Non-Darwinian evolution, the new synthesis?

[ecologist88]

I have been recently reading about a group of scientists who have claimed the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incomplete, outdated, and wrong due to recent discoveries in science.

James A. Shapiro who has proposed non-Darwinian evolution in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011) has written that evolutionary mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, whole genome doubling and natural genetic engineering are all non-Darwinian and can not be fitted into the modern evolutionary synthesis as the modern synthesis is still working in a Darwinian framework. Shapiro believes many of these mechanisms fit better with a saltationist school rather than Darwin's strict advocacy of gradualism via "numerous, successive, slight variations". Shapiro also claims that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated.

Eugene Koonin has also written for example "In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution".

He also has said:

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics
of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we
knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis
inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a
world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and
such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution
being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable
changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the
adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very
little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift
constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes
(much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.

Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034

Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair".

Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".

In their paper they have have a section called "dead parts of the modern synthesis".

Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb wrote a paper titled Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis in which they wrote both neo-Lamarckism and saltational evolution do occur which neo-Darwinism denied, so evolution has moved beyond any neo-Darwinian framework.

Any comments about this?

 

[idav]

Theres nothing wrong with Darwin's mechanisms but there is certainly a lot more to it than Darwins general idea of evolution. As the article stated Darwins mechanisms are still in affect no matter the way the genes changed. Darwin went by Natural selection and a sort of survival of the fittest mentality. This still shows to be true as humans destroy the ecosystem as they dominate the planet.

For humans, technology has become our 'survival of the fittest' giving us more likely hood of surviving and passing on our genes. Problem is that humans can survive extreme conditions and we no longer have as much of a problem surviving and passing on our genes even under the worst of conditions.

 

[Shuddhasattva]

Theres nothing wrong with Darwin's mechanisms but there is certainly a lot more to it than Darwins general idea of evolution. As the article stated Darwins mechanisms are still in affect no matter the way the genes changed. Darwin went by Natural selection and a sort of survival of the fittest mentality. This still shows to be true as humans destroy the ecosystem as they dominate the planet.

For humans, technology has become our 'survival of the fittest' giving us more likely hood of surviving and passing on our genes. Problem is that humans can survive extreme conditions and we no longer have as much of a problem surviving and passing on our genes even under the worst of conditions.

He's not talking about Darwin's original theories (which are somewhat misrepresented in your post tbh), but what's called the modern evolutionary synthesis (or neo-darwinian). And it is inadequate.

I'm more in Wilson's camp than Shapiro's as I think Shapiro is myopic in his attack on natural selection.

 

[E. Nato Difficile]

Dramatic overstatements have always been part and parcel of competition in the scientific community. If you consider random-variation-natural-selection the be-all and end-all of the history of life on Earth, maybe these are momentous claims. But I'll wager the neo-Darwinian synthesis survives further tweaking before it gets scrapped altogether.

Before we take leave of our senses, allow me to quote Eugene V. Koonin on common ancestry:

A formal demonstration of the Universal Common Ancestry hypothesis has not been achieved and is unlikely to be feasible in principle. Nevertheless, the evidence in support of this hypothesis provided by comparative genomics is overwhelming.

-Nato

 

[ecologist88]

But I'll wager the neo-Darwinian synthesis survives further tweaking before it gets scrapped altogether.

This has already been proposed, it is called the extended evolutionary synthesis. In 2008 sixteen scientists met at the Konrad Lorenz Institute for Evolution and Cognition in Altenberg, Austria to discuss an extended synthesis. The group which included scientists such as Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller who explained that there have been calls for an expansion of the synthesis framework through the integration of more recent achievements in evolutionary theory and that new approaches have opened up new theoretical horizons, with new possibilities for integration and expansion in evolutionary theory, such as Evo-devo, Niche Construction, Epigenetic Inheritance, and many more.

Orthodox neo-Darwinians however such as Jerry Coyne pr PZ Myers have been criticial towards the extended synthesis, saying it is not needed as the neo-Darwinian framework does not need to be expanded.

Though we also have another group known as "Non-Darwinian" scientists such as James A. Shapiro who claim the entire foundations of the neo-Darwinian synthesis are dead and that a new framework and synthesis needs to be built.

Conclusion:

Current evolution looks like this:

Group 1. Orthodox neo-Darwinism (Coyne, PZ Myers, Dawkins et al) Group 2. The extended evolutionary synthesis (Massimo Pigliucci, Gerd Müller, and Eva Jablonka et al) and Group 3. Non-Darwinian evolution (James Shapiro, Lynn Margulis, Stanley Salthe et al).

