Alternatives to Darwinian evolution
Alternatives to Darwinian evolution have been proposed by scholars investigating biology to explain signs of evolution and the relatedness of different groups of living things. The alternatives in question do not deny that evolutionary changes over time are the origin of the diversity of life, nor that the organisms alive today share a common ancestor from the distant past (or ancestors, in some proposals); rather, they propose alternative mechanisms of evolutionary change over time, arguing against mutations acted on by natural selection as the most important driver of evolutionary change.
This distinguishes them from certain other kinds of arguments that deny that large-scale evolution of any sort has taken place, as in some forms of creationism, which do not propose alternative mechanisms of evolutionary change but instead deny that evolutionary change has taken place at all. Not all forms of creationism deny that evolutionary change takes place; notably, proponents of theistic evolution, such as the biologist Asa Gray, assert that evolutionary change does occur and is responsible for the history of life on Earth, with the proviso that this process has been influenced by a god or gods in some meaningful sense.
Where the fact of evolutionary change was accepted but the mechanism proposed by Charles Darwin, natural selection, was denied, explanations of evolution such as Lamarckism, catastrophism, orthogenesis, vitalism, structuralism and mutationism (called saltationism before 1900) were entertained. Different factors motivated people to propose non-Darwinian mechanisms of evolution. Natural selection, with its emphasis on death and competition, did not appeal to some naturalists because they felt it immoral, leaving little room for teleology or the concept of progress (orthogenesis) in the development of life. Some who came to accept evolution, but disliked natural selection, raised religious objections. Others felt that evolution was an inherently progressive process that natural selection alone was insufficient to explain. Still others felt that nature, including the development of life, followed orderly patterns that natural selection could not explain.
By the start of the 20th century, evolution was generally accepted by biologists but
Unchanging forms
In the Middle Ages,
By 1818, however, Étienne Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire argued in his Philosophie anatomique that the chain was "a progressive series", where animals like molluscs low on the chain could "rise, by addition of parts, from the simplicity of the first formations to the complication of the creatures at the head of the scale", given sufficient time. Accordingly, Geoffroy and later biologists looked for explanations of such evolutionary change.[10]
Georges Cuvier's 1812 Recherches sur les Ossements Fossiles set out his doctrine of the correlation of parts, namely that since an organism was a whole system, all its parts mutually corresponded, contributing to the function of the whole. So, from a single bone the zoologist could often tell what class or even genus the animal belonged to. And if an animal had teeth adapted for cutting meat, the zoologist could be sure without even looking that its sense organs would be those of a predator and its intestines those of a carnivore. A species had an irreducible functional complexity, and "none of its parts can change without the others changing too".[11] Evolutionists expected one part to change at a time, one change to follow another. In Cuvier's view, evolution was impossible, as any one change would unbalance the whole delicate system.[11]
Louis Agassiz's 1856 "Essay on Classification" exemplified German philosophical idealism. This held that each species was complex within itself, had complex relationships to other organisms, and fitted precisely into its environment, as a pine tree in a forest, and could not survive outside those circles. The argument from such ideal forms opposed evolution without offering an actual alternative mechanism. Richard Owen held a similar view in Britain.[12]
The Lamarckian social philosopher and evolutionist Herbert Spencer, ironically the author of the phrase "survival of the fittest" adopted by Darwin,[13] used an argument like Cuvier's to oppose natural selection. In 1893, he stated that a change in any one structure of the body would require all the other parts to adapt to fit in with the new arrangement. From this, he argued that it was unlikely that all the changes could appear at the right moment if each one depended on random variation; whereas in a Lamarckian world, all the parts would naturally adapt at once, through a changed pattern of use and disuse.[14]
Alternative explanations of change
Where the fact of evolutionary change was accepted by biologists but
Some felt that natural selection would be too slow, given the estimates of the
Theory | Date | Notable proponent |
Species can change? |
Mechanism of change |
Mechanism is physical? |
Extinction possible? |
Notes |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Scala naturae[6] | c. 350 BC | Aristotle | No | None | N/A | No | Characteristics of groups do not fit on linear scale, as Aristotle observed.[6] Teleology and homology recognised but not connected as evolution with adaptation; not spiritual |
Great chain of being[1] | 1305 | Llull, Ramon; scholastics |
No | None | N/A | No | Aristotelian, fitted into Christian theology |
Vitalism[21] | 1759 | Wolff, Caspar Friedrich | Yes | A life force in embryo | No | No? | Varieties of theory from Ancient Egypt onwards, often spiritual. Dropped from biology with chemical synthesis of organic molecules e.g. of urea in 1828 |
Theistic evolution | 1871–6 | Mivart, St George J.
