Evolution by Accident

Evolution by Accident
v1.43 ©2006 Laurence A. Moran
This essay has been transferred here from an old server that has been decommissioned.Modern concepts of evolutionary change are frequently attacked by those who find the notions of randomness, chance, and accident to be highly distasteful. Some of these critics are intelligent design creationists and their objections have been refuted elsewhere. In this essay I'm more concerned about my fellow evolutionists who go to great lengths to eliminate chance and accident from all discussions about the fundamental causes of evolution. This is my attempt to convince them that evolution is not as predictable as they claim. I was originally stimulated to put my ideas down on paper when I read essays by John Wilkins [Evolution and Chance] and Loren Haarsma [Chance from a Theistic Perspective] on the TalkOrigins Archive.

The privilege of living beings is the possession of a structure and of a mechanism which ensures two things: (i) reproduction true to type of the structure itself, and (ii) reproduction equally true to type, of any accident that occurs in the structure. Once you have that, you have evolution, because you have conservation of accidents. Accidents can then be recombined and offered to natural selection to find out if they are of any meaning or not.
Jacques Monod (1974) p.394The main conclusion of this essay is that a large part of ongoing evolution is determined by stochastic events that might as well be called "chance" or "random." Furthermore, a good deal of the past history of life on Earth was the product of chance events, or accidents, that could not have been predicted. When I say "evolution by accident" I'm referring to all these events. This phrase is intended solely to distinguish "accidental" evolution from that which is determined by non-random natural selection. I will argue that evolution is fundamentally a random process, although this should not be interpreted to mean that all of evolution is entirely due to chance or accident. The end result of evolution by accident is modern species that do not look designed.

Evolution by chance

Can natural selection occur by chance or accident? No, with qualifications. Can evolution occur by chance or accident? Yes, definitely.

While tidying up my office I came across an anthology of articles by Richard Dawkins. It included a 2009 review of Jerry Coyne's book Why Evolution Is True (2009) and one of Richard's comments caught my eye because it illustrates the difference between the Dawkins' view of evolution and the current mainstream view that was described by Jerry in his book.

I can illustrate this difference by first quoting from Jerry Coyne's book.

This brings up the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism: the idea that, in evolution, "everything happens by chance" (also stated as "everything happens by accident"). This common claim is flatly wrong. No evolutionist—and certainly not Darwin—ever argued that natural selection is based on chance ....

True, the raw materials for evolution—the variations between individuals—are indeed produced by chance mutations. These mutations occur willy-nilly, regardless of whether they are good or bad for the individual. But it is the filitering of that variation by natural selection that produces natural selection, and natural selection is manifestly not random. (p. 119)

It's extremely important to notice that Coyne is referring to NATURAL SELECTION (or Dawinism) in this passage. Natural selection is not random or accidental, according to Coyne. This passage is followed just a few pages later by a section titled "Evolution Without Selection."

Let's take a brief digression here, because it's important to appreciate that natural selection isn't the only process of evolutionary change. Most biologists define evolution as a change in the proportion of alleles (different forms of a gene) in the population.

[Coyne then describes an example of random genetic drift and continues ...] Both drift and selection produce the genetic change that we recognize as evolution. But there's an important difference. Drift is a random process, while selection is the antithesis of randomness. Genetic drift can change the frequencies of alleles regardless of how useful they are to their carrier. Selection, on the other hand, always gets rid of harmful alleles and raises the frequencies of beneficial ones. (pp. 122-123)

Now let's look at Richard Dawkins' review of Coyne's book as published in the Times Literary Supplement in 2009 and reprinted in Books Do Furnish a Life (2021). I picked out an interesting passage from that review in order to illustrate a point.

Coyne is right to identify the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism as 'the idea that, in evolution, 'everything happens by chance' ... This common claim is flatly wrong.' Not only is it flatly wrong, it is obviously wrong, transparently wrong, even to the meanest intelligence (a phrase that has me actively restraining myself). If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn't work at all. (p. 427)

That last sentence is jarring to many scientists, including me. I think that the Dawkins' statement is 'obviously wrong' and 'transparently wrong' because, as Coyne pointed out, evolution by random genetic drift can occur by chance. [Let's not quibble about the meanings of 'random' and 'chance." That's a red herring in this context.] Clearly, evolution can work by chance so why does Dawkins say it can't?

It's not because Dawkins is unaware of random genetic drift and Neutral Theory. The explanation (I think) is that Dawkins restricts his definition of evolution to evolution by natural selection. From his perspective, the fixation of alleles by random genetic drift doesn't count as real evolution because it doesn't produce adaptations. That's the view that he described in The Extended Phenotype back in 1982 and the view that he has implicitly supported over the past few decades [Richard Dawkins' View of Random Genetic Drift].

This is one of the reasons why we refer to Dawkins as an adaptationist and it's one of the reasons why so many of today's evolutionary biologists—especially those who study evolution at the molecular level—reject the Dawkins' view of evolution in favor of a more pluralistic approach.

Note: I wrote an earlier version of this post in 2009 [Dawkins on Chance] and I wrote a long essay on Evolution by Accident where I describe many other examples of evolution by chance.

---

Richard Dawkins' View of Random Genetic Drift

The Greatest Show on Earth is Richard Dawkins' latest book. It's his eighth book on evolution: the others are The Selfish Gene (1976), The Extended Phenotype (1982), The Blind Watchmaker (1986), River Out of Eden (1995), Climbing Mount Improbable (1996), Unweaving the Rainbow (1998) and The Ancestors Tale (2004).

I'm interested in the evolution of Richard Dawkins' ideas about evolution; in particular, his ideas about random genetic drift and mechanisms of evolution other than natural selection.

In Chapter 1 Dawkins says, "All reputable biologists go on to agree that natural selection is one of its most important driving forces, although—as some biologists insist more than others—not the only one."

This looks promising. Dawkins is saying— in chapter 1—that there are two mechanisms (driving forces) of evolution. He implies that he accepts random genetic drift as a "driving force" of evolution. (Assuming that random genetic drift is what he has in mind.) It's clear that "some biologists" have influenced him, although it's not clear from the sentence whether those biologists are "reputable"!

Since this is a book about the evidence for evolution, I eagerly anticipated his explanation of random genetic drift. Would it be as good as Jerry Coyne's?¹ In fact, I was so eager that I couldn't wait. I jumped to the index to look under "random."

Nothing. Not to worry. The other important mechanism must be here somewhere. Is it indexed under "genetic"? No. What about "drift"? No, not there either.

What gives? How can you write a book about evolution in the 21st century without mentioning random genetic drift as an important mechanism of evolution? Even the other adaptationist, Jerry Coyne, has it in the index to Why Evolution Is True.

Maybe Dawkins uses another term for the second mechanism of evolution. I recalled that he often gets mixed up about the difference between neutral theory and random genetic drift. Let's see if "Neutral Theory" is in the index. Nope.

What about "Kimura"? Success at last! Check out page 332.

Page 332 is in the middle of a section on The Molecular Clock in Chapter 10. It seems a bit late to begin discussing the second mechanism of evolution, but, as I said before, it's promising that Dawkins even concedes that there is one.

Dawkins explains that the reason why there's a molecular clock is because the majority of changes at the genetic level are neutral and these changes are fixed in a regular, clock-like, albeit stochastic, process. He then goes on to say...

When the neutral theory of molecular evolution was first proposed by, among others, the great Japanese geneticist Motoo Kimura, it was controversial. Some version of it is now widely accepted and, without going into the detailed evidence here, I am going to accept it in this book. Since I have a reputation as an arch-"adaptationist" (allegedly obsessed with natural selection as the major or even only driving force of evolution) you can have some confidence that if even I support the neutral theory it is unlikely that many other biologists will oppose it!

I can't think of any serious biologists who would deny that neutral mutations exist. The essence of Neutral Theory, or Nearly Neutral Theory as it is currently called, is undoubtedly correct. The fact that Richard Dawkins accepts it in this book is not remarkable. What's remarkable is that he has to tell us that he accepts it, especially in a book about the evidence for evolution.

Meanwhile, we are still waiting for the explanation of the "other" mechanism of evolution. The one that was mentioned in Chapter 1 when he said that natural selection does not account for all of evolution. He can't have been thinking about "Neutral Theory" since that's not a mechanism of evolution. And he can't just have been thinking about a mechanism for fixing neutral mutations since he surely knows that the "other" mechanism can result in the loss of beneficial alleles and the fixation of detrimental ones.

Still waiting. What we see in Chapter 10 is an explanation of neutral mutations but no mention of random genetic drift—the mechanism responsible for fixing neutral mutations in a population. He does briefly mention on page 335 that neutral mutations can "go to fixation by chance." I get the impression that he goes out of his way to not name the other mechanism of evolution. You know what I'm referring to, it's the mechanism that gets a whole chapter to itself in all the evolutionary biology textbooks [Evolution: Table of Contents].

Dawkins concedes that the vast majority of the human genome consists of sequences that aren't genes. Here's how he puts it ...

It is a remarkable fact that the greater part (95% in the case of humans) of the genome might as well not be there, for all the difference it makes. The neutral theory applies even to many of the genes in the remaining 5%—the genes that are read and used. It applies even to genes that are totally vital for survival. I must be clear here. We are not saying that a gene to which the neutral theory applies has no effect on the body. What we are saying is that a mutant version of the gene has exactly the same effect as the unmutated version.

In other words, the vast majority of the DNA in our genome is junk. Mutations that occur in junk DNA will become fixed in spite of the fact that they are not seen by natural selection. This is what he means when he says that most mutations are neutral and it's equivalent to saying that the dominant mechanism of evolution, in terms of overall frequency, is random genetic drift and not natural selection. I just wish he'd come right out and say it.

It's a shame that Dawkins does not actually mention the mechanism by which those neutral mutations become fixed but instead continuously refers to neutral theory as the alternate mode of evolution. The general public needs to hear about random genetic drift and Dawkins is—like it or not—the most prominent evolutionist on the planet.

Dawkins has not changed his mind about the existence of these neutral mutations and he has not changed his mind about their importance. While they may exist, they are not important as far as evolution is concerned. He makes this very clear—once again—in this book.

As it happens, it is probably true to say that most mutations are neutral. They are undetectable by natural selection, but detectable by molecular geneticists; and that is an ideal combination for an evolutionary clock.

None of this is to downgrade the all-important tip of the iceberg—the minority of mutations that are not neutral. It is they that are selected, positively or negatively, in the evolution of improvements. They are the ones whose effects we actually see—and natural selection "sees" too. They are the ones whose selection gives living things their breathtaking illusion of design. But it is the rest of the iceberg—the neutral mutations which are in the majority—that concerns us when we are talking about the molecular clock.

As geological time goes by, the genome is subjected to a rain of attrition in the form of mutations. In that small portion of the genome where the mutations really matter for survival, natural selection soon gets rid of the bad ones and favors the good ones. The neutral mutations, on the other hand, simply pile up, unpunished and unnoticed—except by molecular geneticists.

This is the way the adaptationist dismisses non-adaptive evolution. It's not really of interest to real biologists. It's only interesting to molecular geneticists. And we all know that those people are not real evolutionary biologists!

Now we come to one of the most interesting sentences in the entire book; at least as far as I'm concerned. As most Sandwalk readers know, we have long debated whether or not visible mutations can be neutral. Once you have an observed phenotype, can you ever attribute it to neutrality? Many adaptationists argue that you can't.

Here's what Richard Dawkins says in his latest book.

It is also possible (although "ultra-Darwinists" like me incline against the idea) that some mutations really do change the body, but in such a way as to have no effect on survival, one way or the other.

This is progress. Back when he wrote The Extended Phenotype, in 1982, Richard Dawkins said.

The adaptationism controversy is quite different. It is concerned with whether, given that we're dealing with a phenotypic effect big enough to see and ask questions about, we should assume that it is the product of natural selection. The biochemist's "neutral mutations" are more than neutral. As far as those of us who look at gross morphology, physiology and behavior are concerned, they are not mutations at all. It was in this spirit that Maynard Smith (1976) wrote: "I interpret 'rate of evolution' as a rate of adaptive change. In this sense, the substitution of a neutral allele would not constitute evolution ..." If a whole organism biologist sees a genetically determined differences among phenotypes, he already knows he cannot be dealing with neutrality in the sense of the modern controversy among biochemical geneticists.

