Darwinism

Darwinism, Darwinian, Darwinist

gregladen — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 05:42:45 +0000

Darwinism, Darwinian, Darwinist

Happy Birthday Charles Darwin!

Oh, and Abe Lincoln too.

For Darwin's birthday, I want to discuss the uses of the terms "Darwinism, Darwinian, and Darwinist." Many have written about this and many don't like any of those words, some seem to equally dislike all three. A couple of years back, writing for the New York Times, Carl Safina said,

Equating evolution with Charles Darwin ignores 150 years of discoveries, including most of what scientists understand about evolution. Such as: Gregor Mendel’s patterns of heredity (which gave Darwin’s idea of natural selection a mechanism — genetics — by which it could work); the discovery of DNA (which gave genetics a mechanism and lets us see evolutionary lineages); developmental biology (which gives DNA a mechanism); studies documenting evolution in nature (which converted the hypothetical to observable fact); evolution’s role in medicine and disease (bringing immediate relevance to the topic); and more.

By propounding “Darwinism,” even scientists and science writers perpetuate an impression that evolution is about one man, one book, one “theory.”

I don’t fully agree. Darwin proposed, discussed, and integrated into his theories of evolution the idea of inheritance. Yes, Gregor Mendel independently demonstrated an atomistic theory of inheritance and worked out key features of that process, essentially creating the concepts of “gene” and “allele” as we often use them today. Having said that, Mendelian inheritance turns out to be a very incomplete picture and more often than not is inadequate in real use. The difference between what we now know about inheritance and what Darwin needed to develop much of his evolutionary thinking isn’t really all that large. Darwin certainly did address developmental biology, in that he understood that life forms underwent changes within the lifetime that were controlled by the same factors that shaped any feature of those organisms. And so on.

In particular, Safina states that the term “Darwinism” puts too much emphasis on the contributions of one person and one book and one theory. But Darwin wrote more than one book on Evolution, and he proposed more than one theory. Mayr says there were five theories and makes a reasonable argument for that. Darwin even foresaw, though he did not develop, higher level behavioral theories such as kin selection.

Safina goes on to note that “We don’t call astronomy Copernicism, nor gravity Newtonism” and otherwise warns against the “ism”-ish nature of a word like “Darwinism” reminding us of Marxism, capitalism, Catholicism, and racism.

Before I go any further, I want to strongly agree with Safina and others who have eschewed the term “Darwinism” but not for most of the reasons stated. Darwin was a key figure in defining evolution, and for the most part, the “evolution” we know of today is Darwin’s evolution plus, not a form of evolution that required the overthrow of Darwin’s ideas. Newton was wrong. We can use the word “Newtonian” to refer to a subset of physics that work like Newton said they worked but only on a very limited scale. Newtonian mechanics does not describe how the universe, or reality, or matter and energy work. Newtonian physics changed from a theory of everything (dynamic and physical) to a mere approximation that is fundamentally flawed. Copernicism, as it were, more so. Darwinism (to use that term for just a moment) is still at the core of modern evolutionary thinking.

The reason to eschew the term “Darwinism” is for that final reason mentioned above: isms are sucky. So I’m fine with that. But evolution as we know of today is a Darwinian thing to a much much greater degree than physics as we know of it today is Newtonian (or for that matter, even Einsteinian!).

So, I’m happy to be a “Darwinist” but I’d prefer to use the term “Evolutionary Biologist.”

There is another term that people have elected to toss out for similar reasons: Darwinain. That is an error, and most biologists who would happily agree with Safina (and me) in avoiding Darwinism use Darwinian all the time. The term Darwinian refers to one part of Darwin’s body of theory: Selection. We say that during neurogenesis, neurons over produce and over connect, and then, over time, undergo culling based on use. Neurons that are used are retained, those that are not go away. It is said to be a Darwinian process, because it is a selection process in which over production is followed by selective retention or survival. There are other examples of Darwinian process that occur in biology, and of course, they happen outside of biology and the term is often used, including but not limited to the nefarious idea of Social Darwinian process.

And now, for your reading and listening pleasure, a few Darwinian blog posts:

A podcast celebrating Darwin's birthday. The first part is great but the part with me starts at 15:10.

A few essays focusing on Darwin's Voyage on The Beagle

__________________
photo of Darwin by kevinzim

gregladen Tue, 02/12/2013 - 00:42

Do what you're good at

stoat — Tue, 26 Jul 2011 03:35:13 +0000

Do what you're good at

My morning blog-reading threw up Well, no Mr. Chakrabortty, no wherein Timmy is characteristically blunt about the failings of politicians. You don't have to agree, this is only the lead-in to my own view. The problem with Timmy's analysis is that no, most politicians aren't idiots, they are quite clever. Or at least some of them. But they do stuff up a lot of things very badly.