|
Yes | Deity supplies beneficial mutations (Gray 1876), or sets (orthogenetic) direction (Mivart 1871) | No | Yes | "Failed the test of |
Orthogenesis[24] | 1859 | Baer, Karl von
|
Yes | "Purposeful creation" | No | Yes? | Many variants in 19th and 20th centuries |
Orthogenesis[25] inc. emergent evolution |
1959 | Teilhard de Chardin, Pierre | Yes | "Inherent progressive tendency" (teleological, vitalist) | No | Yes | Spiritual theory, emergence of mind, Omega Point |
Lamarckism[26] | 1809 | Lamarck, Jean-Baptiste | Yes | Use and disuse; inheritance of acquired characteristics | So it was thought, but none was found | No | Part of his view of orthogenesis. Dropped from biology as Weismann barrier prevents changes in somatic cells from affecting germ line in gonads |
Catastrophism[27] | 1812 | Cuvier, Georges | No | Extinctions caused by natural events such as volcanism, floods | Yes, for reducing number of species | Yes | To explain extinctions and fossil record ; repopulation by new species after such events noted but left unexplained
|
Structuralism[28] | 1917 | Thompson, D'Arcy
|
Yes | Self-organization, physical forces | Yes | Yes? | Many variants, some influenced by vitalism |
Saltationism[29][30] or Mutationism |
1831 | Geoffroy Saint-Hilaire, Étienne | Yes | Large mutations | Yes | Yes? | Sudden production of new species under environmental pressure |
Neutral theory of molecular evolution[31] | 1968 | Kimura, Motoo | Yes | Genetic drift | Yes | Yes | Only at molecular level; fits in with natural selection at higher levels. Observed 'molecular clock' supports neutral drift; not a rival to natural selection, as does not cause evolution of phenotype |
Darwinian evolution[32] |
1859 | Darwin, Charles | Yes | Natural selection | Yes | Yes | Lacked mechanisms of mutation and heredity until birth of genetics, 1900; Darwin instead proposed pangenesis and some degree of inheritance of acquired characteristics |
Vitalism
Vitalism holds that living organisms differ from other things in containing something non-physical, such as a fluid or vital spirit, that makes them live.[33] The theory dates to ancient Egypt.[34][21] Since
Theistic evolution
The American botanist
Orthogenesis
Orthogenesis or Progressionism is the hypothesis that life has an innate tendency to change, developing in a unilinear fashion in a particular direction, or simply making some kind of definite progress. Many different versions have been proposed, some such as that of
Orthogenesis was popular among paleontologists such as
Support for orthogenesis fell during the
Lamarckism
In modern
Catastrophism
Catastrophism is the
Catastrophism has found a place in modern biology with the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event at the end of the Cretaceous period, as proposed in a paper by
Structuralism
Biological structuralism objects to an exclusively Darwinian explanation of natural selection, arguing that other mechanisms also guide evolution, and sometimes implying that these supersede selection altogether.