Finally, in 2009, Richard Dawkins admits that it is "possible" that visible mutations could be neutral. Hallelujah!

I'm looking forward to book #9.

---

1. Jerry Coyne's View of Random Genetic Drift

Dawkins on Chance

 
I know I'm going to be accused of beating a dead horse but as Emile Zucherkandl and Linus Pauling said in 1965 ...

Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, when here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).

Richard Dawkins
Richard Dawkins has reviewed Jerry Coyne's new book Why Evolution is True in The Times Literary Supplement. The text of the review is posted on RichardDawkins.net [Heat the Hornet].

As you might have guessed, when an adaptationist reviews a book by a fellow adapationist you can expect heaps of praise. Dawkins does not disappoint.

One particular claim caught my eye since Dawkins has made it in the past. I know for a fact that others have pointed out to Dawkins the flaws in this claim. Here's what he says,

Coyne is right to identify the most widespread misunderstanding about Darwinism as the idea that, in evolution, “everything happens by chance”. This common claim is flat wrong – obviously wrong, transparently wrong, even to the meanest intelligence (a phrase that has me actively restraining myself). If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all.

It's true that to say everything happens by chance is wrong. However, it is not true to say that, "If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all."

Here's a quotation from the most popular textbook on evolution, Evolution by Douglas J. Futuyma. It's in Chapter 10—a chapter titled Random Genetic Drift: Evolution at Random.

Almost all factors are affected simultaneously by both chance (unpredictable) and nonrandom, or deterministic (predictable), factors.... So it is with evolution. As we will see in the next chapter, natural selection is a deterministic, nonrandom process. But at the same time, there are important random processes in evolution, including mutation and random fluctuations in the frequencies of alleles or haplotypes: the process of random genetic drift.

Genetic drift and natural selection are the two most important causes of allele substitution—that is of evolutionary change—in populations

Futuyma closes the chapter with a summary of the important points. The first two are ...

1. The frequencies of alleles that differ little or not at all in their effect on organisms' fitness (neutral alleles) fluctuate at random. This process, called random genetic drift, reduces genetic variation and leads eventually to the random fixation of one allele and the loss of the other., unless it is countered by other processes, such as gene flow or mutation.
2. Different alleles are fixed by chance in different populations.

Thus, according to the textbook, evolution by chance occurs in spite of the fact that Dawkins says, "If evolution worked by chance, it obviously couldn’t work at all."

Now, the only way to reconcile his statement is to assume that either Dawkins doesn't know about random genetic drift, or he uses a non-standard definition of "evolution" (or he is wicked, but I’d rather not consider that ).

I know that Dawkins has written about random genetic drift so I have to assume that he uses a definition of the word "evolution" that excludes it. Since he is using a non-standard definition of evolution, I think it would be wise of him to make this clear in his writing. He should have written something like ...

In my opinion, the only valid mechanism of evolution is evolution by natural selection and that is definitely not a chance process. If natural selection worked by chance it obviously couldn't work at all.

---

The Evolution Poll of Sandwalk Readers

 
The poles are closed and the results are in. Richard Dawkins is the clear winner (boo!).

The good news is that 87% (499/573) Sandwalk readers have legitimate scientific views of evolution (Dawkins + Gould + Futuyma). Only a small number of readers are creationists or proponents of theistic evolution.

The bad news is that most readers are split between three different views of evolution. Some people have asked me to explain these three views so here's a brief summary of how I distinguish between Dawkins, Gould, and Futuyma.

Richard Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University (UK). In his first book, The Selfish Gene (1976), he promoted the idea that evolution can be viewed as a competition between genes. This concept was amplified in The Extended Phenotype (1982) where he also answered the main criticism of the selfish gene concept. Dawkins' most popular book was The Blind Watchmaker, first published in 1986. In that book he made the case for design by natural selection and attempted to dismiss, or minimize, all other mechanisms of evolution. The emphasis on the power of natural selection was expanded in Climbing Mt. Improbable (1996).

Dawkins is the leading exponent of adaptationism—or Ultra-Darwinism—the idea that everything interesting in evolution can be explained by adaptation. This is especially true of traits that give rise to visible phenotypes. Dawkins is not very interested in macroevolution and he dismisses punctuated equilibria and species sorting. He believes, along with most adaptationists, that macroevolution is just an extension of natural selection acting on populations. (See RichardDawkins,net for a complete list of books and articles.)

Stephen Jay Gould was Alexander Agassiz Professor of Zoology at Harvard University from 1967 until his death in 2002.

He published Ontogeny and Phylogeny in 1977 where he made the case for a relationship between development and evolution. In The Mismeasure of Man (1981) he criticized biological determinism. Wonderful Life (1989) described the Burgess Shale fossils and explained Gould's ideas about the role of chance and contingency in evolution. In 2002, Gould published The Structure of Evolutionary Theory where he attempts to explain macroevolution, punctuated equilibria, and species sorting. These are part of Gould's hierarchical approach to evolutionary theory. Gould identifies himself as a pluralist—one who recognizes many different mechanisms of evolution that can give rise to important and interesting features. He tends to place much more emphasis on chance and accident in evolution than Dawkins.

Gould, along with Niles Eldredge, is famous for the concept of punctuated equilibrium. This is the idea that much of the change in the characteristics of species is concentrated in brief speciation (by cladogenesis) events.

Gould wrote a regular column for Natural History magazine and many of his articles have been collected in a series of anthologies: Ever Since Darwin, The Panda's Thumb, Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes, The Flamingo's Smile, Bully for Brontosaurus, Eight Little Piggies, Dinosaur in a Haystack, Leonardo's Mountain of Clams and the Diet of Worms, The Lying Stones of Marrakech, and I Have Landed. Some of his essays and some of his scientific articles are widely cited. (For a complete list see SJG Archive.)


Douglas J. Futuyma is a Professor of Ecology & Evolution at the State University of New York at Stoney Brook. He is best known for his textbooks on evolution; Evolutionary Biology (1998) and Evolution (2005). His major research interests are evolutionary theory [see Hypotheses, Facts, and the Nature of Science] and the interactions of plants and insects [see Insect Pests: Resistance and Management].

Futuyma's view of evolution is different from that of Richard Dawkins because Futuyma is interested in random genetic drift and speciation. Futyuma is much more aware of population genetics than Dawkins or Gould and he (Futuyma) frequently refers to it in his books and papers. Unlike Gould, Futuyma is skeptical of punctuated equilibria and particularly species selection/sorting, although, ironically, he is credited with proposing the best explanation of the connection between cladogenesis and evolution.

You can check out some of Futuyma's ideas in this interview. In response to the question, "Is natural selection the only mechanism of evolution?", Futuyma replies,

No, certainly not. There cannot be evolution without genetic variation in the first place. So there must be mutation and often recombination to generate the different genotypes or the different versions of the genes, known as alleles, which then may or may not make a difference in the ability of an organism to survive and reproduce. You can’t have any evolutionary change whatever without mutation, and perhaps recombination, giving rise to genetic variation. But once you have genetic variation, there are basically two major possibilities:

First, there is simply no difference between the different genotypes or different genes in their impact on survival or reproduction, and in that case, you can have random changes of one versus the other type in a population or a species until eventually one replaces the other. That is an evolutionary change. It happens entirely by chance, by random fluctuations. That is what we call the process of genetic drift.

Genetic drift is very different from possibility number two, natural selection, which is a much more consistent, predictable, dependable change in the proportion of one gene vs. another, one genotype vs. another. Why? Simply because there is some consistent superiority, shall we way, of one genotype vs. another in some feature that affects its survival or some feature affecting its reproductive capabilities.

Neither Gould or Dawkins would respond in this way. Dawkins would admit to random genetic drift but downplay its importance. Gould would focus on higher mechanisms of evolution like species sorting.

Futuyma also thinks about the role of mutation in a different way than either Dawkins or Gould, especially Dawkins. While Dawkins is very much opposed to crediting mutations per se with any substantial influence on evolution, Futuyma is more sympathetic to a limited mutationism point of view. For example, when asked what would happen if the tape of life were re-played he says.

Of course, it wouldn’t be the same, because first of all, random processes are involved in the evolutionary process. For example, the origin of new mutations: a lot of evolution is dependent on particular mutational changes in genes that were very, very rare or unlikely, but that just happened at the right time, in the right species, in the right environment, but it need not happen that way. So, there’s this unpredictability.

This is very unlike Dawkins who is more inclined to think of evolution as design and strongly resists any attempt to sneak randomness into the equation. For the most part, Dawkins believes that all possible mutations will be available for selection so mutations can never determine the direction of evolution. Gould prefers to focus on developmental constraints as possible limits to the effectiveness of natural selection.

On the importance of random genetic drift in modern evolutionary theory

The latest issue of New Scientist has a number of articles on evolution. All of them are focused on extending and improving the current theory of evolution, which is described as Darwin's version of natural selection [New Scientist doesn't understand modern evolutionary theory].

Most of the criticisms come from a group who want to extend the evolutionary synthesis (EES proponents). Their main goal is to advertise mechanisms that are presumed to enhance adaptation but that weren't explicitly included in the Modern Synthesis that was put together in the late 1940s.

One of the articles addresses random genetic drift [see Survival of the ... luckiest]. The emphasis in this short article is on the effects of drift in small populations and it gives examples of reduced genetic diversity in small populations.

Jerry Coyne's View of Random Genetic Drift

Why Evolution Is True by Jerry Coyne is one of the best popular books on evolution. If you can only buy one book this year then this is the one to buy. It contains an excellent explanation of all the basic facts about evolution.

I'm not going to review this book, instead, I'm going to comment on just two things that interest me: how Jerry Coyne treats the mechanisms of evolution (natural selection and random genetic drift); and how he treats speciation—his area of expertise. I'll also discuss Richard Dawkins' treatment of these two topic in his book. (That's four separate postings.)

The first chapter in Why Evolution Is True is "What Is Evolution?" This is an appropriate way to begin and Jerry Coyne starts off nicely by saying that "Darwinism" is the theory of evolution by natural selection. He then proceeds to describe the main tenets of the modern theory of evolution, taking the time to point out that, "the mechanism of most (but not all) of evolutionary change is natural selection."

The sixth tenet of modern evolutionary theory is, "processes other than natural selection can cause evolutionary change." He's talking about random genetic drift although, like most adaptationists, he feels compelled to add a qualifier.

The influence of this process on important evolutionary change, though, is probably minor, because it does not have the moulding power of natural selection. Natural selection remains the only process that can produce adaptation. Nevertheless, we'll see in chapter 5 that genetic drift may play some evolutionary role in small populations and probably accounts for some non-adaptive features of DNA.

Okay, so it's not perfect, but at least he isn't confused about the difference between "evolutionary theory" and "Darwinism". Right?

Wrong. Before the chapter is finished he's talking about the six tenets of "Darwinism" and freely using "Darwinism" and "evolutionary theory" as symptoms. [See Jerry Coyne on Darwinism]

I don't get it. If Darwinism is evolution by natural selection and modern evolutionary theory includes the idea that not all evolution is caused by natural selection, then how can Darwinism be used as a synonym for evolutionary theory? I checked the index for "Darwinism" to see if there was a discussion about this elsewhere in the book. It wasn't much help since the index entry was: "Darwinism, see evolution."

Jerry Coyne is an adaptationist in the sense that he focuses most of his attention on natural selection and gives other mechanisms of evolution short shrift. This does not mean that he ignores them completely as I just showed. He knows about random genetic drift and he described it accurately (see below). The problem is that he tends to forget his lessons when his mind isn't focused on the differences between evolution and natural selection, and Darwinism vs random genetic drift.

