Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Oct 2;12(1):23.
doi: 10.1186/s13062-017-0194-1.

Why we don't want another "Synthesis"

Arlin Stoltzfus  1   2
Affiliations

Why we don't want another "Synthesis"

Arlin Stoltzfus. Biol Direct. .

Abstract

High-level debates in evolutionary biology often treat the Modern Synthesis as a framework of population genetics, or as an intellectual lineage with a changing distribution of beliefs. Unfortunately, these flexible notions, used to negotiate decades of innovations, are now thoroughly detached from their historical roots in the original Modern Synthesis (OMS), a falsifiable scientific theory. The OMS held that evolution can be adequately understood as a process of smooth adaptive change by shifting the frequencies of small-effect alleles at many loci simultaneously, without the direct involvement of new mutations. This shifting gene frequencies theory was designed to support a Darwinian view in which the course of evolution is governed by selection, and to exclude a mutation-driven view in which the timing and character of evolutionary change may reflect the timing and character of events of mutation. The OMS is not the foundation of current thinking, but a special case of a broader conception that includes (among other things) a mutation-driven view introduced by biochemists in the 1960s, and now widely invoked. This innovation is evident in mathematical models relating the rate of evolution directly to the rate of mutation, which emerged in 1969, and now represent a major branch of theory with many applications. In evo-devo, mutationist thinking is reflected by a concern for the "arrival of the fittest". Though evolutionary biology is not governed by any master theory, and incorporates views excluded from the OMS, the recognition of these changes has been hindered by woolly conceptions of theories, and by historical accounts, common in the evolutionary literature, that misrepresent the disputes that defined the OMS.

Reviewers: This article was reviewed by W. Ford Doolittle, Eugene Koonin and J. Peter Gogarten.

Keywords: Darwinism; Evolutionary theory; Modern Synthesis; Mutation-driven evolution; Synthesis Historiography.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Research Biologist, Office of Data and Informatics, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and Fellow, Institute for Bioscience and Biotechnology Research.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Smocovitis VB. Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 1996. - PubMed
    1. Provine WB. The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1971.
    1. Stoltzfus A. Mutationism and the Dual Causation of Evolutionary Change. Evol Dev. 2006;8(3):304–17. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-142X.2006.00101.x. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Mayr E. Animal Species and Evolution. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press; 1963.
    1. Gould SJ. The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge: Harvard University Press; 2002.

LinkOut - more resources