So I'll put up my own view, which is more Darwinistic: you should do what you're good at, and free competition will select those who get it right. In an idealised free market this happens for businesses: those that succeed, errm, succeed; and those that fail, fail. In a bad market, biznizmen can capture the regulation to their own advantage. But in a sense, that is the same Darwinism in action: if you're astute, and wish to prosper, you have to recognise what in that environment will make you prosper. If the framework is wrong, the "right" behaviour won't help. Setting the correct framework is the politicians job. If they get it wrong (e.g. by preferring cap-n-trade over a carbon tax) then the market will inevitably respond, "wrongly".

And so to politicians. What pressures act to select on them? I argue that the ones you would want - competence, ability to manage their brief, making valid decisions - are there, but weak. Far stronger are ability to win elections, fighting up the party hierarchy, looking good, etc. Which is why I agree that the state should do as little as possible, and concentrate on what it should do: making the framework right. One large part of which (MPs expenses, the current phone hacking stuff) is preventing corruption.

stoat Mon, 07/25/2011 - 23:35

Why I am not a Darwinist, but we should celebrate Darwin Day

cwilcox — Thu, 12 Feb 2009 02:23:00 +0000

Why I am not a Darwinist, but we should celebrate Darwin Day

I keep reading articles for and against Darwin Day Celebrations spouting about "Darwinists" and "Darwinism". As I sat down to write my own post to "Blog for Darwin", I couldn't get these "-isms" and "-ists" out of my head. I really wanted to write more about the man behind the theory or the amazing journey he undertook, especially after reviewing the National Geographic Darwin Specials (#1 and #2), but I simply couldn't get this nagging post out of my head. So I have to leave the historical stories to someone else, or at least until tomorrow. I decided that my only choice was to explain, once and for all, why I am not a "Darwinist".

Read On!

150 years ago on November 24th a naturalist born 50 years earlier named Charles Darwin published a book with a rather long and cumbersome title. It was called On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (for its sixth edition in 1872, the title was cut short to simply The Origin of Species, which was found to be much more manageable to say in conversation). It was inspired by an almost five year journey around the world on a ship named for a small, floppy eared canine during which Darwin did his best to catalog and understand geology and the diversity of life he found.

It's incomprehensible, now, to think of someone writing a single volume that could equally change science as we know it. The two simple ideas that Darwin fleshed out in his first publication were earth shattering at the time. He has since been called both a genius and a heretic for these two theories - both titles equally deserved. But whatever you call him, his vision has changed the world irrevocably. Indeed, you do not hear of people calling anyone "Newtonists" or "Einsteinists". He is alone among scientists to have spurred an "-ism" with "-ists" for followers. Even still, I am not a Darwinist.

In On the Origin of Species (for short), Darwin proposed two related but different scientific theories. The first is generally referred to as Common Descent, which asserts that organisms are related through a single ancestor, like branches of a tree which all erupt from a solitary trunk - indeed, the metaphor of a "tree of life" is often how such relationships are depicted. In modern science, common descent is generally taken as fact with overwhelming support. Even when first proposed, the idea was quickly accepted among the scientific community. The evidence was everywhere, and it was like someone had finally produced the key to a locked door in scientific thought. It was already known by those who bred domesticated animals that two very different looking and behaving creatures could come from specific breeding for certain traits. There was no doubt, then, that two similar beasts could be pulled from one - the only question was how much had this occurred in the past, and how.

To some of the religious, Common Descent only supported their beliefs in God. It seemed the perfect blend of what they could see and what they believed. God, thus, acted upon nature how we do with dogs, picking and choosing which to breed with what to produce the fantastic variety of animals on the planet. How many initial "ancestors" he started with might be up for debate, but the idea that he fine-tuned a generic "cat" to become tigers, leopards and irritable house pets suited most of them just fine. If anything, it seemed to elegantly explain how God might have created life.

No, Darwin was not a heretic for asserting that animals could have evolved from distinct ancestors. He was labeled a heretic because of his second proposal - that of the means.

The second theory in his book was far more controversial and, initially, garnished far less acceptance. This was the theory of Natural Selection. Darwin proposed that the variation between animals, when not intentionally bred by humans, was due to favorable traits being passed down from generation to generation via the individuals interaction with its enviroment. In his own words, he described natural selection as thus:

Owing to this struggle for life, any variation, however slight and from whatever cause proceeding, if it be in any degree profitable to an individual of any species, in its infinitely complex relations to other organic beings and to external nature, will tend to the preservation of that individual, and will generally be inherited by its offspring. The offspring, also, will thus have a better chance of surviving, for, of the many individuals of any species which are periodically born, but a small number can survive. I have called this principle, by which each slight variation, if useful, is preserved, by the term of Natural Selection, in order to mark its relation to man's power of selection. We have seen that man by selection can certainly produce great results, and can adapt organic beings to his own uses, through the accumulation of slight but useful variations, given to him by the hand of Nature. But Natural Selection, as we shall hereafter see, is a power incessantly ready for action, and is as immeasurably superior to man's feeble efforts, as the works of Nature are to those of Art.