In spite of the title of chapter 1, it doesn't really explain what evolution is. It concentrates more on describing evolutionary theory than on actually defining evolution. However, when we get to chapter 5 we to find an adequate definition of evolution. Jerry Coyne says, "Most biologists define evolution as a change in the porportion of alleles (different forms of a gene) in a population."

He then describes how the frequencies of alleles can change in a population by random stochastic means. Using ABO blood types as an example, he describes the typical behavior of alleles in a population of sexually producing organisms. He then says, ...

Such random change in the frequency of genes over time is called genetic drift. It is a legitimate type of evolution, since it involves changes in the frequencies of alleles over time, but it doesn't arise from natural selection. One example of evolution by drift may be the unusual frequencies of blood types (as in the ABO system) in the Old Order Amish and Dunker religious communities in America. These are small, isolated, religious groups whose members intermarry—just the right circumstances for rapid evolution by genetic drift.¹

Accidents of sampling can also happen when a population is founded by just a few immigrants, as occurs when individuals colonize an island or a new area. The almost complete absence of genes producing the B blood type in Native American populations, for example, may reflect the loss of this gene in a small population of humans that colonized North America from Asia around twelve thousand years ago.²

Both drift and natural selection produce genetic change that we recognize as evolution. But there's an important difference. Drift is a random process, while selection is the anti-thesis of randomness. Genetic drift can change the frequencies of alleles regardless of how useful they are to their carrier. Selection, on the other hand, always gets part of harmful alleles and raises the frequencies of beneficial ones.

As a purely random process, genetic drift can't cause the evolution of adaptations. It could never build a wing or an eye. That takes nonrandom natural selection. What drift can do is cause the evolution of features that are neither useful nor harmful to the organism.

This sounds like a typical adaptationist speaking. As a general rule, adaptationists admit to random genetic drift but confine it to small populations. They also make sure you understand that drift can't cause adaptation. Finally they state their opinion that drift only affects neutral alleles.

This is exactly the sort of thing Gould and Lewontin were complaining about in the "Spandrels" paper of 1978.

At this point, some evolutionists will protest that we are caricaturing their view of adaptation. After all, do they not admit genetic drift, allometry, and a variety of reasons for non-adaptive evolution? They do, to be sure, but we make a different point. In natural history, all possible things happen sometimes; you generally do not support your favorite phenomenon by declaring rivals impossible in theory. Rather, you acknowledge the rival, but circumscribe its domain of action so narrowly that it cannot have any importance in the affairs of nature. Then you often congratulate yourself for being such an undogmatic and ecumenical chap. We maintain that alternatives to selection for best overall design have generally been relegated to unimportance by this mode of argument.

This describes the views of many adaptationists but Jerry Coyne does not exactly fall into that mode of thinking—at least not when his attention is focused on the issue.

In fact, genetic drift is not only powerless to create adaptation, but can actually overpower natural selection. Especially in small populations, the sampling effect can be so large that it raises the frequency of harmful genes even though selection is working in the opposite direction. This is almost certainly why we see a high incidence of genetically based diseases in isolated human communities, including Gaucher's disease in northern Swedes, Tay-Sachs in the Cajuns of Louisiana, and in retinitis pigmentosa in the inhabitants in the inhabitants of the island of Tristan da Cunha.

This is very important and Jerry Coyne is one of the few adaptationists who get it. Random genetic drift doesn't just work on neutral alleles. It can also lead to high levels of deleterious alleles. Even their eventual fixation.

It would have been great if he had pointed out that random genetic drift can also lead to the loss of beneficial alleles making natural selection a stochastic process.

Because certain variations in DNA or protein sequence may be, as Darwin puts it "neither useful nor injurious" (or "neutral" as we now call them), such variants are especially liable to evolution by drift. For example, some mutations in a gene don't affect the sequence of the protein that it produces, and so don't change the fitness of its carrier. The same goes for mutations in non-functioning pseudogenes—old wrecks of genes still kicking around in the genome. Any mutations in these genes have no effect on the organism, and therefore can evolve only by genetic drift.

Many aspects of molecular evolution, then, such as certain changes in DNA sequence, may reflect drift rather than selection. It's also possible that many externally visible features of organisms could evolve via drift, especially if they don't affect reproduction. The diverse shapes of leaves of different tree species—like the differences between oaks and maple trees -- were once suggested to be "neutral" traits that evolved by genetic drift. But it's hard to prove that a trait has absolutely no selective advantage. Even a tiny advantage, so small as to be unmeasurable or unobservable by biologists in real time, can lead to important evolutionary changes over eons.

The relative importance of genetic drift versus selection in evolution remains a topic of hot debate among biologists.

It's impressive that Coyne admits to the possibility that externally visible features could be neutral and could evolve by random genetic drift. However, he immediately qualifies the statement by pointing out that it's very difficult to prove whether a trait has absolutely no selective advantage. This is true, but adaptationists usually forget to mention two things about natural selection that weaken this argument. First, they forget to mention that it's often just as difficult to prove that a trait has a selective advantage. Second, traits with small advantages are most often lost before they are fixed. Natural selection is not random but neither is it as much of a sure thing as most people believe.

To my way of thinking, Jerry Coyne clearly falls into the adaptationist camp. But on the continuum from pluralist to adaptationist he lies somewhere close to the middle, albeit still on the adaptationist side.

The fact that he's close to the middle is among the reasons why I think this book is so good.

Hear Coyne talk about his book: Phrasing a Coyne: Jerry Coyne on Why Evolution Is True.

---

1. This is technically correct. Individual alleles will be fixed much faster in small populations than in large populations ... if they are fixed. But this does not mean that random genetic drift only fixes genes in small populations.

2. The founder effect is an important feature of evolution by accident.

Darwinism at the ROM

 
Yesterday I attended a symposium on evolution at the Royal Ontario Museum [Darwin Symposium at the ROM]. The emphasis was on Charles Darwin, in line with the Darwin exhibit that is currently running at the ROM.

What I was expecting was a series of lectures that explain how Darwin fits into modern ideas of evolutionary biology. What I got was an adaptationist lovefest.

This was a free public symposium. By the time it started every seat in the auditorium was full and people were standing at the back. There were about 320 people of all ages and all walks of life. I sat beside a high school teacher and talked to retirees from the suburbs.

The first speaker was Michael Ruse. The original title of his talk was Has Darwinism Expired? but he modified it slightly to Is Darwin's Theory Past Its "Sell By" Date. His opening remarks were promising because he mentioned Stephen Jay Gould and Gould's criticism of Darwinism. He said that this was a distorted picture of evolution. It was downhill from that point on.

Ruse never explained why modern evolutionary theory differs from Darwin's evolution by natural selection. Instead he spent close to an hour going over examples of "evolution by natural selection." Most of his examples were, indeed, evidence of evolution but they were not necessarily evidence of evolution by natural selection. It's clear that Micheal Ruse does not distinguish between "evolution" and "natural selection." Evidence for evolution is treated as evidence for natural selection.

By the time he finished, the audience was completely unaware of random genetic drift, or any other mechanism of evolution. Ruse never explained why anyone would even bother to ask the question he asks in the title of his talk. According to Ruse, Darwinism is still the dominant paradigm in evolutionary biology. When examining characteristics of organisms biologists always ask "What is it for?", according to Michale Ruse. The answer will be explained by natural selection. This is the adaptationist fallacy. The correct question should be "Is this "for" anything?"

I know that Ruse is more of an adaptationist than a pluralist. I know that he favors Richard Dawkins and Daniel Dennett over Stephen Jay Gould and the pluralists. That's not the problem. What bothers me most is that when giving a public lecture Ruse does not even present the other side of the issue. What would it have cost him to mention that there are many evolutionary biologists who do not think of themselves as Darwinists? Why couldn't he explain that many of us think random genetic drift—and not natural selection—is the dominant mechanism of evolution? It doesn't diminish the importance of natural selection and adaptation. It doesn't diminish the contribution of Charles Darwin who still remains the greatest scientist who ever lived.

The second talk was by Spencer Barrett of the Department of Ecology & Evolutionary Biology here at the university of Toronto. Spencer Barrett was recently appointed to the rank of University Professor, our highest rank, in recognition of his work on evolution in flowering plants.

The title of his talk was A Darwinian Perspective on the Evolution of Plant Sexual Diversity and that's an accurate reflection of its content. Spencer Barrett is an adaptationist but in terms of his research he's a very successful example of this wordview. He chooses examples from plant evolution that almost certainly are adaptive and can be explained by natural selection. When faced with a strange example of plant sexual organs, Barrett begins by asking "What is the adaptive significance?"

After lunch we were treated to a lecture by Peter and Rosemary Grant on the evolution of Darwin's Finches. Most of you know the story. The Grants have spent 30 years collecting data on finches in the Galapagos. Everything about the evolution of Darwin's finches is explained by natural selection, especially changes in beak size. It has become the dominant example of evolution by natural selection.

The last lecture was delivered by Allan Baker of the Royal Ontario Museum. his title was Modern Darwinism: Natural Selection and Molecular Evolution. Baker works on bird evolution at the molecular level. He is trying to sort out the complicated, and controversial, relationship of bird clades. Baker pointed out that there are many conflicting data sets in the field and he explained how the use of signature sequences—in his case retrotransposon insertions—can be helpful. He noted in passing that he disagrees with the recent Science paper and cautions that bird evolution is still very much up in the air.

The irony here is that Baker was not studying "Darwinian" evolution at all. In spite of his title, it's extremely unlikely that the changes he looks at are due to natural selection. This was another missed opportunity, in my opinion. Baker could have explained to this public audience that molecular evolution is not Darwinian. It is an example of random genetic drift, which, incidentally, is why there's a molecular clock.

In talking to the lecturers afterward, I tried to find out how they thought about evolution. Baker, is well aware of the importance of random genetic drift. Barrett does not agree with me when I say that random genetic drift is the dominant mechanism of evolution at the molecular level and he does not agree that drift plays a role in speciation. Professor Barrett is one of the lecturers in our first year biology course on ecology and evolution. I've pointed out previously that in my second year course the students do not understand or appreciate random genetic drift and they tell me that it is barely mentioned in first year [Freedom in the Classroom]. I really enjoyed talking to Spencer Barrett and I hope we can continue the debate at another time.

The Grants claim that their evidence for natural selection is strong enough to rule out random genetic drift during the years when most of the finch population dies of starvation. The fluctuations in between could be due to drift.

Further reading ...

What Is Darwinism?
A Confused Philosopher
Darwin and Design by Michael Ruse
Why I'm Not a Darwinist
Evolution by Accident
Random Genetic Drift
Visible Mutations and Evolution by Natural Selection
Adaptationomics
Dennett on Adaptationism
The Evolution Poll of Sandwalk Readers

---

Kevin Laland's new view of evolution

The recent meeting at the Royal Society in London was organized by The Royal Society (UK) and The British Academy. The theme of the meeting was, "New trends in evolutionary biology: biological, philosophical and social science perspectives." The main organizers were Denis Noble, Nancy Cartwright, Patrick Bateson, John Dupré, and Kevin Laland. The point of the meeting was to discuss new evolutionary theory.

It's difficult to describe everything that went on at the meeting because so much of it was details about individual research results. These scientific talks were often presented as an alternative to modern ways of thinking about evolution. The general theme was that the Modern Synthesis was out-of-date and needed revision or, perhaps, replacement. There was very little discussion of evolutionary theory and how best to interpret those results. The data was supposed to speak for itself.

The only serious objections came from scientists who claimed the Modern Synthesis had already incorporated the ideas of niche construction, plasticity, epigenetics etc. This message was promoted mainly by Douglas Futuyma and Russell Lande. They weren't very successful.

Facts and theories of evolution according to Dawkins and Coyne

Sometime back in the pre-Cambrian (before blogs) there was a newsgroup called talk.origins—it still exists. In 1993 I wrote a little essay that tried to convince creationists¹ of the difference between facts of evolution and evolutionary theory [Evolution is a Fact and a Theory]. I relied heavily on Stephen Jay Gould's essay on "Evolution as Fact and Theory" originally published in Discover magazine in 1981 and re-printed in Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes.

