Present-Day Neo-Darwinism and the Darwinian Tradition - Essay Example

SCIENTIFIC PARADIGM Student’s name Code & Course Professor’s name University City Date Scientific Paradigm Scientific Paradigm has been defined by philosopher Thomas Kuhn as “practices that define a scientific discipline at a certain point in time.” He pioneered the use the term for science noting that research in science does not evolve towards truths rather it clings to old theories and lays open to dogma (Kuhn, 1962). Today, scientific paradigm refers to the mutual understanding among scientists concerning important structures, hypothesis or problems in a particular field. It is the skeleton containing popular views in an area of research. The Scientific paradigm can also be defined as a widely followed approach to a subject or area of research. For centuries, many have come up with theories to explain the origin of species using different approaches. In the Science world, the domineering theory is the Charles’ Darwin Theory of Evolution by natural selection which he explains in his book (Darwin 1859). It suggests that species evolved from simple single cell organisms to the complex beings as we know them now gradually over a long period of time. A genetic mutation that was random in nature occurred with the beneficial mutations being passed down to offspring in a process known as natural selection. The theory was widely accepted by many scientists worldwide. However, over the years, as more research has been conducted and new discoveries made, improvements have been made to the theory resulting in the establishment of Neo-Darwinism, otherwise known as the modern synthesis, a term Julian Huxley came up with in one of his books (Huxley 1942). Neo-Darwinism connects the breach between the work of experimental naturalists, geneticists, and palaeontologists. Previously, there was known to be little to no relation between the different sciences hence, scientists conducted their research in their individual field with little interaction with scientists in other fields. Neo-Darwinism was, therefore, a turning point. In its most basic form, the theory seeks to merge two seemingly contrasting theories; Gregor Mendel’s Mendelian genetics, which states that organisms do not change with time, and Darwinism, which argues organisms do in fact change with time. It introduces a link between two crucial discoveries; genes, the unit of evolution and natural selection which is the mechanism of evolution. The merging of the theories is credited to Ronald Fisher. During the development of the Darwinian Theory, there was little knowledge about genes and DNA and its influence on evolution. Neo-Darwinism utilises this new knowledge claiming that genetic variation in species can be a result of chance mutation and genetic recombination. Chance mutation implies the process is random and results in phenotypic (physical appearance) changes among the species population. The main ideas of the modern synthesis suggest that evolution is gradual, and natural selection is the main change mechanism. These two ideas form the basis of the theory. This theory has being accepted by a majority of scholars in the field making it a scientific paradigm (NAS 1999, p.28). However, there is a handful of scientists who disagree with the very basis of the theory. Brian Goodwin was a mathematician, biologist, and professor at Open University. He conducted research and made discoveries which conflicted with the popular neo-Darwinian theory. He bases his argument on the theory that genetics alone cannot explain the complex biological system. He explained his theory in his book (Goodwin 1997). He writes in the book that “Genes do not control; they cooperate in producing variations on generic themes.” (Goodwin 1997, p.28) Goodwin claims that natural selection falls short of explaining evolution and that it was more of a filter mechanism. There is a lot more that goes into the process of evolution, and natural selection is just but a small part of it. He disagrees with the common neo-Darwinian belief that genes build an organism from the ground up and instead lays claims that genes only speed up or slow down autonomous processes, as is necessary, in a bid to perfect them. He further explains that to understand evolution, one must, rather than look at it as being a process pulled by natural selection, view it as one driven by natural characteristics of living matter. He notes morphogenesis (the process resulting in an organism developing its shape) had been ignored in the theory, yet it is an important part of evolution. By ignoring it, the theory seems to imply that organisms can take any form, and there are no determining factors to the shape an organism takes. As is expected, supporters of neo-Darwinian have spoken out criticizing his work. Among them is biologist Catherine Rice, who says that his (Goodwin’s) ideologies are not only biased but also poorly informed and insufficiently developed. She acknowledged that his theory provides a substitute for natural selection as the sole mutation source but does not provide a substitute to natural selection as an adaptation mechanism (Price 1995, p. 1298-1302). However, there were some scientists that praised his work. David Wake, for example, described Goodwin as a thoughtful scientist after reviewing his research. Biologist Gert Korthof noted that Goodwin tried to, in a scientific way, improve Darwinism. Another scientist that stands by a different scientific paradigm and is a known critic of Neo-Darwinism is Mae-Won Ho. Ho was a geneticist and a co-founder and director of Institute of Science in Society (ISIS). She