Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry.

  • Berry, R. J. (Robert James)
Date:
1982
Catalogue details

Licence: Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International (CC BY-NC 4.0)

Credit: Neo-Darwinism / R.J. Berry. Source: Wellcome Collection.

    67/76 (page 61)
    THE FIFTH SYNTHESIS? 61 punctuated equilibria is inconsistent with neo-Darwinism, that all mutations are harmful, that the most important hereditary determinants are in cell membranes and not nuclear DNA, that no species transitions are known (except the trivial case of polyploidy), that evolution is contrary to the Second Law of Thermo¬ dynamics (which only applies in a closed system, but the earth is continually receiving solar energy), that all rock-dating techniques are unreliable, and so on. Creationist literature is a sadly distorted microcosm of the whole neo- Darwinian debate. The tragedy of the creationist position is that it begins from the axiom that evolution is an impossibility, and hence preempts rational discussion on the issue. 7.6 The fifth synthesis? The common characteristic of all the attacks and debates about evolution, past and current, is an over-emphasis on one particular factor or a failure to take into account data from disparate disciplines. Difficulties in this respect increase as biological knowledge grows, and it becomes difficult to keep different parts of the subject in focus. One reason why the history of evolutionary debate is important is that old arguments tend to recur. None of the objections recorded in this chapter is new, and much time and effort would have been saved if the protagonists had been better versed in past debates. Indeed one may honestly (if rashly) assert that there is now no real attack on the neo-Darwinian synthesis as it has developed over more than 100 years. Work on punctuated equilibrium should give further insight into speciation processes, whether or not Eldridge and Gould are confirmed in all their beliefs; there is a need for more information about the importance of embryological patterns in evolution, but it is difficult to see how it may lead to any major adjustment in the processes described in Chapters 5 and 6; and as for cladists and creationists, they are trying to fight battles in areas where the war has long passed. It is dangerous to suggest that any major set of scientific ideas is close to its final form; as far as the neo-Darwinism is concerned, the neutralist debates of the late 1960s and 1970s are still too close to allow complacency (particularly while creationists allege that evolutionists have been brain-washed). Neverthe¬ less it seems fair to claim that the neo-Darwinian synthesis is in good shape with new insights from the neutralist debates on the maintenance of variation and the interaction of genes with ecology; and that there is no need for any major new synthesis to incorporate the attacks of the 1980s.