I updated my thoughts on Gould's essay in 2007 [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory] and added some more comment on the 30th anniversary [Evolution Is a Fact and a Theory].

Lot's of other people have presented their take on the facts and theories of evolution. Here's one from Richard Lenski and another from Ryan Gregory.

What Is Evolution?

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Part of the confusion is because the word "evolution" has many different meanings, depending on the context. When we talk about biology we are thinking about biological evolution and that's the term I want to define here. What do biologists mean when they refer to biological evolution?

This is a slightly modified version of a post from January, 2007 which, in turn, is a moified version of an essay that appears here. An even earlier version is on the TalkOrigins Archive.One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has defined biological evolution as follows:

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms ..., over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.

Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

What Is Evolution?

Most non-scientists seem to be quite confused about precise definitions of biological evolution. Part of the confusion is because the word "evolution" has many different meanings, depending on the context. When we talk about biology we are thinking about biological evolution and that's the term I want to define here. What do biologists mean when they refer to biological evolution?

One of the most respected evolutionary biologists has recently defined biological evolution as follows:

Biological (or organic) evolution is change in the properties of populations of organisms or groups of such populations, over the course of generations. The development, or ontogeny, of an individual organism is not considered evolution: individual organisms do not evolve. The changes in populations that are considered evolutionary are those that are ‘heritable' via the genetic material from one generation to the next. Biological evolution may be slight or substantial; it embraces everything from slight changes in the proportions of different forms of a gene within a population, such as the alleles that determine the different human blood types, to the alterations that led from the earliest organisms to dinosaurs, bees, snapdragons, and humans.

Douglas J. Futuyma (1998) Evolutionary Biology 3rd ed., Sinauer Associates Inc. Sunderland MA p.4

Note that biological evolution refers to populations and not to individuals. In other words, populations evolve but individuals do not. This is a very important point. It distinguishes biological evolution from other forms of evolution in science (e.g., stellar evolution). Another important point is that the changes must be genetic, or heritable—they must be passed on to the next generation. Evolution is the process by which this occurs and it is spread out over many generations. Thus, the short minimal definition of biological evolution is,

Evolution is a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations.

This is a good working scientific definition of evolution; one that can be used to distinguish between evolution and similar changes that are not evolution. Another common short definition of evolution can be found in many textbooks:

In fact, evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.

Helena Curtis and N. Sue Barnes, Biology, 5th ed. 1989 Worth Publishers, p.974

One can quibble about the accuracy of such a definition, but it also conveys the essence of what evolution really is. When biologists say they have observed evolution, they mean that they have detected a change in the frequency of genetic variants (alleles) in a population. (Often the genetic change is inferred from phenotypic changes.) When biologists say that humans and chimps have evolved from a common ancestor, they mean there have been successive heritable changes in the two separated populations since they became isolated.

Unfortunately, outside of the scientific community, the common definitions of evolution are quite different. For example, in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary we find the following definition:

evolution: The gradual process by which the present diversity of plant and animal life arose from the earliest and most primitive organisms, which is believed to have been continuing for the past 3000 million years

This is inexcusable for a dictionary that's supposed to be a dictionary of science. Not only does this definition exclude prokaryotes, protozoa, and fungi, but it specifically includes a term "gradual process" that should not be part of the definition. More importantly the definition seems to refer more to the history of evolution than to evolution itself. Using this definition it is possible to debate whether evolution is still occurring, but the definition provides no easy way of distinguishing evolution from other processes. For example, is the increase in height among Europeans over the past several hundred years an example of evolution? Are the color changes in peppered moth populations examples of evolution? The definition of evolution in the Oxford Concise Science Dictionary is not a proper scientific definition of evolution.

Standard dictionaries are even worse.

evolution: ...the doctrine according to which higher forms of life have gradually arisen out of lower.. (Chambers)

evolution: ...the development of a species, organism, or organ from its original or primitive state to its present or specialized state; phylogeny or ontogeny (Webster's)

These definitions are simply wrong. The problem is that it's common for non-scientists to enter into a discussion about evolution with such a definition in mind. This often leads to fruitless debate since the experts are thinking about evolution from a different perspective. When someone claims they don't believe in evolution they cannot be referring to an acceptable scientific definition of biological evolution because that would be denying something that is easy to prove. It would be like saying they don't believe in gravity!

Anti-evolutionists often claim scientists are being dishonest when they talk about evolution. The anti-evolutionists believe that evolution is being misrepresented to the public. The real problem is that the public in general, and anti-evolutionists in particular, do not understand what evolution is all about. Their definition of evolution is very different from the common scientific definition and, as a consequence, they are unable to understand what evolutionary biology really means. Scientist are not trying to confuse the general public by using a rigorous definition of evolution. Quite the contrary, saying that evolution is simply "a process that results in heritable changes in a population spread over many generations" is a way of simplifying discussions about evolution.

Note that I have described the minimal scientific definition of biological evolution. Nobody believes that this is all there is to evolution. There are other processes, such as speciation for example, that are clearly important parts of the process of evolution. [Macroevolution]

Objections to the Minimal Definition

Some people, including some scientists, are uncomfortable with this minimal definition because they think it excludes some important parts of evolutionary biology. I'll try and discuss the various objections in a short while but first let me explain why we need a strict minimal definition in the first place.

I've already alluded to one of the classic questions that a proper definition can answer—the increased height of Europeans over the past five centuries. Armed with a good definition of biological evolution we can focus on one of the key requirements; namely, heritable change. It turns out that the increase in height is due to a better diet and not to genetic changes. Therefore, this is not evolution according to the scientific definition.

We can also ask whether the development of antibiotic resistance in bacteria is a valid example of biological evolution. In this case the answer is "yes" because a new antibiotic resistance allele has arisen by mutation and subsequently became fixed in the population. Anyone who wants to offer an alternative minimal definition of evolution will have to make sure that it will help answer questions such as these.

Sometimes it's convenient to refer to evolution as "descent with modification." This conveys a different impression of evolution than the minimal definition. Descent with modification refers to the long-term consequences of short-term changes within a population. It incorporates additional concepts such as speciation, which is an important part of macroevolution. Paleontologists are one group of scientists who aren't directly concerned with the minimal definition of evolution since they are mostly interested in the history of life. They have to deduce that evolution, in the sense of the minimal definition, has taken place from evidence of phenotypic change in the fossil record.

The bad thing about "descent with modification" is that it's not a very rigorous definition. It doesn't rule out modifications that are not genetic in origin and it doesn't rule out individuals evolving—as opposed to populations.

Many people are confused about the difference between a definition and an explanation. That's why we often see incorrect "definitions" that describe how natural selection works. This is wrong. In order to be useful, a definition has to enable us to distinguish examples of evolution from non-evolution but the definition should be neutral with respect to how evolution occurs. It should not distinguish, for example, between Lamarckian evolution and Darwinian evolution even though we know that one of these explanations is incorrect.

Attempts to define evolution in terms of natural selection are not only logically flawed but scientifically flawed as well. They exclude change due to random genetic drift when every evolutionary biologist agrees that drift is a mechanism of evolution.

Evolving Definitions

In 1997 a group of twenty scientists chaired by Douglas J. Futuyma issued a working draft of a "white paper" on Evolution, Science, and Society. The paper was written on behalf of eight scientific societies who wanted to make a statement about evolution. The initial draft defined evolution as,

Biological (or organic) evolution consists of change (modification) in the hereditary characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations. Such groups of organisms, termed populations or species, are formed by division of ancestral populations or species, and the descendant groups then change independently. Hence, in a long-term perspective, evolution is the descent, with modification, of different lineages from common ancestors.

This is a pretty good definition. It includes the minimal definition but adds the idea that long-term evolution is descent with modification. The initial draft definition was modified [final draft] so that on the current website it now reads,

Biological evolution consists of change in the hereditary characteristics of groups of organisms over the course of generations. From long-term perspective, evolution is the descent with modification of different lineages from common ancestors. From a short-term perspective, evolution is the ongoing adaptation of organisms to environmental challenges and changes.

This last sentence is really unfortunate. These twenty scientists have now agreed to a definition that specifically mentions the mechanism of adaptation. This is not how one should define evolution. One wonders whether they mean to exclude random genetic drift or whether they simply lost sight of their goal in trying to work out a compromise definition.

The Gene Centrist Objection

Ernst Mayr wrote an entire book on the subject of this little essay. One might expect some insight from one of the original founders of the Modern Synthesis but, unfortunately, we aren't going to get any help from Mayr. On page 157 he says,

Evolution in sexually reproducing organisms consists of genetic changes from generation to generation in populations, from the smallest local deme to the aggregate of interbreeding populations in a biological species.

Ernst Mayr (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.157

This is good stuff. It restricts the changes to genetic changes and it clearly identifies the population as the unit that evolves. There's no mention of any particular mechanism. But—and you knew there was going to be a "but" didn't you?—good things never last. In his chapter on macroevolution Mayr describes the work of his colleagues Rensch and Simpson. These workers were able to study macroevolutionary events without referring to allele frequencies in a population. Mayr coments,

This approach was consistent with the modern definition of evolution as a change in adaptedness and diversity, rather than a change in gene frequencies, as suggested by the reductionists.

Ernst Mary (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.189

Consistency is not one of the hallmarks of Ernst Mayr's writings. That's why he can propose two conflicting definitions in the same book, even a book that's devoted to the topic of defining biological evolution! Nevertheless, Mayr does highlight two different objections to the minimal definition that I am defending.

First, Mayr wants a definition that restricts evolution to the mechanism of adaptation. This is a lost battle. There may have been a time in the 20th century when a majority of biologists rejected random genetic drift and other non-adaptationist forms of evolution but that time is long gone. Mayr was one of the last hold-outs. Besides, as I mentioned above, it isn't appropriate to restrict the definition of evolution to a particular mechanism even if you strongly believe that it's the only possible mechanism. That's not how you define something.

Second, Mayr doesn't like reducing evolution to the level of the gene. This charge of reductionism is more interesting. In spite of the fact that Mayr was one of the founders of the Modern Synthesis, he never had much respect for genes and population genetics, or "bean-bag genetics" as he called it. He makes this point very strongly in the preface to his book.

... most treatments of evolution are written in a reductionist manner in which all evolutionary phenomena are reduced to the level of the gene. An attempt is then made to explain the higher-level evolutionary process by "upward" reasoning. This approach invariably fails. Evolution deals with phenotypes of individuals, with populations, with species; it is not a "change in gene frequencies." The two most important units in evolution are the individual, the principle object of selection, and the population, the stage of diversifying evolution.

Ernst Mary (2001) What Evolution Is, Basic Books, New York p.xiv

I happen to agree with some of those who criticize the extreme reductionist views of scientists like Richard Dawkins but in this case Mayr has it all wrong. When we define evolution as a change in the heritable characteristics of a population we are not reducing evolution to the level of the gene. We are merely stating that populations don't evolve unless they undergo genetic changes. This is not controversial in spite of Mayr's objection. He is confused about the difference between a definition of evolution and a proposed mechanism of change—as was obvious in his attempt to include adaptation. This is a remarkable error in a book called "What Evolution Is."

The Minimal Definition and Macroevolution

The minimal definition of evolution is not inconsistent with Hierarchical Theory and a focus on macroevolution as opposed to microevolution. This point is worth emphasizing since the minimal definition has often been criticized for excluding lots of evolution that takes place at higher levels. Stephen Jay Gould—no fan of reductionism and no stranger to hierarchical theory—addressed this problem in his last anthology.

The Darwinian principle of natural selection yields temporal change—"evolution" in the biological definition—by a twofold process of generating copious and undirected variation within a population, and then passing only a biased (selected) portion of this variation to the next generation. In this manner, the variation within a population at any moment can be converted into differences in mean values (such as average size or average braininess) among successive populations through time.

