[Quotes] [Darwinism, #1, #2, #4]
"Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory that can explain the origin of species, understood as organisms of distinctive form and behaviour. In other words, it is not an adequate theory of evolution. What it does provide is a partial theory of adaptation, or microevolution (small- scale adaptive changes in organisms)." (Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK], "Neo-Darwinism has failed as an evolutionary theory," The Times Higher Education Supplement, May 19, 1995).[top]
"My main criticism of Darwinism is that it fails in its initial objective, which is to explain the origin of species. Now, let me explain exactly what I mean by that. I mean it fails to explain the emergence of organisms, the specific forms during evolution like algae and ferns and flowering plants, corals, starfish, crabs, fish, birds. .... Darwin turned biology into a historical science, and in Darwinism, species are simply accidents of history, they don't have any inherent nature. They are just 'the way things happened to work out' and there aren't any particular constraints that mean it couldn't have all worked out very differently." (Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK], "An interview with Professor Brian Goodwin by Dr David King," GenEthics News, Issue 11. March/April 1996, pp.6-8. http://members.tripod.com/~ngin/article8.htm).[top]
"I well remember how the synthetic theory beguiled me with its unifying power when I was a graduate student in the mid-1960's. Since then I have been watching it slowly unravel as a universal description of evolution. The molecular assault came first, followed quickly by renewed attention to unorthodox theories of speciation and by challenges at the level of macroevolution itself. I have been reluctant to admit it-since beguiling is often forever-but if Mayr's characterization of the synthetic theory is accurate, then that theory, as a general proposition, is effectively dead, despite its persistence as textbook orthodoxy." (Gould, Stephen Jay [Professor of Zoology and Geology, Harvard University, USA], "Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?," Paleobiology, Vol. 6, No. 1, January 1980, pp.119-130, p.120).[top]
"It is now approximately half a century since the neo-Darwinian synthesis was formulated A great deal of research has been carried on within the paradigm it defines. Yet the successes of the theory are limited to the interpretation of the minutiae of evolution, such as the adaptive change in coloration of moths; while it has remarkably little to say on the questions which interest us most, such as how there came to be moths in the first place." (Ho M.W. & Saunders P.T., "Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution," Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573- 591, 1979, p.589).[top]
"Then the mathematical properties of the complex model will be investigated .... Thereafter ... we shall be in a position to discuss the extent to which the neo-Darwinian theory can be considered to work and the extent to which it cannot. To anticipate the eventual outcome it will be found that, subject to the choice of a highly sophisticated reproductive model, the theory works at the level of varieties and species, just as it was found empirically to do by biologists from the mid-nineteenth century onward. But the theory does not work at broader taxonomic levels; it cannot explain the major steps in evolution. For them, something not considered in the Darwinian theory is essential." (Hoyle, Fred [late mathematician, physicist and Professor of Astronomy, Cambridge University], "Mathematics of Evolution," , Acorn Enterprises: Memphis TN, 1999, p.10)[top]
"Clearly something is missing from biology. It appears that Darwin's theory works for the small-scale aspects of evolution: it can explain the variations and the adaptations within species that produce fine-tuning of varieties to different habitats. The large-scale differences of form between types of organism that are the foundation of biological classification systems seem to require a principle other than natural selection operating on small variations, some process that gives rise to distinctly different forms of organism. This is the problem of emergent order in evolution, the origins of novel structures in organisms that has always been a primary interest in biology." (Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," , Phoenix: London, 1995, reprint, pp.xxi)[top]
"Nor does any of the above depend upon the theories of Charles Darwin, with which evolution is popularly associated. The opposite is true. More recent scientific insights indicate that neo-Darwinism is at best a partial explanation of how biological evolution occurs. The demise of Darwinian theory as a *full* explanation in no way alters the firm consensus of science that the universe has evolved. There is at the moment not one competing theory which can account for the observed facts." (Price, Barry [former Director, School Physics Project, Australian Academy of Science], "The Creation Science Controversy," Millennium Books: Sydney, 1990, p8. Italics in original)[top]
