Abstract

While the modern synthesis has at its core the claim that evolution can be entirely explained by the natural selection of random variations, neither "random" nor "variation" is adequately defined. Neo-Darwinists explicitly deny that they use random with the meaning of haphazard, but it is what they assume in their work; if they did not, they could not justify their total concentration on selection and neglect of variations. They conflate variations in the genotype with those in the phenotype. This might be justifiable if the connection between the two were simple and straightforward, but it is not. Like Darwin, neo-Darwinists are committed to the belief that evolution is always gradual. Also like Darwin, they justify this on theoretical rather than empirical grounds and despite acknowledging that the evidence does not support them. The paradox could be resolved by relaxing the commitment to gradualism, but only at the cost of significant consequences for the paradigm.

Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call