This article is part of the History of Science WikiProject, an attempt to improve and organize the history of science content on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. You can also help with the History of Science Collaboration of the Month.History of ScienceWikipedia:WikiProject History of ScienceTemplate:WikiProject History of Sciencehistory of science articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
There has been a notable amount of scientific criticism from various scientists (non-religious criticism) towards the modern synthesis. For example, Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock, Denis Noble, etc. Although I am a Neo-Darwinian myself and although this is the most robust mechanism proposed for evolution till now, I think there should be added a section for scientific criticism towards this synthesis because there is a notable amount from notable scientists. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism sections are deprecated on Wikipedia. More specifically, the article describes many different views of the synthesis, including its disputed beginnings, while it was in progress, and afterwards, so any such section would at best be redundant to the main text. Far better, if you know of a specific view that is well-regarded and not yet included, would be to add a brief mention of that in an appropriate part of the article. You should note that many objections are directed towards evolution more generally rather than the 20th-century synthesis as such; and that the term "synthesis" is slippery: the article distinguishes later syntheses which unfortunately have also sometimes been called "modern". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"You should note that many objections are directed towards evolution more generally rather than the 20th-century synthesis as such"
With respect, no; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on an argument not to use on Wikipedia. Many articles are incorrectly or poorly written; that is no reason to imitate them.
Your scientists are objecting to theories long after the events described in this article; those are briefly summarized here as things that FOLLOWED the "modern synthesis". The neutral theory and so on are already discussed here briefly; they apply to LATER SYNTHESES, not to the mid-20th century "modern synthesis" which is a historic thing, long ago completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The original founders of the "modern" synthesis focused on adaptation and the importance of natural selection. By the mid-1960s the "hardened" version of the modern synthesis was strictly an adaptationist perspective on evolutionary theory.
The discoveries of molecular evolution in the 1960s led to the development of the neutral theory by Motoo Kimura (and others) and to the recognition that random genetic drift was by far the most common mechanism of allele frequency change in populations. In other words, it is the dominant mechanism of evolution. This was followed by the nearly-neural theory and the recognition that population size is an extremely important criterion in determining whether a given allele can be recognized by natural selection. (This led to the drift-barrier hypothesis.)
This revolution in population genetic theory is one of the reasons why Stephen Jay Gould declared in 1980 that the modern synthesis was effectively dead. However, other evolution theorists, notably Douglas Futuyma, think that the old modern synthesis was transformed in the late 1960s and that it successfully incorporated the neutral theory and the importance of drift into the more modern version of synthetic theory.
Modern evolution textbooks all contain separate chapters on random genetic drift and extensive discussions of the mathematical equations for the rate of fixation and the probability of fixation for alleles with positive, negative, and neutral selection coefficients.
This perspective is completely missing in this article. Motoo Kimura isn't even mentioned in the article even though he made the most important contribution to evolutionary theory in the last half of the 20th century. Similarly, Stephen Jay Gould, a major critic of the modern synthesis, isn't mentioned in the article—his paper with Lewontin is a classic attack on the adaptationist perspective that permeates the original synthesis. On the other hand, much lesser scientists like Massimo Pigliucci, Eugene Koonin, and (gasp!) Denis Noble get prominent mentions. This has to be changed.Genome42 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t understand your perspective. Are you saying that the modern synthesis is the old fashioned mid-20th century view of evolution theory and it no longer represents the 21st century version of evolution theory?
If that’s what you think then you should be stating in the introduction that this article is just a historical summary of an old theory and we should delete all references to updated or “extended” versions of the modern synthesis. What term would you like to use for the 21st century version and do you intend to create a new article to cover it? Genome42 (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article states very clearly, including in its title, that it is a 20th century event. "Synthesis" or "Modern Synthesis" is used in other contexts to cover all sorts of disparate events and processes in biology, but this article, "Modern synthesis (20th century)" is totally focussed on a 20th century event. There is nothing difficult about this: every article has to set its scope, and this one's is perfectly clear. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:27, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