Gould, S.J. (2002) "What Does the Dreaded 'E' Word Mean Anyway?" in I HAVE LANDED Harmony Books, New York p. 246

The purpose of his essay was to point out the fundamental difference between this biological definition and the common vernacular meaning of the word "evolution." (I wish he hadn't used the word "selected" in his definition since it implies natural selection and Gould knows that there are other mechanisms.) Gould points out that other sciences, such as astronomy, use the word "evolution" in a very different sense—one that is actually closer to the original nineteenth century meaning. The vernacular meaning carries an implication of purpose and direction that is entirely absent from the biological definition of changes in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. This is why Darwin never used the dreaded "E" word.

Gould argues that an understanding of the true importance of the biological definition is absolutely essential to understanding why the general public is confused. He is especially concerned about emphasizing the lack of progress and direction in the definition of biological evolution. He advocates that scientists owe it to the general public to teach the biological definition.

I don't mention these differences to lament, or complain, or to criticize astronomical usage. After all, their concept of 'evolution' remains more faithful to etymology and the original English definition; whereas our Darwinian reconstruction has virtually reversed the original meaning. In this case, since neither side will or should give up its understanding of "evolution"—astronomers because they have retained an original and etymologically correct meaning, evolutionists because their redefinition expresses the very heart of their central and revolutionary concept of life's history—our best solution lies simply in exposing and understanding the legitimate differences, and in explaining the good reasons behind the disparity of use.

In this way, at least, we may avoid confusion and the special frustration generated when prolonged wrangles arise from mis-understandings about words, rather than genuine disputes about things and causes in nature. Evolutionary biologists must remain especially sensitive to this issue, because we still face considerable opposition, based on conventional hopes and fears, to our emphasis on an unpredictable history of life evolving in no inherently determined direction. Since astronomical 'evolution' upholds both contrary positions—predictability and directionality—evolutionary biologists need to emphasize their own distinctive meaning, especially since the general public feels much more comfortable with the astronomical sense—and will therefore impose this more congenial definition upon the history of life if we do not clearly explain the logic, the evidence, and the sheer fascination of our challenging conclusion.

(ibid p. 250-252)

I agree with Gould. That's why I think it's important to explain the real biological definition of evolution as a change in the heritable characteristics of a population over time. We can explain that this is a minimal definition, and that there's more to evolution than this, but we shouldn't back away from the real meaning of the term since it conveys some important messages. If we cave into pressure from the general public to make evolution into something they can understand, with all their biases, then we will have lost the battle before we even begin.

The amazing thing about the minimal definition of biological evolution is that it doesn't carry any baggage concerning the history of life or its future. As soon as we try to define evolution in terms of the historical record, we run into all kinds of problems because we confuse evolution as a process with evolution as a history of life. The scientific definition attempts to describe the minimum thing that might be called evolution. We know that the history of life is more complicated than this and we know that evolutionary theory encompasses other things such as the formation and extinction of populations. There is no conflict between the minimal definition of evolution as a change in the genetic composition of populations and macroevolution. Gould understands this.

[This is a slightly modified version of an essay that appears here. An earlier version is on the TalkOrigins Archive.]

What Is Darwinism?

Over on the thread Close, but no cigar we're having a little discussion about the meaning of the term "Darwinian." I explained it as "evolution by natural selection."

Pete Dunkelberg is one of those people who emphasize natural selection in their discussion of evolution and he didn't like my description of Darwinian evolution. Pete said,

Misbegotten terminology. "darwinian processes" is creationist coinage with no meaning.

Talking of "darwinism" in biology is akin to talking of "newtonism" in physics: a bad idea. Aren't you glad physicists don't use terms like that to make polemics against each other?

wolfwalker asks: Larry, what do people mean by [these unneeded terms]? Larry tells him what Larry means. But the terms have no standard meaning. Larry's official ruling is that Darwin never heard of variable rates of morphological evolution and also thought selection was all.

It is patently untrue that the term "Darwinian" has no meaning in biology. Pete's position is that "Darwinist" refers to evolutionary biologists who no longer exist. He seems to think that everyone has become a pluralist these days. I beg to differ.

Core Darwinism, I shall suggest, is the minimal theory that evolution is guided in adaptively nonrandom directions by the nonrandom survival of small hereditary changes.... Adaptive does not imply that all evolution is adaptive, only that core Darwinism's concern is limited to the part of evolution that is.

Dawkins, R. (2003) The Devil's Chaplain p. 81 In physics, everyone knows that Newtonian physics has been extended in the twentieth century so that it's no longer accurate to refer to oneself as a Newtonian physicist since it implies ignorance of relativity. But this is a bad analogy since there are a great many evolutionary biologists (and even more of the other kinds of biologists) who are proud to call themselves Darwinists. Modern Darwinists place a great deal of emphasis on adaptation and natural selection as the main mechanisms of evolution.

Pete is dead wrong when he claims that, "Larry's official ruling is that Darwin never heard of variable rates of morphological evolution and also thought selection was all." I never said any such thing. I'm well aware of the fact that Darwin considered variable rates of natural selection and I'm well aware of the fact that he accepted other mechanisms of evolution, such as a watered down version of Lamarckism. The problem here seems to be that Pete doesn't understand the meaning of gradualism and he doesn't understand that modern Darwinists do not attribute everything in biology to selection.

As for the standard meaning of "Darwinism," Pete is correct to say that there is no universally accepted definition but that shouldn't be a surprise to anyone. There's hardly anything that all biologists can agree on.

However, there is a considerable group of evolutionary biologists who agree with Ernst Mayr when he says ...

After 1859, that is, during the first Darwinian revolution, Darwinism for almost everybody meant explaining the living world by natural processes. As we will see, during and after the evolutionary synthesis the term "Darwinism" unanimously meant adaptive evolutionary change under the influence of natural selection, and variational instead of transformational evolution. These are the only two meaningful concepts of Darwinism, the one ruling in the nineteenth century (and up to about 1930) and the other ruling in the twentieth century (a consensus having been reached during the evolutionary synthesis). Any other use of the term Darwinism by a moder author is bound to be misleading.

Mayr, E. (1991) What Is Darwinism? in One Long Argument p. 107.

See Why I'm Not a Darwinist for an earlier use of this quotation. The point is that the modern meaning of Darwinism is usually taken to mean an emphasis on natural selection.

Mayr explains the standard adaptationist view of random genetic drift by equating it with Neutral Theory and mischaracterizing the entire controversy. (This seems to be a very common trait among the defenders of strict Darwinism.)

The neutralists are reductionists, and for them the gene—more precisely the base pair—is the target of selection. Hence, any fixation of a "neutral" base pair is a case of neutral evolution. For the Darwinian evolutionists, the individual as a whole is the target of selection, and evolution takes place only if the properties of the individual change. A replacement of neutral genes is considered merely evolutionary noise and irrelevant for phenotypic evolution. (ibid p. 152)

I'm not making this up. I'm trying to do my best to represent the standard—but not universal—description of the adaptationist position. It's quite wrong for Pete Dunkelberg to pretend that the definition of Darwinism and the adaptationists is something that I created. (BTW, most pluralists treat the individual as the unit of evolution. They just believe that populations can fix alleles, even alleles with visible phenotypes, by random genetic drift as well as natural selection.)

Mayr continues,

The Darwinian wonders to what extent it is legitimate to designate as evoluton the changes in gene frequencies caused by nonselected random fixation. In some of the older (particularly nineteenth century) literature on evolution, one finds discussions on how to discriminate between evolution and mere change. There it was pointed out that the continuing changes in weather and climate, the sequences of the seasons of the year, the geomorphological changes of an eroding mountain range or a shifting river bed, and similar changes do not qualify as evolution. Interestingly, the changes in nonselected base pairs and genes are more like those nonevolutionary changes than they are like evolution. Perhaps one should not refer to non-Darwinian evolution but rather to non-Darwinian changes during evolution. (ibid p. 153)

While this position may seem extreme by 2007 standards, I believe that there are many evolutionary biologists who tend to dismiss all nonselected evolutionary change as uninteresting and unimportant. They are Darwinists. The extremists among this group attribute all kinds of things to adaptation, including most animal behavior. They are the ultra-Darwinians.

Many books have been written about the controversy in evolutionary biology between the adaptationists and the pluralists. Michael Ruse, for example, tried to explain it all last year (2006) in Darwinism and Its Discontents. Ruse is a firm believer in Darwinism, which he defines as "natural selection as the chief causal process behind all organisms." This is a common definition as explained above. However, one must read between the lines to see how Darwinists interpret that definition. A key point is what they think about random genetic drift. Here's how the Darwinist Ruse treats Sewall Wright's concept of random genetic drift.

Wright's theory is not very Darwinian. Natural selection does not play an overwhelming role. Genetic drift is a key player in Wright's world. However, although many of these ideas were taken up by later thinkers, especially by Theodosius Dobzhansky in the first edition of his influential Genetics and the Origin of Species, drift soon fell right out of fashion, thanks to discoveries that showed that many features formerly considered just random are in fact under tight control of selection (Lewontin, 1981). Today no one would want to say that drift (at the physical level) is a major direct player, although, in America particularly, there has always been a lingering fondness for it.

Michael Ruse is not an evolutionary biologist but he represents the views of Dawkins and, to a lesser extent, E.O. Wilson. They have no use for drift especially when it comes to visible characteristics. That's the hallmark of modern Darwinism.

So, is it true that no evolutionary biologist would want to say that drift is a major player in evolution? Of course not. There are lots of them who say exactly that in spite of what Michale Ruse would have you believe. Does Ruse have an answer to these "discontents?" Yes, he does ...

At the risk of damning myself in the eyes of both scholarship and God, let me be categorical. All of the critics of Darwinism are deeply mistaken,

To which I reply, you took the risk and your scholarship has been discredited. I can't speak for God.

Quotations

I'm creating a post where I can store quotations so I can link to them from other posts. Enjoy.

The great fear of many leading creationists and the misunderstanding of many creationist students is that accepting MN [methodological naturalism] rules for doing science will necesarily lead to a supernaturalless/Godless worldview.
Brian Alters (2005) p. 77

Persons in this faction [of theists] basically accept evolutionary theory with the proviso that the God of the Bible, not chance, decided the human outcome by directly guiding the process. Such theists are most commonly referred to as theistic evolutionists.
Brian Alters (2005) p. 62

Science reveals where religion conceals. Where religion purports to explain, it actually resorts to tautology. To assert that "God did it" is no more than an admission of ignorance dressed deceitfully as an explanation...
Peter Atkins

The defective design of organisms could be attributed to the gods of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Egyptians, who fought with one another, made blunders, and were clumsy in their endeavors. But, in my view, it is not compatible with special action by the omniscient and omnipotent God of Judaism, Christianlity, and Islam.
Francisco J. Ayala (2004) p. 71

In conclusion, then, macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with microevolutionary theories, but macroevolutionary studies require the formulation of autonomous hypotheses and models (which must be tested using macroevolutionary evidence). In this (epistemologically) very important sense, macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution: macroevolution is an autonomous field of evolutionary study.
Francisco J. Ayala (1983) p. 131

Science is not committed to the nonexistence of God, as it would be if it were based on metaphysical naturalism. Science is committed to naturalistic explanations. Science does not count any explanation that appeals to God or to supernatural phenomena as a scientific explanation (thus it is committed to methodological naturalism).
Lynn Rudder Baker (2000)

I once made the remark that two things disappeared in 1990: one was communism, the other was biochemistry and that only one of them should be allowed to come back.
Sydney Brenner (2000)

There will be no difficulty in computers being adapted to biology. There will be luddites. But they will be buried.
Sydney Brenner

One of the most frightening things in the Western world, and in this country in particular, is the number of people who believe in things that are scientifically false. If someone tells me that the earth is less than 10,000 years old, in my opinion he should see a psychiatrist.
Francis Crick

The Astonishing Hypothesis is that "You," your joys and your sorrows, your memories and your ambitions, your sense of personal identity and free will, are in fact no more than the behavior of a vast assembly of nerve cell and their associated molecules.
Francis Crick (1994)

My own view is that conclusions about the evolution of human behavior should be based on research at least as rigorous as that used in studying nonhuman animals. And if you read the animal behavior journals, you'll see that this requirement sets the bar pretty high, so that many assertions about evolutionary psychology sink without a trace.
Jerry Coyne (2009)