"When speaking here of Darwinism, I shall speak always of today's theory that is Darwin's own theory of natural selection supported by the Mendelian theory of heredity, by the theory of the mutation and recombination of genes in a gene pool, and by the decoded genetic code. This is an immensely impressive and powerful theory. The claim that it completely explains evolution is of course a bold claim, and very far from being established." (Popper, Karl R., [Emeritus Professor of Philosophy, University of London], "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind," Dialectica, Vol. 32, Nos. 3-4, pp.339-355, 1978, pp.343-344)[top]
"What excites Margulis is the remarkable incompleteness of general Darwinian theory. Darwinism is wrong by what it omits and by what it incorrectly emphasizes. A number of microbiologists, geneticists, theoretical biologists, mathematicians, and computer scientists are saying there is more to life than Darwinism. They do not reject Darwin's contribution; they simply want to move beyond it. I call them the `postdarwinians.'" (Kelly, Kevin [Executive Editor of Wired], "Out of Control: The New Biology of Machines," , Fourth Estate: London, 1995, reprint, pp470-471. Emphasis in original)[top]
"It is thus hardly surprising that the vast majority of biologists have accepted it [the theory of natural selection] as the theory of evolution. Yet there have always been those who are dissatisfied with the theory. The issue is not whether natural selection does occur; the question is whether the basic framework of neo-Darwinism-the natural selection of random mutations-is sufficient to account for most, if not all evolutionary change; for such is the claim of the modern "synthetic" theory." (Ho, Mae-Wan [Biologist, The Open University, UK] & Saunders, Peter T. [Mathematician, University of London], eds., "Beyond neo-Darwinism - An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution", Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 78, pp.573-591, 1979, p.574. Emphasis in original) .[top]
"So Darwin's assumption that the tree of life is a consequence of the gradual accumulation of small hereditary differences appears to be without significant support. Some other process is responsible for the emergent properties of life, those distinctive features that separate one group of organisms from another, such as fishes and amphibians, worms and insects, horsetails and grasses." (Goodwin, Brian [Professor of Biology, Open University, UK], "How The Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity," , Phoenix: London, 1995, reprint, p.x).[top]
"Every taxonomist since Darwin has interpreted life as a vast tree in which all living creatures are the tips of the branches, and fossils are the remains of ancestral branches. So the pattern of nature-the forms that exist now and in the past-has been interpreted in terms of the process of nature, the theory of branching evolution through time. But has this assumption clouded our vision of nature? Can we be certain that a particular fossil, which may appear to be intermediate between other creatures, is really an ancestor? With the growing sophistication of taxonomy there is a feeling that many of the neo-Darwinian assumptions about fossils and ancestry may be scientifically unfounded, and should be dropped. This realization, that the theory may be incapable of helping taxonomy, and may even be a hindrance to it, has led to a rejection of Darwinian ideas among some taxonomists who feel that we should be finding out more about the pattern before we become dogmatic about the process which is supposed to explain it." (Leith, Brian [producer, Natural History Unit, BC, Bristol UK], "The Descent of Darwin: A Handbook of Doubts about Darwinism," Collins: London, 1982, p.23).[top]
"We conclude-unexpectedly-that there is little evidence for the neo- Darwinian view: its theoretical foundations and the experimental evidence supporting it are weak, and there is no doubt that mutations of large effect are sometimes important in adaptation." (Orr, H. Allen [Center for Population Biology, University of California, Davis], & Coyne, Jerry A. [Department of Ecology and Evolution, University of Chicago], "The Genetics of Adaptation: A Reassessment," The American Naturalist, Vol. 140, No. 5, November 1992, p.726).[top]
* Authors with an asterisk against their name are believed not to be evolutionists.
Copyright © 1999-2003, by Stephen E. Jones. All rights reserved. This page and its contents may be used for non-commercial purposes only. If used on the Internet, a link back to my home page at http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones would be appreciated. Created: 28 August, 1999. Updated: 7 July, 2003.