Why we don't want another "Synthesis"

Area of Science:

• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics
• Molecular Biology

Background:

• The Modern Synthesis (OMS) defined evolution as smooth adaptive change via allele frequency shifts, excluding mutation-driven processes.
• Current evolutionary biology incorporates mutation-driven views, diverging from the original OMS framework.
• Historical accounts often misrepresent the disputes that shaped the OMS.

Purpose of the Study:

• To clarify the original Modern Synthesis (OMS) as a falsifiable scientific theory.
• To distinguish the OMS from current evolutionary biology conceptions.
• To highlight the historical shift towards mutation-driven evolutionary models.

Main Methods:

• Historical analysis of evolutionary biology theories.
• Examination of the conceptual divergence between the original Modern Synthesis and contemporary views.
• Analysis of mathematical models and their relation to mutation rates.

Main Results:

• The OMS proposed evolution driven by selection on existing genetic variation, not new mutations.
• Contemporary evolutionary biology includes mutation-driven perspectives, evident in models linking evolution rates to mutation rates.
• Concepts like "arrival of the fittest" in evo-devo reflect mutationist thinking, diverging from the OMS.

Conclusions:

• The original Modern Synthesis is a specific historical theory, not the foundation of current evolutionary biology.
• Evolutionary biology has broadened to include mutation-driven processes, a significant departure from the OMS.
• Accurate historical understanding is crucial for recognizing the evolution of evolutionary theory.