Although I am fully convinced of the truth of the views given in this volume, I by no means expect to convince experienced naturalists whose minds are stocked with a multitude of facts all viewed, during a long course of years, from a point of view directly opposite to mine. It is so easy to hide our ignorance under such expressions as "plan of creation," "unity of design," etc., and to think that we give an explanation when we only restate a fact. Any one whose disposition leads him to attach more weight to unexplained difficulties than to the explanation of a certain number of facts will certainly reject the theory.
Charles Darwin (1859)

The old argument of design in nature, as given by Paley, which formerly
seemed to me to be so conclusive, fails, now that the law of natural selection has been discovered. We can no longer argue that, for instance, the beautiful hinge of a bivalve shell must have been made by an intelligent being, like the hinge of a door by man. There seems to be no more design in the variability of organic beings and in the action of natural selection, than in the course which the wind blows.
Charles Darwin (c1880)

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: 'I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one.' I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.
Richard Dawkins

Theologians, if they want to remain honest, should make a choice. You can claim your own magisterium, separate from science's but still deserving of respect. But in that case you have to renounce miracles. Or, you can keep your Lourdes and your miracles ... But then you must kiss goodbye to separate magisteria and your high-minded aspiration to converge on science. The desire to have it both ways is not surprising in a good propagandist. What is surprising is the readiness of liberal agnostics to go along with it; and their readiness to write off, as simplistic, insensitive extremists, those of us with the temerity to blow the whistle.
Richard Dawkins (2003) p.150

It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet someone who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
Richard Dawkins (1989)

... those evolutionists who see no conflict between evolution and their religious beliefs have been careful not to look as closely as we have been looking, or else hold a religious view that gives God what we might call a merely ceremonial role to play.
Daniel C. Dennett (1995) p.310

Operational science takes no position about the existence or non-existence of the supernatural; it only requires that this factor is not to be invoked in scientific explanations. Calling down special-purpose miracles as explanations constitutes a form of intellectual "cheating."
Richard E. Dickerson (1992) p.119

Seen in the light of evolution, biology is, perhaps, intellectually the most satisfying and inspiring science. Without that light it becomes a pile of sundry facts—some of them interesting or curious but making no meaningful picture as a whole.
Theodosius Dobbzhansky (Dobzhansky 1973)

It is wrong to hold creation and evolution as mutually exclusive alternatives. I am a creationist and an evolutionist. Evolution is God's, or Nature's method of creation. Creation is not an event that happened in 4004 BC; it is a process that began some 10 billion years ago and is still under way.
Theodosius Dobbzhansky (Dobzhansky 1973)

Under the conditions described [for Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium], there is a genetic inertia in mendelian populations. Unless mutation, selection, differential migration, certain changes in the mating pattern, or a drop in population size disturbs the equilibrium, there is no change in the genetic structure of the population. To a very large degree, overcoming this inertia (especially changing of the gene frequency) is what is described as "evolution."
Paul R. Ehrlich and Richard W. Holm (1963) p.95

Speciation is critical to conserving the results of both natural selection and genetic drift. Speciation is obviously central to the fate of genetic variation, and a major shaper of patterns of evolutionary change through evolutionary time. It is as if Darwinians—neo- and ulra- most certainly included—care only for the process generating change, and not about its ultimate fate in geological time.
Niles Eldredge (1995) p.106

Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution.
Douglas H. Erwin (2000)

Just as mutation and drift introduce a strong random component into the process of adaptation, mass extinctions introduce chance into the process of diversification. This is because mass extinctions are a sampling process analogous to genetic drift. Instead of sampling allele frequenceis, mass extinctions samples species and lineages. ... The punchline? Chance plays a large role in the processes responsible for adaptation and diversity.
Freeman and Herron (1998) p.520

It is naïve to think that if a species' environment changes the species must adapt or else become extinct.... Just as a changed environment need not set in motion selection for new adaptations, new adaptations may evolve in an unchanging environment if new mutations arise that are superior to any pre-existing variations.
Douglas Futuyma

There is no justification for teaching creationism in the science classroom. But if it were taught, would it be subjected to the same critical analysis as the creationists insist should be brought to bear on evolution?
Douglas J. Futuyma (1982) p.217

I have championed contingency, and will continue to do so, because its large realm and legitimate claims have been so poorly attended by evolutionary scientists who cannot discern the beat of this different drummer while their brains and ears remain tuned to only the sounds of general theory.
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p. 1339

The essence of Darwinism lies in its claim that natural selection creates the fit. Variation is ubiquitous and random in direction. It supplies raw material only. Natural selection directs the course of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)

Progress is a noxious, culturally embedded, untestable, nonoperational, intractable idea that must be replaced if we wish to understand the patterns of history.
Stephen Jay Gould (1988)

The shift of gene frequencies in local populations is an adequate model for all evolutionary processes—or so the current orthodoxy states.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980) p. 187

Rudyard Kipling asked how the leopard got its spots, the rhino its wrinkled skin. He called his answers "just-so stories." When evolutionists try to explain form and behavior, they also tell just-so stories—and the agent is natural selection. Virtuosity in invention replaces testability as the criterion for acceptance.
Stephen Jay Gould (1980)

Since 'change of gene frequencies in populations' is the 'official' definition of evolution, randomness has transgressed Darwin's border and asserted itself as an agent of evolutionary change.
Stephen Jay Gould (1983) p. 335

The first commandment for all versions of NOMA might be summarized by stating: "Thou shalt not mix the magisteria by claiming that God directly ordains important events in the history of nature by special interference knowable only through revelation and not accessible to science." In common parlance, we refer to such special interference as "miracle"—operationally defined as a unique and temporary suspension of natural law to reorder the facts of nature by divine fiat.
Stephen Jay Gould (1999) p. 84

[My diagram] accepts the Darwinian contention that microevolutionary modes and principles can build grand patterns by cumulation through geological immensity, but rejects the argument that such extrapolations can render the entire panoply of phenomena in life's history without adding explicitly macroevolutionary modes for distinctive expression of these processes at higher tiers of time ...
Stephen Jay Gould (2002) p. 21

The world is not inhabited exclusively by fools, and when a subject arouses intense interest, as this one has, something other than semantics is usually at stake.
Stephen Jay Gould (1982)

We wish to question a deeply engrained habit of thinking among students of evolution. We call it the adaptationist programme, or the Panglossian paradigm.
S.J. Gould & R.C. Lewontin (1979) p. 584

We welcome the richness that a pluralist approach, so akin to Darwin's spirit, can provide.
S.J. Gould & R.C. Lewontin (1979) p. 584

My practise as a scientist is atheistic. That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course; and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career. I should therefore be intellectually dishonest if I were not also atheistic in the affairs of the world. And I should be a coward if I did not state my theoretical views in public.
J.B.S. Haldane

Since religion ... stands or falls with the question of cosmic purpose, the Darwinian debunking of design—and with it the apparent undoing of cosmic teleology as well—strikes right at the heart of the most prized religious intuition of humans, now and always.
John F. Haught (2004) p. 230

Whatever the God implied by evolutionary theory may be like, He is not the Protestant God of waste not, want not. He is also not a loving God who cares about his productions. He is not even the awful God portrayed in the book of Job. The God of the Galapagos is careless, wasteful, indifferent, almost diabolical. He is certainly not the sort of God to whom anyone would be inclined to pray.
David I. Hull (1991) p. 486

Johnson finds the commitment of scientists to totally naturalistic explanations dogmatic and close-minded, but scientists have no choice. Once they allow reference to God or miraculous forces to explain the first origin of life or the evoluton of the human species, they have no way of limiting this sort of explanation.
David I. Hull (1991) p. 486

This evolutionary procedure —the formation of a dominant neocortex coupled with the persistence of a nervous and hormonal system partially, but not totally, under the rule of the neocortex—strongly resembles the tinkerer's procedure. It is somewhat like adding a jet engine to an old horse cart. It is not surprising ... that accidents, difficulties, and conflicts can occur.
François Jacob (1977) p.1166
Jacob, F. (1977) Evolution and Tinkering Sci. 196:1161-1166.

Natural selection has no analogy with any aspect of human behavior. However, if one wanted to play with a comparison, one would have to say that natural selection does not work as an engineer works. It works like a tinkerer—a tinkerer who does not know exactly what he is going to produce but uses whatever he finds around him whether it be pieces of string, fragments of wood, or old cardboards; in short it works like a tinkerer who uses everything at his disposal to produce some kind of workable object.
François Jacob (1977) p.1163

It is hard to realize that the living world as we know it is just one among many possibilities; that its actual structure results from the history of the earth. Yet living organisms are historical structures: literally creations of history. They represent, not a perfect product of engineering, but a patchwork of odd sets pieced together when and where opportunities arose. For the opportunism of natural selection is not simply a matter of indifference to the structure and operation of its products. It reflects the very nature of a historical process full of contingency.
François Jacob (1977) p.1166

Ecologists and microevolutionists are beginning to appreciate the importance of events over larger time scales than the decades or centuries that are their usual bounds, and a new effort is needed from both neontological and paleontological sides to get beyond a simple extrapolation of ecological phenomena into macroevolutionary time scales.
Jablonski, D. et al (1997)

Many biochemists find it easy to accept the concept that large portions of protein molecules serve mainly to bring the molecule up to suitable size and shape and have very little specific function as compared with small specialized active sites. Most of a protein molecule, according to this concept, can evolve freely by random drift
Thomas H. Jukes (1980) p.204

In conclusion, I would like to emphasize the importance of random genetic drift as a major cause of evolution. We must be liberated, so to speak, from the selective constraint posed by the neo-Darwinian (or the synthetic) theory of evolution.
Motoo Kimura (1991)

In contrast to the Darwinian theory of evolution by natural selection, the neutral theory emphasizes the great importance of random genetic drift (due to finite population size) and mutation pressure as the main causes of molecular evolution.
Motoo Kimura (1991)

According to the neutral mutation–random drift hypothesis of molecular evolution and polymorphism1,2, most mutant substitutions detected through comparative studies of homologous proteins (and the nucleotide sequences) are the results of random fixation of selectively neutral or nearly neutral mutations. This is in sharp contrast to the orthodox neo-Darwinian view that practically all mutant substitutions occurring within species in the course of evolution are caused by positive Darwinian selection.
Motoo Kimura (1977)

Calculating the rate of evolution in terms of nucleotide substitutions seems to give a value so
high that many of the mutations involved must be neutral ones
Motoo Kimura 1968

Selective elimination of definitely deleterious mutants and random fixation of selectively neutral or very slightly deleterious mutants occur far more frequently in evolution than positive Darwinian selection of definitely advantageous mutants.
Motoo Kimura and Tomoko Ohta (1974)

The main tenet of the neutral theory is that the great majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are caused not by Darwinian selection but by random fixation of selectively neutral (or very nearly neutral) alleles through random sampling drift under continued mutation pressure.
Motoo Kimura (1989)

There appears to be considerable latitude at the molecular level for random genetic changes that have no effect upon the fitness of the organism. Selectively neutral mutations, if they occur, become passively fixed as evolutionary changes through the action of random genetic drift.
J.L King and T.H. Jukes (1969) p.789

The idea of selectively neutral change at the molecular level has not been readily accepted by many classical evolutionists, perhaps because of the pervassiveness of Darwinian thought.
J.L King and T.H. Jukes (1969) p.788

The suggestion that macroevolution should be divorced from microevolution provides Creationists only with a debating point. It allows Creationists to say that there are some evolutonary theorists who distinguish the mechanisms studied in classical population genetics from those they take to be involved in large-scale evolutionary change ... But this is not to suppose that the distinction drawn by heterodox evolutionists is that favored by the Creationists.
Philip Kitcher (1982) p.150

Overheard at breakfast on the final day of a recent scientific meeting: "Do you believe in macroevolution?" Came the reply: "Well, it depends on how you define it.".
Roger Lewin (1980) p.884.

The central question of the Chicago conference was whether the mechanisms underlying microevolution can be extrapolated to explain the phenomena of macroevolution. At the risk of doing violence to the positions of some of the people at the meeting, the answer can be given as a clear, No.
Roger Lewin (1980) p.884.