Saltationism, mutationism
Initially, de Vries and Morgan believed that mutations were so large as to create new forms such as subspecies or even species instantly. Morgan's 1910 fruit fly experiments, in which he isolated mutations for characteristics such as white eyes, changed his mind. He saw that mutations represented small
Contemporary biologists accept that mutation and selection both play roles in evolution; the mainstream view is that while mutation supplies material for selection in the form of variation, all non-random outcomes are caused by natural selection.
Genetic drift
The
The theory was controversial as it sounded like a challenge to Darwinian evolution; controversy was intensified by a 1969 paper by
According to Kimura, the theory applies only for evolution at the molecular level, while phenotypic evolution is controlled by natural selection, so the neutral theory does not constitute a true alternative.[31][87]
Combined theories
The various alternatives to Darwinian evolution by natural selection were not necessarily mutually exclusive. The evolutionary philosophy of the American palaeontologist
Rebirth of natural selection, with continuing alternatives
By the start of the 20th century, during the
Biology has become Darwinian, but belief in some form of progress (orthogenesis) remains both in the public mind and among biologists. Ruse argues that evolutionary biologists will probably continue to believe in progress for three reasons. Firstly, the anthropic principle demands people able to ask about the process that led to their own existence, as if they were the pinnacle of such progress. Secondly, scientists in general and evolutionists in particular believe that their work is leading them progressively closer to a true grasp of reality, as knowledge increases, and hence (runs the argument) there is progress in nature also. Ruse notes in this regard that Richard Dawkins explicitly compares cultural progress with memes to biological progress with genes. Thirdly, evolutionists are self-selected; they are people, such as the entomologist and sociobiologist E. O. Wilson, who are interested in progress to supply a meaning for life.[92]
See also
- Coloration evidence for natural selection
- History of evolutionary thought
- Objections to evolution
- Extended evolutionary synthesis
- Lysenkoism
Notes
- ^ Not to be confused with the more recent use of the term theistic evolution, which refers to a theological belief in the compatibility of science and religion.
- ^ Gray, and later historians of science, did not refer to a 20th century usage of theistic evolution (described in that article), that one can accept Darwinian evolution without being an atheist.
References
- ^ a b c d Ruse 1996, pp. 21–23.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 246–281.
- ^ Larson 2004, pp. 12–13.
- ^ Leroi 2015, p. 89.
- ^ Lloyd 1968, pp. 166–169.
- ^ a b c Leroi 2015, pp. 276–278.
- ^ Mayr 1985, pp. 201–202.
- ^ a b Ruse 1996, p. 43.
- ^ Lovejoy 2011, p. 228 and passim.
- ^ Ruse 1996, p. 95.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, pp. 18–21.
- ^ Larson 2004, pp. 42–43, 111.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 239, 342.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 149, 253, 259.
- ^ Bowler 2003, p. 197.
- ^ Larson 2004, pp. 119–120.
- ^ Quammen 2006, pp. 209–210.
- ^ a b c Bowler 2003, pp. 196–253.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, pp. 105–129.
- ^ Endersby 2007, pp. 143–147, 182.
- ^ a b BirchCobb 1985, pp. 76–78.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, p. 126.
- ^ a b c Larson 2004, pp. 125–128.
- ISBN 978-1-890688-08-0.
- ISBN 1-902210-30-1.
- ^ a b Bowler 2003, pp. 86–95.
- ^ Rudwick 1972, pp. 131–134.
- ^ a b c d Ruse 2013, pp. 419.
- ^ a b Bowler 2003, pp. 265–270.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, pp. 127–129, 157–167.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-521-31793-1.
- JSTOR 2096764.
- ^ a b c Bechtel, William; Richardson, Robert C. (1998). "Vitalism". In Craig, E. (ed.). Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Routledge.
- ISBN 978-0-253-21096-8.
- S2CID 71727190.
- ^ Driesch, Hans (1914). The History and Theory of Vitalism. Macmillan.
- ISBN 978-0-521-51775-1.
- .
- ^ Campbell, George (1867). The Reign of Law. Strahan.
- New Leaf. p. 36.