argues that idea of natural selection of random mutation in accordance to Neo-Darwinism is an inadequate evolution account. Ho points out the theory is in itself limited as it does not sufficiently explain the variety of species in existence, neither does it justify the origin of new species. She points to evidence that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution. The genetic changes do not result in a change of species but a variation in the original species. Ho also points out that the variations or mutations do in fact not occur at random (chance mutations) as stipulated in Neo-Darwinism. Instead, the non-random mutation is as a result of the interaction between the organism and its environment during development (Ho 1979, p.579). The environment the species is in therefore plays a crucial role in the mutation of the species influencing its phenotype. Ho documented her evolution ideologies in her book where she attempts to cause a paradigm shift (Ho 1984). She has also written collaborative works with her husband, also a scientist, Peter Saunders. She supports the Lamarckian evolution which is an ideology claiming that characteristics acquired by an organism during its lifetime can be passed on to its offspring, phenomena otherwise known as soft inheritance. In Neo-Darwinism, the theory is not used since Mendelian genetics dispute the idea of inherited traits. Ho’s theories are not well received by pro –Neo-Darwinists. She has been branded a neo-Lamarckian, communist and Marxist. Philip Gingerich, a palaeontologist, for example, observes that Ho’s ideas on evolution are based on vitalistic thinking (a discredited postulate that living and non-living things are different because the former are governed by different principles)(Gingerich 1989). However, she said in interviews that the criticism does not bother her, and she stands by her theory. Both Goodwin and Ho demonstrated different scientific paradigms. They disputed what majority of the scientific community accepted to be true. They conducted their research, not clinging to dogmas, drew conclusions from their findings and came up with alternative theories. Paradigms are often limiting as they constrict a scholar to a certain line of thought. It is for this reason that paradigm shifts occur after long periods of time and are met with resistance. Needless to say, it is always easier to stick to assumed truths. Paradigm shifts are even more challenging for scientists because existing theories are often backed with evidence which a scholar has to discredit and give an alternative. However, for a field as diverse as Science and with the infinite potential of expansion of knowledge scholars cannot afford to limit themselves. Regardless of the fact that ideologies of Goodwin and Ho did not receive a warm welcome from the scientific community, they introduced a new school of thought and a different perspective from which hopefully other scientists will take up and build on in their research. Critically Reflective Appendix I chose to write an essay on topic two which required that I defined scientific paradigm, analyse the evolution ideologies of two scientists (Brian Goodwin and Mae Won Ho) and state whether or not they portrayed a different scientific paradigm. The question also required that I provide evidence for my arguments. The first question and the basis of my essay were: what is scientific paradigm? I consulted the dictionary for the definition. No direct definition was provided, so I checked up paradigm and came up with possible definitions. I, later on, stumbled upon the work of philosopher Thomas Kuhn, who was the first philosopher to relate science and paradigm online. Having understood the meaning of scientific paradigm and made notes from my research, I moved on to the second question. In order to effectively answer the second question, I had to answer a few others. These were, what is Neo-Darwinism and what does it entail? What are the ideologies of Brian Goodwin relating to evolution? What are the revolution ideologies of Mae Won Ho? Do their ideologies dispute the ideologies of Neo-Darwinism? If so, how? How did other scholars react to their ideologies? These are the questions I sought to answer before writing my essay. I went online and searched for all the keywords (Neo-Darwinism, Brian Goodwin, and Mae Won Ho). As expected, the internet had a lot to offer, so I filtered out information from the credible sources and also got references for further reading. The books by the two scientists were of particular interest since they expounded on their individual theories. I also found reactions to their theories online. I also found links to journals and other articles by the two scientists and on Neo-Darwinism. Having read all the materials and made a draft, I wrote the essay. References Darwin, C 1859, The Origin of Species. Gingerich, P 1989, New Vitalism in Evolution: Evolutionary Processes and Metaphors. Goodwin, B 1997, How the Leopard Changed its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity. Ho, MW 1984, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Introduction to the New Evolution Paradigm, Academic Press, London. Ho, MW & Saunders, P 1979, Beyond Neo-Darwinism: An Epigenetic Approach to Evolution. Huxley, J 1942, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis. Kuhn, T 1962, The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. University of Chicago Press. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) 1999, The Scientific consensus around evolution is overwhelming. Price, C 1995, ‘Structurally Unsound’, Evolution, vol. 49, no 6, pp. 1298-1302. .’ Read More