: What does "Neo-Darwinism" mean? Technically, Neo-Darwinism refers to the reformation of the Darwnian paradigm that followed the "discovery" of Mendel's work on genetics, and the further development of Darwinian theory that followed the work of Wilson in the 1930s and Crick and Watson in the 1950s-present. All current Darwinian approaches are, technically speaking, Neo-Darwinian. Darwin knew that traits were transmitted by heredity, but until the discovery of Mendelian genetics, no mechanism for transmission was known. The big argument in the 19th century was whether traits were pre-formed in the sperm or egg (the "homunculus" paradigm) or particulate (the "atomic" paradigm). Mendel demonstrated, with his yellow and green peas, that traits are particulate and that there exist dominant and recessive genes. Crick and Watson demonstrated the double helix structure of DNA, and thus showed how the traits are recombined.
:I know what Social darwinism is, it is the mistaken belief that since natural selection occurrs in Nature, we should apply it to our own species.
Not exactly. "Social Darwinism" (which SHOULD be called "Spencerism" because it has nothing to do with Darwinian theory) is the mistaken belief that evolution is the same thing as "progress" or "improvement," and the application of this mistaken belief to human social groups.
Darwinian theory does apply to humans, just as much as it applies to every other biological phenomenon, but it has nothing to say about "ranking" or which species is "better" than which others. That's a question that can't be addressed in biology and is completely meaningless, from a Darwinian perspective.
:I know what evolution is, as well as natural selection (PLEASE do not reply just to explain what evolution is. I want whatever the distinction is between the theory of evolution and "Neo-Darwinism")
Time, really. Neo-Darwinism is the incorporation of gene theory (the mechanism of inheritance) into Darwinain theory, that's all.
:Is "neo-darwinism" actually a name for neo-social-darwinism? Or is it the creation of some confused soul who is actually talking about evolution? None of the zoology professors I have talked to know what "neo-darwinism" is, meaning that the name has no scientific meaning (at least in biology).
The reason that your Zoology prof's aren't familiar with the term is that it's the only form of Darwinian theory that still exists, and there is no real reason to make a distinction between the two, from a zoological perspective. People who've studied the history of Darwinian thought (who often are "confused souls" of a sort! ;-) are the only people to whom the distinction is meaningful. Stephen Jay Gould writes about it quite often, in many of his brilliant essays from Natural History magazine (most of which are now collected in soft-cover books and should be available at your school's library).
:Why, also, is it "neo?" Is there an old-darwinism? Darwin's theory of evolution by means of natural selection has not been (scientifically) challenged in its entirety since the publication of _Origin..._, which indicates to me that whatever "neo-darwinism" is in the minds of those who invented the name, it is not the same as evolution. And hence my curiosity.
I hope the above clarifications have answered this. Neo-Darwinism is simply Darwin's theory of descent with modification and differential reproductive success, tied to the genetic theory of trait inheritance. It's "neo" because it arose in the early half of the 20th century, rather than the later half of the 19th, so it is "younger." It's not a conflicting theory, but an expansion of the old theory to include the mechanism by which traits are inherited.
: Oh yes, I also notice that this forum is "the debating room," indicating to me that perhaps some of you might like to chalenge my assertions. I would love to discuss such things, but do ask that anyone doing such please set straight the semantics involved... nothing is worse than agruing with somone just to discover that definitions or basic assumptions involved in the discussion do not correlate.
Good for you, Sap-Sucker! Take up that gauntlet! Most of the folks who will "debate" you will come at you from the perspective that "it's not in the Bible, so it doesn't exist" (as though gravity, which also isn't mentioned in the Bible, doesn't apply to true believers!) It's a sad and sorry argument in most cases. Your "opponents" will usually refuse to present any evidence in support of their hypothesis, and simply make irrelevant and meaningless criticisms of yours, usually because they don't understand it. It's frustrating work, and great thinkers such as Dawkins and Gould have pretty much given up trying. After all, why lend credence to an argument by implying that it is even viable enough to be worth refuting.
Don't make the mistake of assuming that all christians are anti-Darwinian, however. Many agree with Darwinian theory, and only see it as a directed process, with God using random mutation and selective pressure to further some inscrutible plan. Science has no way of addressing that assertion, so it is not a major issue in the debate. There really isn't a conflict between faith and science; those few, misguided, individuals who think that there is are simply trying to use faith to answer scientific questions, and assuming (projecting) that scientists are trying to answer religious questions. The two approaches look at different phenomena, and are therefore no more contradictory than mathematics contradicts football. The two approaches may sometimes even be potentially complimentary, as Lark and Pope John-Paul II have suggested.
Good Luck, and don't lose your sense of humor; you'll need it!
-Floyd
