any view are fully exposed to criticism in public, the interpretation held by the vast majority of qualified researchers is the one likely to be closest to the truth. There's times when that is not the case, of course, but mostly and for all practical purposes. I'm all in for new & more detailed knowledge about the processes producing biological novelty, which could come from several fields (evo-devo is one). But I don't yet see any of this, to the extent I know it, as seriously challenging the current basic understanding of biological evolution.

Daryl,

"Your below statement is wrong Daniel. "Alone, selection cannot create something indeed. And that was never an argument of neo-Darwinism that I'm aware, only a straw man.""

Since Darwin, we now that non-random differential survival and reproduction (natural selection) only happens when there's available variation, and doesn't matter how variation came to being, selection and drift is what will change their frequencies to promotes adaptation.

Selection allows some bias on novelties, e.g. a bigger wing can only be selected when a shorter one exists, i.e. the previous selection of those shorter wings paves the way to a longer one. It's in this sense (cumulative), that NS has a role on "creativity", but of course the longer wing will need that new variations are available to be selected. I agree with Gould that we need, (and we are through evo-devo mainly) understanding how the fit come to being.

On that comment of Eugenne Koonin, I agree if we are talking of evolution as the general phenomenon of biological change, that NS is one among a few process. But if we are talking on adaptive evolution, natural selection is a necessary and ubiquitous process, acting on novelties that arrive by other process.

Since I consider alternatives, things that are exclusive substitutes for others, the only a priori plausible ideia is:

An instruction theory, where all adaptaions are achive via a diagnostic mechanism of organisms, who generates sucessfully goal-oriented, adaptative variation.

All Lamarckism-like mechanisms like those that we known, exists as evolved adaptations, because they were selected. This is the problem, because how could a mechanism like this could apper on living organisms, besides non-random differential survival and replication of more responsive and instructive mechanisms that appeared randomlly and beacome common non-randonlly?

Evidence don't support it either. Nor it suggests that natural selection needs alternatives, what evidence suggests is that we need understand more is origin of variation, the raw material to selection and drift. And that's what is emerging with the extended synthesis of evolutionary theory.

Sir Ronald Fisher, one of the chief architects of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, constructed it on a number of assumptions : polygenes act additively; polygenes segregate independently; environment is independent of genes and random;the population is in Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium; to simplify algebra he assumed that the number of polygenes is infinite. In the attached paper we (Atam Vetta and myself) showed that these assumptions are not verified and may lead to incorrect methods of behaviour genetics, used in a great number of social scences.

We need new concepts. One of these could be the species value of a gene, another is regulatory genes i.e. + or - genes that regulate a behavioural trait. The latter poses a serious challenge to the Fisherian concept of additive genes and this concept has to be discarded. Molecular genetics is the key to understand human and animal behaviour.

Not even the church (in Sweden anyway) go for intelligent design. Evolution is accepted.