- ^ a b Bowler 2003, p. 249.
- ^ a b Quammen 2006, p. 221.
- S2CID 26956345.
- PMID 16857856.
- ^ PMID 19625453.
- PMID 24817211.
- ^ Darwin 1872, p. 108.
- ^ a b Bowler 2003, p. 236.
- ^ a b Larson 2004, pp. 125–129.
- ^ Quammen 2006, p. 217.
- ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 239–240.
- ^ Bowler 2003, pp. 253–255.
- ^ PMID 24679529.
- ^ McGowan 2001, pp. 3–6.
- ^ Rudwick 1972, pp. 133–134.
- ^ Waggoner, Ben (1996). "Georges Cuvier (1769–1832)". University of California, Berkeley.
- ^ Rudwick 1972, p. 131.
- ^ S2CID 16017767.
- .
- ^ Racine, Valerie (7 October 2013). "Essay: The Cuvier-Geoffroy Debate". The Embryo Project Encyclopedia, Arizona State University. Retrieved 10 December 2016.
- ^ Seilacher 1991, pp. 251–271.
- .
- ^ a b c Wagner, Günter P., Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation. Princeton University Press. 2014. Chapter 1: The Intellectual Challenge of Morphological Evolution: A Case for Variational Structuralism. Pages 7–38
- ISBN 9780691156460.
- PMC 1226010.
- .
- PMID 21276788.
- ^ Muller, G.B.; Newman, S.A. The innovation triad: an EvoDevo agenda. J. Exp. Zool. (Mol. Dev Evol), 304B (2005), pp. 487–503
- ^ a b Goodwin, Brian (2009). Ruse, Michael; Travis, Joseph (eds.). Beyond the Darwinian Paradigm: Understanding Biological Forms. Harvard University Press.
{{cite book}}
:|work=
ignored (help) - ^ Moran, Laurence A. (2016-02-02). "What is "Structuralism"?". Sandwalk (blog of a recognised expert). Retrieved 9 December 2016.
- ISBN 978-1-107-62139-8.
- PMID 24811736.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 211–212, 276–277.
- ^ Endersby 2007, pp. 148–162.
- ^ Endersby 2007, pp. 202–205.
- ^ Bowler 1989, pp. 310–311.
- PMC 3814208.
- ^ .
- ISBN 978-0-12-680126-2.
- PMID 18768810.
- S2CID 84877180.
- ISBN 978-0-632-04708-6
- PMID 19930658.
- ^ McClintock, B. (1984). The significance of responses of the genome to challenge. Science Vol. 226, pp. 792–801.
- PMID 5767777.
- S2CID 367102.
- S2CID 16440448.
- ^ a b Bowler 1989, pp. 261–262.
- ^ Bowler 1989, p. 264.
- ^ Larson 2004, pp. 128–129.
- ^ Larson 2004, pp. 222–243, 284–286.
- ^ Ruse 1996, pp. 536–539.
Sources
- Birch, Charles; Cobb, John B. (1985). The Liberation of Life: From the Cell to the Community. ISBN 978-0-9626807-0-0.
- ISBN 978-0-8018-4391-4.
- ISBN 978-0-520-23693-6.
- ISBN 978-1-904633-78-5.
- Endersby, Jim (2007). A Guinea Pig's History of Biology. ISBN 978-0-674-02713-8.
- ISBN 978-0-679-64288-6.
- ISBN 978-1-4088-3622-4.
- ISBN 978-0-521-09456-6.
- ISBN 978-0-674-36153-9.
- ISBN 978-0-674-36446-2.
- McGowan, Christopher (2001). The Dragon Seekers. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Perseus Publishing. ISBN 978-0-7382-0282-2.
- ISBN 978-0-393-05981-6.
- ISBN 978-0-226-73103-2.
- ISBN 978-0-674-03248-4.
- ISBN 9780739174371.
- ISBN 978-3-642-76158-4.