Neo-Darwinism is also known as "the modern synthesis"

Dan, you say that:
" Is it not true (perhaps I’m mistaken) that the term neo-Darwinism was coined in forced response to the world’s discoveries in genetics?"

Plainly it is true in your opinion, but what is the significance?

Genetics has provided a vast amount of solid scientific evidence to support the strength of organic evolution as a valid and very useful theory.

You and others may be interested in some of the details of the development of evolutionary theory in the mid-twentieth century. Theodesius Dobzhansky was a central figure in this transition. See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_evolutionary_synthesis

Dobzhansky wrote an essay, published in The American Biology Teacher, March 1973, which clearly and firmly elucidates his understanding of organic evolution as a theory. It is titled "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution". It is available at
http://people.delphiforums.com/lordorman/light.htm

I agree with his opinions.

I would guess that, if you are a supporter of creationism or intelligent design , that your opposition to evolution is motivated by beliefs which may include the following:

(1) The words of the Holy Bible (King James Edition, say) are literally true.
(2) The world was created in 6 days
(3) Humans are a separate and distinct creation from other apes and other animals.
(4) Humans and other animals do not "evolve" by organic evolution or any other mechanism of change over time.

Is it the contradiction of these assertions (or others) that makes organic evolution an unacceptable theory, for you?

What is your personal objection to organic evolution?

There you go again, Dan. Either completely misunderstanding what is written or deliberately misrepresenting it. Darwin's core hypothesis was speciation through variation and natural selection. Not just natural selection only. To have variation, one must have a heritable mechanism that provides it. In the abscence of anything better at the time, Darwin hypothesised the existence of such a mechanism without understanding anything about genetics, once genetics had been discovered, viola! A complete theory.

Other people observed gravity before either Newton or Einstein wrote about it, so I don't really understand what that last comment was about. If you aren't trying to say that Darwin's theories were invalidated by Mendel, then what do mean by "trumped"?

<< If you don’t like the sound of panic (especially amongst evolutionists), then don’t read the libel and name calling coming from Sancho and Wing Ah Ling’s second post on Sunday. >>

Where did I libel or call anyone names?

And there is no panic, just astonishment and a bit of anger. Try to imagine how you'd react to people who agitate for ripping up the maths textbooks and teaching our childrend that 1+1 = 5, just because it fits in with their literal interpretation of a Bronze Age folk story.

You're asking us to destroy centuries of hard-won knowledge because it upsets you to realise the world isn't simple and you're not special to God.

The absurdity of religious fundamentalism is impossible to overstate, and attempts to put it on par with testable, observable evidence are insulting to those of us who are grateful to science for liberating us from backward theocracy.

To all members! How can you pin-point what is right or wrong when at this present time, mankind's new transitions is well under way right before our eyes? If man is now walking past the mind god, its obviously showing that evolution is its own conclusion! But like George has pointed out, the respect must be shown, or we have learned nothing.

With knowing the above, the tolerance of people, past or present, we must wait!

But personally, my children will learn that home is where the heart is, and that's the planet earth.

We can all talk which is right or wrong until the cows come in, and the basic fact is, the new will always replace the old and that's a fact.

If you cant prove to your children what you are saying, don't say anything at all.

You maybe causing more harm than good.

Remember! this is only my opinion.

All the best.

EVO

Sorry Dan, it is not true.
the term 'Neo Darwinism' was first coined in 1895, by George Ramanes; about 5 years before Mendel's work was rediscovered.
In the absence of any knowledge of genetics, Darwin felt bound to supply some theory for the means of inheritance of characteristics. At that time, the only person he knew of working in this area was Lamarck. Darwin therefore developed a theory of pangenesis, basically to incorporate Lamarck's theory, which we now consider to be quite wrong.
Ramanes rejected the pangenesis theory, opting instead for Wallace's contention that natural selection was all.
The term has been revived (or stolen) over the years, as more knowledge about genetics and molecular biology demonstrate an enormously more complex picture of evolution than Darwin could possibly have imagined.
The very latest research seems to indicate that viruses have played a far greater role in evolution than was previously imagined. Even if this proves true, it still *probably* will not threaten natural selection.
After a virus has altered a gene, natural selection will still determine whether the alteration will survive in the gene pool.
I think you may be thinking of evolutionary synthesis, rather than neo darwinism. That's another story, but suffice to say, natural selection is still considered the primary means of evolution.

Sancho,
Where did you call anyone names? You called Philip Johnson a ‘born again Christian’. It’s possible that Johnson may or may not refer to himself that way, but in the context that you use the term, you allege that he is less capable than others of neutrality or of evaluating a theory because he is a Christian. That is an unfair prejudice.

Sir Vivor and Bugsy,
The current article asks whether Darwin’s ideas are durable or whether they’re approaching a use-by date. I say more the latter.

In regard to Mendel and genetics, I used the word ‘trumped’ in the figurative sense of being surprised or overwhelmed. Darwin had taken a hit. So much that Darwinism had to be revamped into something else, something ‘new’, hence ‘Neo’-Darwinism. Voilà !

We seem to be in agreement that Darwin was ignorant of genetics. Through genetics we discover how traits are passed on from parent to offspring. Variation arises from genes reshuffling and recombining in the process of reproduction. However, if the genes are not there, present already in the parent, then how can they be passed on to the offspring?

Therefore the mechanism of heredity does not provide the capability to produce new design features. Variation in eye colour, length of beak, number of feathers on a wing? Yes, sure, absolutely. But can we arrive at eyes, beaks, and feathers? Unfortunately, no.

Sir Vivor, you ask from where derives my objection to organic evolution? I am in search of good science as well as good theology. I don’t see how evolution fits either.

The entropic nature of this world bares witness daily that the properties of matter and energy alone are incapable of constructing life forms as we understand them.

Theologically, evolution leaves a creator God redundant. In fact, that seems to be the point of it. And it seems you’ve noted some of the clear contradictions between a straight forward reading of the Bible and what evolution teaches.