At the time, the idea that species could change without some kind of input similar to that of man was not only impossible, it was heresy. Even some of Darwin's staunchest supporters viewed the idea that natural variation could cause the dramatic diversity of life as highly unlikely. To have such changes occur with no "guidance" and so slowly was just not believable. It wasn't until the 1930s, with the integration of Mendelian genetics that the scientific community fully realized the accuracy and feasibility of Darwin's mechanism.

However, the final result of the two theories, now known together as "Evolution", has come a long way since Darwin. Indeed, Evolution by Darwinian Natural Selection only begins to touch on what is meant to most by the term Evolution. It is for this reason, you see, that I am not a Darwinist.

It's not that Darwin was wrong, as some feeble-minded magazine cover designers have purported. It's that he wasn't complete. And how could he have been? He had no understanding of how traits were passed down between generations or how, even, those traits were stored as information. Even more, his theory lacked the ability to explain how negative traits survive and flourish in populations, or how seemingly neutral ones change in frequency.

Darwinism, in the sense it was first coined and indeed how it is often used today, is strictly the belief that Darwin's theories are a sufficient explanation of the origins and diversification of life. It is the assertion that Natural Selection is the mechanism by which one common ancestor became a vast array of species. And, simply put, I don't agree.

While Natural Selection is clearly a viable, true mechanism for evolution, it's hardly the only one. To assume that a trait must be favorable in some way to be passed down and increase in frequency is simply inaccurate. Evolution, as it now has come to mean, is the change in alleles (those little bits of information that store traits that Darwin didn't know about) in a population. So to say that the only way the relative frequency of a trait can change is by it allowing an individual to survive and breed more than others is silly. Genetic Drift, Gene Flow and Mutation all cause changes in allele frequency, and not necessarily making the individuals or the group more "fit". There is a clear role for chance - for example, if a hurricane suddenly wiped out the entire population of Florida, we would not say that the resulting change in allele frequency in the U.S.A. was due to them being "less fit"; they were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Similarly, alleles which affect an organism after its ability to reproduce are not subjectable to Natural Selection, but, I would argue,certainly are a part of evolution. And where does horizontal gene transfer fit into "Darwinian" theory? Short answer, it doesn't - not easily, anyhow.

Darwin began a movement and an understanding of life that we have only begun to appreciate. But to call evolution "Darwinian" is to dismiss all the work that has been done since his time and all that we have learned from it. Darwin was a scientific pioneer who laid the groundwork for modern evolutionary theory, but he was no singular hero. Thus I find it at best inaccurate, and at worst perhaps insulting, that having even a slight grasp of evolution and support for its mechanisms is often singularly called "Darwinism". Not only does it belittle the countless others who have aided to and complimented the theory, it makes it sounds like evolution is just another ideology, like "Marxism" or "Communism". Evolution is not a belief - it's a scientifically tested theory. No one claims that the "belief" in Gravitational Theory is some form of "-ism" like "Newtonism", with those that say objects do obey given laws of gravity labeled "Newtonists". So while I have an astounding amount of admiration and respect for the Darwin and the incredible discoveries and insights he provided, I am not, nor will ever be, a "Darwinist".

I am a Scientist who finds Evolution to be the most scientifically accurate and clear explanation for the diversification of life from one or more entities that formed from a chemical base. Evolution is no longer simple, linear Darwinism, where the toughest and fittest survive. Evolution is a fine web of connections and adaptations with ever increasing complexity and elegance. We have yet to fully unravel the mysteries surrounding how genes originated, moved and diversified, not just vertically but horizontally, between related and distant species, in entirely un-"Darwinian" ways. But, like we credit Newton for Gravity despite gaping flaws in his assumptions and exact calculations of the force, so too should we celebrate Darwin on this year, the 150^th anniversary of The Origin of Species and his 200^th birthday, as the grandfather of Evolution. So while I am not a Darwinist, as I have explained, I might just let it slide if you call me one - for now - because I appreciate the legacy that he has given us all. And, in the end, I guess it is somewhat of an honor to be lumped in with the likes of him, even if the grouping is not entirely accurate.

**UPDATE: This post is up as a nominee for the 3 Quark's Daily Top Quark: Science! Go Vote For It Here!! (scroll down to the Os)

cwilcox Wed, 02/11/2009 - 21:23