None of these scientists are denying evolution, evolution is a confirmed fact it is just the mechanisms which are being debated especially the role of natural selection in evolution. It is annoying if creationists try and get ammo out of any of this by claiming "evolution is in crisis" but evolution is not in crisis and the debate about evolutionary mechanisms is perfectly good science and encourages interesting discussion and ways of improving our knowledge about evolution.

 

[AdamsDream]

Evolution theory is something that evolves. New information provides us with new adaptations. Darwin never presented a theory that was finished. Maybe Koonin just feels a need for attention.
I remember the joy I felt when I was 17 and first read Darwin's book. Then I read we couldn't call it Darwin's evolution theory anymore but 'the new synthesis'. Didn't feel that was necessary since nobody denied the latest insights into evolution processes. Except maybe some creationists of ill will. But maybe they were right in a way: there were others besides Darwin who had very similar ideas at the time so all the credit shoudn't go to Darwin alone. So just 'evolution theory' is fine for me, we all know what the basics are. When tomorrow we discover yet better explanations of the processes of evolution I'll still just call it 'evolution theory' and certainly not 'Koonin's revised theory of origin'. Even if only because it doesn't sound pleasant. Sorry, Koonin et all.

 

[painted wolf]

Meh...

horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, whole genome doubling and natural genetic engineering have all been accepted into neo-Darwinian/modern synthesis evolution already.
Sure, the events themselves aren't "darwinian" (by that token no mutation is, Darwin didn't understand the mechanism behind variation, just that it happens) but the resulting selective pressures they experience once they are in the population are.

Shapiro is tilting at windmills.

wa:do

 

[McBell]

I have been recently reading about a group of scientists who have claimed the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incomplete, outdated, and wrong due to recent discoveries in science.

James A. Shapiro who has proposed non-Darwinian evolution in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011) has written that evolutionary mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, whole genome doubling and natural genetic engineering are all non-Darwinian and can not be fitted into the modern evolutionary synthesis as the modern synthesis is still working in a Darwinian framework. Shapiro believes many of these mechanisms fit better with a saltationist school rather than Darwin's strict advocacy of gradualism via "numerous, successive, slight variations". Shapiro also claims that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated.

Eugene Koonin has also written for example "In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution".

He also has said:





Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034

Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair".

Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".

In their paper they have have a section called "dead parts of the modern synthesis".

Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb wrote a paper titled Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis in which they wrote both neo-Lamarckism and saltational evolution do occur which neo-Darwinism denied, so evolution has moved beyond any neo-Darwinian framework.

Any comments about this?

to be completely honest, it sounds like when creationists attack evolution by bringing up abiogenesis.

Just replace evolution with Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis with whatever Shapiro's specific idea is called.

 

[ecologist88]

Just replace evolution with Neo-Darwinism and abiogenesis with whatever Shapiro's specific idea is called.

Shapiro is not trying to replace abiogenesis. He has proposed some controversial things in evolution.

He talks about something called natural genetic engineering. Instead of random mutation instead evolution is driven by complex genetic and genomic changes by a variety of "natural genetic engineering" agents, which are able to alter and invent genomic sequences and formatting, and all of them being coordinated. I really don't have the scientific background currently to understand natural genetic engineering but apparently it challenges parts of the central dogma. It is very complex. There are reviewers on amazon claiming Shapiro has refuted neo-Darwinism and there are others claiming his book hasn't. I will try and track down some scientific reviews of his works.

 

[McBell]

Shapiro is not trying to replace abiogenesis. He has proposed some controversial things in evolution.

He talks about something called natural genetic engineering. Instead of random mutation instead evolution is driven by complex genetic and genomic changes by a variety of "natural genetic engineering" agents, which are able to alter and invent genomic sequences and formatting, and all of them being coordinated. I really don't have the scientific background currently to understand natural genetic engineering but apparently it challenges parts of the central dogma. It is very complex. There are reviewers on amazon claiming Shapiro has refuted neo-Darwinism and there are others claiming his book hasn't. I will try and track down some scientific reviews of his works.

Seems to me that what he is claiming Neo-Darwinism to be and what Neo-Darwininsm is are not the same two things.

Much like when a creationist claims that evolution is a dog giving birth to a cat....

 

[mycorrhiza]

From what I read on wikipedia (heh!) natural genetic engineering sounds kinda similar to ID, albeit not from direct design by a God.

