The Genetic Paradigm and neo-Darwinism

Neo-Darwinism is a theory based on genes, G.C. Williams (1966) states explicitly, “. . . In
explaining adaptation, one should assume the adequacy of the simplest form of natural
selection, that of alternative alleles in Mendelian populations.” (p.4) Natural selection on
alternative alleles can only be a valid description of reality when the following abstractions
of the genetic paradigm are assumed to be true: (a) genes determine characters in a
straightforward and additive way, (b) they are stable and, except for rare random mutations,
are passed on unchanged to the next generation, and (c) there is no feedback from the
environment to the organism’s genes. All three assumptions have been demonstrated to be
Assumption (a) was known to be false since the beginning of the neo-Darwinian synthesis,
and to some of the most prominent ‘architects’ of the grand synthesis such as Sewell Wright
(1969; 1978) and Ernst Mayr (1963). Wright argues that selection relates to the organism as
a whole, or to the social group, not to single genes except as a net resultant. He saw that the
major source of variability is in the recombination of already existing genes into a great
number of different genotypes, many of which would occupy equivalent “adaptive peaks” in
a “fitness landscape”. Mayr, on the other hand, insists that natural selection acts on
“co-adapted gene complexes” as a whole, and remains highly critical of ‘beanbag
[population] genetics’ such as that of R.A. Fisher (1930) and J.B.S. Haldane (1932), which
deals with selection of single genes. However, that still leaves both the “fitness landscape”
and the “co-adaptive gene complex” undefined, and with little impact on the study of
evolution in the mainstream, where it is customary to identify a character, then assume there
is a hypothetical gene (or set of genes) responsible for it, which may be selected in isolation
from everything else.
Critics point out that the mapping between genes and the organisms’ characters (phenotype)
in development is nonlinear and non-additive (as it would already be when one takes Wright
and Mayr seriously), and that the organism as a dynamical system is subject to universal
generative principles not immediately dependent on the genes. Neo-Darwinists counter that
these are only “developmental constraints” which limit, to some extent, the action of natural
selection, but that natural selection still plays the creative role in evolution (Bonner, 1982).
There have been serious attempts to use developmental findings to trace phylogenetic
relationships (Humphries, 1988 ; Wake, 1990 ; D.B. Wake, 1991 ) although the theoretical
relationship between ontogeny and phylogeny is still not adequately understood by most
systematists (Ho, 1988a; Wake, 1994).
Assumptions (b) and (c) effectively separate the organism from the environment, which has
the role of the ‘selector’. Of course, most people accept that the environment also interacts
with the organism, causing changes in its characteristics. However, it is supposed that the
environment as ‘interactor’ can be neatly separated from the environment that selects, for so
long as the germline genes are stable, and do not change with the environment, then it is
irrelevant how the rest of the body is affected. As only the genes are passed on in evolution,
it also means that evolution is separate from development. Maynard Smith and Holliday
( 1979 ) have indeed declared that the gift of Weismannism to evolutionary (i.e.,
neo-Darwinian) theory is that development can be safely ignored. As we shall see, these
assumptions are no longer tenable.


Mae Wan Ho, Evolution, in Comparative Psychology, a Handbook, (G. Greenberg and M. M. Haraway, eds.), pp. 107-119, Garland Publishing, 1998.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s