Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Renewed interest among economists in Darwin's theory has generated confusion regarding the meaning of social evolution. Does social evolution refer to the selective adaptation of institutions as advanced by old institutionalism? Or does evolution reduce to rational calculation as advanced by neoinstitutionalists, sociobiologists, and neoclassical economists? The confusion is revealed by Lamar Jones's query: if Darwin's theory of evolution supports the neoclassical vision, how can proponents of old institutionalism describe their theory as evolutionary Jones 1986? The debate between the old institutional and neoclassical economists finds a parallel in a debate that has recently emerged among biologists. Most biologists adhere to the neo-Darwinian synthesis, a combination of Darwin's principle of natural selection with Mendelin genetics. Species evolve gradually, the result of random changes in the genetic code in light of natural selection. Competition rules. Recent research in biology, however, cast doubts about the simplistic vision of evolution presented by the neo-Darwinists. The theory of symbiosis in particular makes two points. First, evolution is not always gradual. New species may arise from the merging of two or more species. Second, evolution may also result from cooperation. The symbiotic theory focuses not on the organism as the unit of selection, but on the relationships that in fact define the individual organism. The confusion over evolution stems froni a fundamental methodological differ
John Watkins (Sun,) studied this question.