Does he have any scientific evidence to support the process, or is it just speculation? Because to me, with my limited knowledge of biology, this sounds like a step back. And when it comes to saltationism, isn't that kinda dead? (except for polyploidy maybe)

 

[ecologist88]

From what I read on wikipedia (heh!) natural genetic engineering sounds kinda similar to ID, albeit not from direct design by a God.

That article on wikipedia has only just been created and it is not neutral. There are scientists who have given natual genetic engineering good reviews yet wikipedia does not cite these. It has nothing to do with ID.

Does he have any scientific evidence to support the process, or is it just speculation? Because to me, with my limited knowledge of biology, this sounds like a step back. And when it comes to saltationism, isn't that kinda dead? (except for polyploidy maybe)

He has loads of scientific evidence but before mouthing off about any of it, I need to fully read his book so I don't misrepresent any of his ideas. As I said on the previous page this stuff is technical and perhaps I won't understand all of it but I get the general drift of research he has uncovered which challenges many parts of the neodarwinian synthesis.

Saltationism is a reality, there have been quite a few recent scientific publications on it, its been observed in moths and plants etc.

 

[painted wolf]

Saltationism is only a factor if you consider polyploidy speciation and endosymbiotic events saltonian.

Not everyone considers those events truly saltonian however. Plus, you again have the resulting population falling under classical natural selection and other selective pressures regardless of how they originate.

wa:do

 

[ecologist88]

Saltationism is only a factor if you consider polyploidy speciation and endosymbiotic events saltonian.

There have been some recent scientific papers on Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters". A couple of biologists have claimed there might actually be evidence for it. I can't post in papers becuase I havn't done enough posts. But looks very interesting.

 

[painted wolf]

There have been some recent scientific papers on Richard Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters". A couple of biologists have claimed there might actually be evidence for it. I can't post in papers becuase I havn't done enough posts. But looks very interesting.

There is some evidence in the form of polyploidy and endosymbiotic events... but these are extremely rare.

Endosymbiosis is a pretty rare occurrence that only happens in single celled organisms and hasn't happened in Eukaryotes for a billion years or so.

The closest thing to the "hopeful monsters" scenario are HOX gene and HOX regulatory gene mutations and these are not saltonian.

wa:do

ps... if you provide the names of the papers I can probably find them without the need for links and share links to them for you.

 

[ecologist88]

Lets go back to some of these papers, considering now I can link to papers:

Eugene Koonin has said that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is has been replaced by a new synthesis:

See his papers Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034

He says in these papers:

The Origin at 150: is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?

Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics

In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution.

The discovery of pervasive HGT and the overall dynamics
of the genetic universe destroys not only the tree of life as we
knew it but also another central tenet of the modern synthesis
inherited from Darwin, namely gradualism. In a
world dominated by HGT, gene duplication, gene loss and
such momentous events as endosymbiosis, the idea of evolution
being driven primarily by infinitesimal heritable
changes in the Darwinian tradition has become untenable.

Equally outdated is the (neo-) Darwinian notion of the
adaptive nature of evolution; clearly, genomes show very
little if any signs of optimal design, and random drift
constrained by purifying in all likelihood contributes
(much) more to genome evolution than Darwinian selection.

Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".

Biology Direct | Full text | The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis

See their section "dead parts of the modern synthesis"

Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb have written many papers, one of which was titled "Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis".

According to the paper:

This paper presents some of the recent challenges to theModern Synthesis of evolutionary theory, which has dominated evolutionary thinking for the last sixty years. The focus of the paper is the challenge of soft inheritance - the idea that variations that arise during development can beinherited. There is ample evidence showing that phenotypic variations that are independent of variations in DNA sequence, and targeted DNA changes that are guided by epigenetic control systems, are important sources ofhereditary variation, and hence can contribute to evolutionary changes. Furthermore, under certain conditions, themechanisms underlying epigenetic inheritance can also lead to saltational changes that reorganize the epigenome. These discoveries are clearly incompatible with the tenets of the Modern Synthesis, which denied any significant role for Lamarckian and saltational processes. In view of the data that support soft inheritance, as well as other challenges to the Modern Synthesis, it is concluded that that synthesis no longer offers a satisfactory theoretical framework for evolutionary biology.