The fact is that almost the entire theoretical apparatus of random genetic drift and directional selection can be derived from a haploid model of the genome and that the introduction of diploidy and sexual recombination makes no qualitative chane and only trivial quantitative changes in the predictions of evolution under these forces.
Richard C. Lewontin (1974) p.83

The [neoclassical] theory does not deny adaptive evolution but only that the vast quantity of molecular variation within populations and, consequently, much of the molecular evolution among species, has anything to do with that adaptive process
Richard C. Lewontin (1974) p.85

The false view of evolution as a process of global optimizing has been applied literally by engineers who, taken in by a mistaken metaphor, have attempted to find globally optimal solutions to design problems by writing programs that model evolution by natural selection.
Richard Lewontin

Evolution is a process of change in the genetic makeup of populations, with the most basic component being change in allele frequencies with time.
Wen-Hsiung Li (1997) p.35

... the independence of macroevolution is affirmed not only by species selection but also by other processes such as effect sorting among species.
Bruce S. Lieberman and Elisabeth S. Vrba (2005)

Macroevolution is given expanded meaning by punctuated equilibrium, which is a theory more about species and their reality and individuality (sensu Hull 1980) than about speciation.
Bruce S. Lieberman and Elisabeth S. Vrba (2005)

The universe doesn't seem to me to be like the kind of entity that could have a higher purpose. I literally don't know what it would mean to say that the universe has a higher purpose. But I also have to say just simply as far as my own personal experience is concerned I have not found it a depressing doctrine. I do not find myself in the least depressed by feeling that if there is a purpose it's a purpose in my friends in my people I love and myself and human beings. It's a product of human beings it's not something that's sort of you know comes out the physical universe because the universe was created.
John Maynard Smith (1998)

Molecular genetics has found that mutations frequently occur in which the new allele produces no change in the fitness of the phenotype. Kimura (1983) has called the occurrence of such mutations neutral evolution, and others have referred to it as non-Darwinian evolution. Both terms are misleading. Evolution involves the fitness of individuals and populations, not of genes. When a genotype, favored by selection, carries along as hitchhikers a few newly arisen and strictly neutral alleles, it has no influence on evolution. This may be called evolutionary 'noise' but it is not evolution. However, Kimura is correct in pointing out that much of the molecular variation of the genotype is due to neutral mutations. Having no effect on the phenotype, they are immune to selection.
Ernst Mayr (2001) p.199

... I pointed out more than a decade ago (1977) that 'the reductionist explanation, so widely adopted in recent decades— Evolution is a change in gene frequencies in populations—is not only not explanatory, but is in fact misleading. Far more revealing is the definition: 'Evolution is change in the adaptation *and* in the diversity of populations of organisms.'
Ernst Mayr (2001) p.162

Neither the discovery of numerous new facts relating to evolution nor the development of new concepts of speciation and genetic variation have required any essential revision of the picture of evolution as developed during the evolutionary synthesis. I emphatically deny the claims of various authors that these recent developments have led to an end of Darwinism, or of neo-Darwinism, or of the evolutionary synthesis.
Ernst Mayr (1988) p.191

The attack directed by Gould and Lewontin against unsupported adaptationist explanations in the literature is fully justified. But the most absurd among these claims were made several generations ago, not by modern evolutionists.
Ernst Mayr (1988) p.152

[referring to Tielhard de Chardin] ... it's author can be accused of dishonesty only on the grounds that before deceiving others he has taken great pains to deceive himself.
Peter Medawar (1961) p.1

Although not completely random, chance does affect which mutations, which mistakes, appear in which individuals. ... this inherent unpredictability is not a matter of inadequate scientific knowledge. Rather, it is a reflection that the behavior of matter itself is indeterminate, and therefore unpredictable. It is one of the reasons why we cannot predict, with any detailed certainty, the future path of evolution.
Kenneth R. Miller (1999) p. 233

... evolution is as much a fact as anything we know in science. It is a fact that we humans did not appear suddenly on this planet, de novo creations without ancestors, and it is a fact that the threads of ancestry are clear for us and for hundreds of other species and groups.
Kenneth R. Miller (1999) p. 233

No question about it. Rewind that tape, let it run again, and events might come out differently at every turn. Surely this means that mankind's appearance on this planet was not preordained, that we are here not as the products of an inevitable procession of evolutionary success, but as an afterthought, a minor detail, a happenstance in a history that might just as well have left us out. I agree.
Kenneth R. Miller (1999) p. 233

In any discussion of the question of "Intelligent Design," it is absolutely essential to determine what is meant by the term itself. If, for example, the advocates of design wish to suggest that the intricacies of nature, life, and the universe reveal a world of meaning and purpose consistent with an overarching, possibly Divine, intelligence, then their point is philosophical, not scientific. It is a philosophical point of view, incidentally, that I share, along with many scientists.
Kenneth R. Miller (2004) p. 94

The thesis I shall present in this book is that the biosphere does not contain a predictable class of objects or of events but constitutes a particular occurrence, compatible indeed with first principles, but not deducible from those principles and therefore essentially unpredictable.
Jacques Monod (1971) p.43

All religions, nearly all philosophies, and even a part of science testify to the unwearying, heroic effort of mankind desperately denying its own contingency."
Jacques Monod (1971) p.44

Another curious aspect of the theory of evolution is that everybody thinks he understands it. I mean philosophers, social scientists, and so on. While in fact very few people understand it, actually, as it stands, even as it stood when Darwin expressed it, and even less as we now may be able to understand it in biology.
Jacques Monod (1974)

... I must correct a wrong idea that has been spreading for the past three or four years. It was discovered some years ago that in some cases, the transcription of step from DNA to RNA works in the reverse direction. That is nothing surprising. ... it could be predicted that such events could occur. They do occur, indeed, but this must not be taken to mean that information from protein could possibly go back to the genome. ... I am ready to take any bet you like that this is never going to turn out to be the case.
Jacques Monod (1974) p.394

The privilege of living beings is the possession of a structure and of a mechanism which ensures two things: (i) reproduction true to type of the structure itself, and (ii) reproduction equally true to type, of any accident that occurs in the structure. Once you have that, you have evolution, because you have conservation of accidents. Accidents can then be recombined and offered to natural selection to find out if they are of any meaning or not.
Jacques Monod (1974) p.394

The aspect of evolutionary theory that is unacceptable to many enlightened people, either scientists or philosophers, or idelogists of one kind or another, is the completely contingent aspect which the existence of man, societies, and so on, must take if we accept this theory.
Jacques Monod (1974) p.394

We must conclude that the existence of any particular species is a singular event, an event that occurred only once in the whole of the universe and therefore one that is also basically and completely unpredictable, including that one species which we are, namely man.
Jacques Monod (1974) p.395

While de Vries' and Goldschmidt's views on the origin of species were extreme and unrealistic, from our current knowledge of genetics, de Vries' ideas led Morgan (1925, 1932) to propose a more resonable theory of evolution. ... In his view, selection plays a less important role than mutation, its chief role being to preserve useful mutations and eliminate unfit genotypes. That is, natural selection is regarded merely as a sieve to choose beneficial mutations. For this reason, his theory is often called mutationism, but a better terminology would be mutation-selection theory or classical theory in Dobzansky's sense, since he did not neglect natural selection.
Masatoshi Nei (1987) p.406

At the DNA level, most new genes seem to have been produced by gene duplication and subsequent nucleotide changes .... In these cases, the mutational change of DNA (duplication and nucleotide substitution) is clearly responsible for creating a new gene of character. Natural selection plays no such role. The role of natural selection is to eliminate less fit genotypes and save a beneficial one when there are many different genotypes in the same environment. Therefore, it seems clear that at the molecular level evolution occurs primarily by mutation pressure, though positive selection certainly speeds up gene substitution in populations.
Masatoshi Nei (1987) p.415

... are all individual differences in morphological and physiological characters adaptive as claimed by extreme neo-Darwinians? More than 4 billion people live on this planet, and all of them except identical twins are different with respect to morphological and physiological characters. Are all these differences adaptive? Is random genetic drift unimportant for generating morphological and physiological diversity among organisms? It seems to me that in some morphological characters a substantial part of genetic variation is nonadaptive.
Masatoshi Nei (1987) p.422

In this book, I have examined various aspects of molecular evolution and concluded that mutation is the driving force of evolution at the molecualr level. I have also extended this view to the level of phenotypic evolution and speciation, though I do not deny the importance of natural selection in evolution. I have challenged the prevailing view that a population of organisms contains virtually all sorts of variation and that the only force necessary for a particular character to evolve is natural selection. I have also emphasized the unpredictability of the evolutionary fate of organisms caused by uncontrolable external factors such as rapid climatic changes, geological catastrophes, or even asteroid impacts.
Masatoshi Nei (1987) p.431

The primary cause of evolution is the mutational change of genes. A mutant gene or DNA sequence caused by nucleotide substitution, insertions/delections, recombination, gene conversion, and so forth may spread through the population by genetic drift and/or natural selection and eventually be fixed in the species.
Masatoshi Nei and Sudhir Kumar (2000) p.4

Most new mutations are deleterious, and most mutations with very small effects are likely to be very slightly deleterious. Such mutations are selected against in large populations, but behave as if neutral in small populations.
Tomoko Ohta (1996) p.96

Mutation is a fundamental process for evolution. Under the orthodox view, mutations are raw materials on which natural selection works and organismal evolution is mainly governed by selection. With the accumulation of molecular data, the importance of random drift is being reevaluated. If the effect of a mutant is very small, random drift rather than selection determines its fate.
Tomoko Ohta (1998) p.83

Are we here because of a natural superiority (opposable thumbs, big brains and so on), or are we just plain lucky? In other words, is the evolution of life a fair game, as the survival-of-the-fittest doctrine so strongly implies?
David Raup (1991) p.xi

Is extinction through bad luck a challenge to Darwin's natural selection? No. Natural selection remains the only viable, naturalistic explanation we have for sophisticated adaptations like eyes and wings. We would not be here without natural selection. Extinction by bad luck merely adds another element to the evolutionary process, operating at the level of species, families, and classes, rather than the level of local breeding populations of single species. Thus, Darwinism is alive and well, but, I submit, it cannot have operated by itself to produce the diversity of life today.
David Raup (1991) p.192

Evolution at the molecular level appeared to have properties that would not have been predicted if it were driven by natural selection; and much of molecular evolution is now widely (if not universally) thought to be non-adaptive.
Mark Ridley (1997) p.4

A habit has grown up among some molecular biologists of using homology to mean similarity, regardless of whether the similarity is due to descent from a common ancestor. They thus talk about the "% homology" between two molecules, meaning the percentage of amino acid, or nucleotide sites that are the same in the two molecules. They are often criticized for their unorthodox usage .
M. Ridley (1997) p.208

The working biologist's reaction on learning that evolutionary theory does not fit some philosophical criterion for what a scientific theory should be like is—so much the worse for philosophy.
M. Ridley (1997) p.368

... Kimura's original radical claim, that most molecular evolution proceeds by drift, not selection, remains intact in the nearly neutral theory. It still contrasts strongly with the view that molecular evolution is powered by Darwinian natural selection.
M. Ridley (1997) p.78

Many universes can exist, with all possible combinations of physical laws and constants. In that sense, we just happen to be in the particular one that was suited for the the evolution of our form of life. When cosmologists refer to the anthropic principle, this is all they usually mean. Since we live in this universe, we can assume it possesses qualities suitable for our existence.
Eugenie C. Scott (2004)

... the thesis that evolution is primarily driven by natural selection is sometimes called Darwinism. Unfortunately, many people misapply the term to refer to the concept of descent with modification itself, which is erroneous. Natural selection is not the same as evolution.
Eugenie C. Scott (2004) p.34

Scientists sometimes colloquially refer to macroevolution as "evolution above the species level," but this term does not do justice to the complexity of topics included within the concept.
Eugenie C. Scott (2004) p.183