Genetics and Molecular Biology - Soft inheritance: challenging the modern synthesis

Contrary to the established view, soft inheritance is common. Variations acquired during an individual’s lifetime can be passed on through epigenetic, behavioral and symbolic inheritance. They can affect the rate and direction of evolution by introducing additional foci for selection, by revealing cryptic genetic variation, and by enhancing the generation of local genetic variations. Moreover, under conditions of stress, epigenetic control mechanisms affect genomic re-patterning, which can lead to saltational changes.

Evolutionary biology today has to incorporate soft inheritance, saltational changes due to systemic mutations, and various types of genetic exchange and cooperation. These all challenge the assumptions of the Modern Synthesis. We believe that rather than trying to continue to work within the framework of a Synthesis that was made in the middle of the last century, we now need a new type of evolutionary theory, one that acknowledges Darwinian, Lamarckian and saltational processes.

Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders in their paper Beyond neo-Darwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution write:

We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance.

ScienceDirect.com - Journal of Theoretical Biology - Beyond neo-Darwinism?an epigenetic approach to evolution

Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman and Jeremy Kendal in their paper titled Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology on niche construction:

In spite of its success, Neo-Darwinism is faced with major conceptual barriers to further progress, deriving directly from its metaphysical foundations. Most importantly, neo-Darwinism fails to recognize a fundamental cause of evolutionary change, "niche construction". This failure restricts the generality of evolutionary theory, and introduces inaccuracies. It also hinders the integration of evolutionary biology with neighbouring disciplines, including ecosystem ecology, developmental biology, and the human sciences. Ecology is forced to become a divided discipline, developmental biology is stubbornly difficult to reconcile with evolutionary theory, and the majority of biologists and social scientists are still unhappy with evolutionary accounts of human behaviour. The incorporation of niche construction as both a cause and a product of evolution removes these disciplinary boundaries while greatly generalizing the explanatory power of evolutionary theory.

Conceptual Barriers to Progress Within Evolutionary Biology


So Lamarckian and saltational processes and other non-Darwinian processes are important in evolution and neo-Darwinism was wrong for ignoring them.

As Eugene Koonin has written:

The summary of the state of affairs on the 150th anniversary of the Origin is somewhat shocking: in the post-genomic era, all major tenets of the Modern Synthesis are, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution. So, not to mince words, the Modern Synthesis is gone. What’s next? The answer that seems to be suggested by the Darwinian discourse of 2009: a postmodern state not so far a postmodern synthesis. Above all, such a state is characterized by the pluralism of processes and patterns in evolution that defies any straightforward generalization.

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Therefore?

 

[rusra02]

I have been recently reading about a group of scientists who have claimed the neo-Darwinian synthesis is incomplete, outdated, and wrong due to recent discoveries in science.

James A. Shapiro who has proposed non-Darwinian evolution in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century (2011) has written that evolutionary mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis, whole genome doubling and natural genetic engineering are all non-Darwinian and can not be fitted into the modern evolutionary synthesis as the modern synthesis is still working in a Darwinian framework. Shapiro believes many of these mechanisms fit better with a saltationist school rather than Darwin's strict advocacy of gradualism via "numerous, successive, slight variations". Shapiro also claims that natural selection's importance for evolution has been hugely overstated.

Eugene Koonin has also written for example "In the post-genomic era, all the major tenets of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis have been, if not outright overturned, replaced by a new and incomparably more complex vision of the key aspects of evolution".

He also has said:





Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034

Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the (neo-Darwinian) modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair".

Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote that The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century".

In their paper they have have a section called "dead parts of the modern synthesis".

Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb wrote a paper titled Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis in which they wrote both neo-Lamarckism and saltational evolution do occur which neo-Darwinism denied, so evolution has moved beyond any neo-Darwinian framework.

Any comments about this?

Yes. Sounds to me as if further scientific investigation has debunked the ToE, yet ToE adherents cling tenatiously to their theory anyway. It is proving to be as Behe said: "“The result of these cumulative efforts to investigate the cell—to investigate life at the molecular level—is a loud, clear, piercing cry of ‘design!’” (quote from W98 5/1 pp 3-4)

​

​

 

[ecologist88]

Therefore?

Stop trolling.

 

[ecologist88]

Yes. Sounds to me as if further scientific investigation has debunked the ToE

None of the papers I have cited debunk evolution, they prove the fact of evolution, please read them. The papers are debating the mechanisms in evolution not questioning the fact of evolution. Just becuase neo-Darwinian mechanisms are incomplete, wrong or have been replaced, does not disprove evolution. It means evolution is more complex than the Darwinians thought, that is all.