Micro- and macroevolution are thus different levels of analysis of the same phenomenon: evolution. Macroevolution cannot solely be reduced to microevolution because it encompasses so many other phenomena: adaptive radiation, for example, cannot be reduced only to natural selection, though natural selection helps bring it about.
Eugenie C. Scott (2004) p.183

If God is intervening into our world, he must be doing so in some measurable way. That's what we do with science. We measure.
Michael Shermer (2006)

If a sect does officially insist that its structure of belief demands that evolution be false, then no compromise is possible. An honest and competent biology teacher can only conclude that the sect's beliefs are wrong and that its religion is a false one.
George Gaylord Simpson (1964)

I do not think that evolution is supremely important because it is my speciality. On the contrary, it is my speciality because it is supremely important.
George Gaylord Simpson (1961)

The extreme view that evolution is basically or over all an orthogenetic process is evidence that some scientists' minds tend to move in straight lines, not that evolution does.
George Gaylord Simpson (1949)

Macroevolution is decoupled from microevolution, and we must envision the process governing its course as being analogous to natural selection but operating at a higher level of organization.
Steven M. Stanley (1975) p.648

The microevolutionary process that adequately describes evolution in a population is an utterly inadaquate account of the evolution of the earth's biota. It is inadequate because the evolution of the biota is more than the mutational origin and subsequent survival or extinction of genes in gene pools. Biotic evolution is also the cladogenetic origin and subsequent survival and extinction of gene pools in the biota.
George C. Williams (1992) p.31

I'm not going to be one of these scientists who keep wafling and saying "oh well, science has it's role, religion has it's role... science has it's own kind of truth and religion has it's own kind of truth... somehow, as we work more and more they will somehow come together." I don't believe that for a minute. I don't think that Darwin would have believed it.
Edward O. Wilson

The fundamantal evolutionary event is a change in the frequency of genes and chromosome configurations in a population. If a population of butterflies shifts through time from 40 percent blue individuals to 60 percent individuals, and if the color blue is hereditary, evolution of a simple kind has occurred.
Edward O. Wilson (1992) p.75

That evolution involves nonadaptive differentiation to a large extent at the subspecies level is indicated by the kinds of differences by which such groups are actually distinguished by systematicists. It is only at the subfamily and family levels that clear-cut adaptive differences become the rule. The principal evolutionary mechanisms in the origin of species must thus be an essentially nonadaptive one.
Sewell Wright (1932) p.38

(concerning more evidence for evolution) Some beating of dead horses may be ethical, where here and there they display unexpected twitches that look like life.
Emile Zuckerkandl and Linus Pauling (1965) p.101

---

Alters, B. (2005) Teaching Biological Evolution in Higher Education: Methodological, Religious, and Nonreligious Issues. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury MA USA.
Ayala, F.J. (2004) "Design and Designer Darwin's Greatest Discovery" in DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK pp.55-80.
Ayala, F.J. (1983) Beyond Darwinism? The Challenge of Macroevolution to the Synthetic Theory of Evolution. reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed. p. 118-133.
Baker, L.R. (2000) God and Science in the Public Schools. Philosophic Exchange 30: 53-69.
Brenner, S. (2000) Biochemistry strikes back. Trends in Biochemical Sciences, 25(12), 584-584. [PDF]
Crick, F. (1994) The astonishing hypothesis the scientific search for the soul. (New York: Scribner)
Coyne, J.A. (2009) Why Evolution Is True. Viking Penguin, New York
Darwin, C. (c1880) from THE AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF CHARLES DARWIN, N. Barlow ed., Harcourt Brace (1958). Quoted in EVOLUTION EXTENDED, C. Barlow ed., MIT Press, Cambridge MA (1995) p. 260
Dawkins, R. (2003) A devil's chaplain: reflections on hope, lies, science, and love. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co)
Dawkins, R. (1989) review of BLUEPRINTS Solving the Mystery of Evolution New York Times. April 9, 1989 [NYT April 9, 1989]
Dennett, D. (1995) Darwin's dangerous idea: evolution and the meanings of life. (New York: Simon & Schuster)
Dickerson, R.E. (1992) The Game of Science. Journal of Molecular Evolution 34: 277-279.
Dobzhansky, T. (1973) Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution. American Biology Teacher 35:125-129. [doi: 10.2307/4444260][Full Text] [Full Text] (Reprinted in EVOLUTION, M. Ridley ed., Oxford University Press, New York (1997) pp. 378-387.)
Ehrlich, P.R. and Holm, R.W. (1963) THE PROCESS OF EVOLUTION, McGraw-Hill New York
Eldredge, N. (1995) REINVENTING DARWIN: THE GREAT DEBATE AT THE HIGH TABLE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Erwin, D. H. (2000) Macroevolution is more than repeated rounds of microevolution. Evolution & Development, 2:78-84. [doi: 10.1046/j.1525-142x.2000.00045.x]
Freeman, S. and Herron, J.C. (1998) EVOLUTIONARY ANALYSIS, Prentice Hall. Upper Saddle River NJ USA
Futuyma, D.J. (1982) SCIENCE ON TRIAL: THE CASE FOR EVOLUTION, Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland MA USA
Gould, S.J. (2002) THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA (USA)
Gould, S.J. (1980) "Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection" in SOCIOBIOLOGY: BEYOND NATURE/NURTURE?, G.W. Barlow and J. Silverberg eds., Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado pp. 257-269. Reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, pp. 253-263.
Gould, S.J. (1988) Trends as changes in variance: a new slant on progress and directionality in evolution (Presidential Address) J. Paleont. 62: 319-329.
Gould, S.J. (1980) "Sociobiology and the Theory of Natural Selection" in SOCIOBIOLOGY: BEYOND NATURE/NURTURE?, G.W. Barlow and J. Silverberg eds., Westview Press Inc., Boulder, Colorado pp. 257-269. Reprinted in PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY, M. Ruse ed., Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, pp. 253-263.
Gould, S. J. (1982) Darwinism and the expansion of evolutionary theory. Science, 216(4544), 380-387. [doi: 10.1126/science.7041256]
Gould, S.J. (1983) "Chance Riches" in HEN'S TEETH AND HORSE'S TOES, W.W. Norton & Co., New York pp. 332-342.
Gould, S.J. (1999) Rocks of ages: science and religion in the fullness of life. (New York: Ballantine Books)
Gould, S. J., and Lewontin, R. C. (1979) The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences, 205(1161), 581-598. [doi: 10.1098/rspb.1979.0086]
Haldane, J.B.S. quoted in L.B. Halstead "Evolution-the Fossils Say Yes!" in SCIENCE AND CREATIONISM A. Montagu ed. Oxford University Press (1984)
Haught, J.F. (2004) "Darwin, Design, and Divine Providence" in DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK pp.229-245.
Hull, D.L. (1991) The God of the Galapogos a review of Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson. Nature 352:485-486.
Jacob, F. (1977) Evolution and tinkering. Science (New York, NY), 196(4295), 1161. [PDF]
Jablonski, D., Benton, M.J., Gastaldo, R.A., Marshall, C.R. and Sepkoski, J.J. (1997) Macroevolution in the 21st Century, PALEO21, Frankfurt [Paleonet]
Jukes, T.H. (1980) "Neutral Changes Revisited." in EVOLUTION OF PROTEIN STRUCTURE AND FUNCTION Academic Press, Inc. pp. 203-219
Kimura, M. (1977) Preponderance of synonymous changes as evidence for the neutral theory of molecular evolution. [doi: 10.1038/267275a0]
Kimura, M. (1968) Evolutionary rate at the molecular level. Nature, 217(5129), 624-626. [PDF]
Kimura, M., and Ohta, T. (1974) On some principles governing molecular evolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 71(7), 2848-2852. [PDF]
Kimura, M. (1991) Recent development of the neutral theory viewed from the Wrightian tradition of theoretical population genetics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 88(14), 5969-5973. [PDF]
Kimura, M. (1989) The neutral theory of molecular evolution and the world view of the neutralists. Genome, 31(1), 24-31. [PDF]
King, J.L., and Jukes, T.H. (1969) Non-darwinian evolution. Science, 164(3881), 788-798. [PDF]
Kitcher, P. (1982) Abusing science the case against creationism. (Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press).
Lewin, R. (1980) Evolutionary Theory Under Fire (a review of the Chicago 1980 conference on macroevolution) Science 210:883-887
Lewontin, R.C. (1974) THE GENETIC BASIS OF EVOLUTIONARY CHANGE. Columbia University Press, New York quoted in EVOLUTION, M. Ridly ed. Oxford University Press (1997) pp. 79-88.
Li, W-H. (1997) MOLECULAR EVOLUTION Sinauer Associates, Inc., Sunderland MA USA
Lieberman, B.S. and Vrba, E.S. (2005) Gould on species selection. in MACROEVOLUTION: Diversity, Disparity, Contingency. E.S. Vrba and N. Eldredge eds. supplement to Paleobiology vol. 31(2) The Paleontological Society, Lawrence, Kansas, USA
Maynard Smith, J. (1998) Robert Wright interviews John Maynard Smith.
Mayr, E. (2001) WHAT EVOLUTION IS, Basic Books, New York
Mayr, E. (1988) TOWARD A NEW PHILOSOPHY OF BIOLOGY: OBSERVATIONS OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA USA
Medawar, P. (1961) review of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin's "The Phenomoenon of Man" in Mind 70:99-106. Reprinted in THE STRANGE CASE OF THE SPOTTED MICE, Oxford University Press, New York (1996) p. 1.
Miller, K.R. (1999) FINDING DARWIN'S GOD: A SCIENTIST'S SEARCH FOR COMMON GROUND BETWEED GOD AND EVOLUTION. Cliff Street Books, HarperCollins, New York, NY USA
Miller, K. (2004) "The Flagellum Unspun" in DEBATING DESIGN: FROM DARWIN TO DNA, W.A. Dembski and M. Ruse eds. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge UK pp. 81-97.
Monod, J. (1971) CHANCE AND NECESSITY, A. Wainhouse (translator), Vintage Books, New York NY USA
Monod, J. (1974) "On the Molecular Theory of Evolution" reprinted in Mark Ridley (editor) Evolution (1997) p. 389
Nei, M. (1987) MOLECULAR EVOLUTIONARY GENETICS, Columbia Univesity Press, New York NY USA
Nei, M. and Kumar, S. (2000) MOLECULAR EVOLUTION AND PHYLOGENETICS, Oxford University Press, New York NY USA
Ohta, T. (1996) The neutral theory is dead. The current significance and standing of neutral and nearly neutral theories. BioEssays, 18(8), 673-677. [doi: 10.1002/bies.950180811]
Ohta, T. (1998) Evolution by nearly-neutral mutations. Genetica, 102, 83-90.
Raup, D.M. (1991) EXTINCTION: BAD GENES OR BAD LUCK? W.W. Norton & Co., New York
Ridley, Mark (1997) in EVOLUTION, M. Ridley ed. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.
Scott, E.C. (2004) Evolution vs. creationism: an introduction. (Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press).
Simpson, G.G. (1964) from his book THIS VIEW OF LIFE: THE WORLD OF AN EVOLUTIONIST, Harcourt Brace, quoted in EVOLUTION EXTENDED, C. Barlow ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA USA pp.270-271.
Stanley, S.M. (1975) A theory of evolution above the species level. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. (USA) 72: 646-650.
Williams, G.C. (1992) NATURAL SELECTION: DOMAINS, LEVELS AND CHALLENGES. Oxford University Press, Oxford UK.
Wilson, E.O. Robert Wright interviews E.O. Wilson
Wilson, E.O. (1992) THE DIVERSITY OF LIFE W.W. Norton & Co. New York NY USA
Wright S. (1932) The roles of mutation, inbreeding, crossbreeding and selection in evolution. Proceeding of the VI International Congree of Genetics, reprinted in EVOLUTION, Mark Ridley ed. Oxford University Press Oxford UK pp.32-40.
Zuckerkandl, E., and Pauling, L. (1965) Evolutionary divergence and convergence in proteins. Evolving genes and proteins, 97, 97-166. [PDF]

---