Mutation and evolution

Tag: Modern Synthesis

  • What on earth is “mutationism”? Some possible answers

    The term “mutationism” appeared in the early 20th century in regard to the views of early geneticists such as de Vries, Bateson, Punnett, and Morgan (e.g., Poulton, 1909 or McCabe 1912). These leading thinkers did not use “mutationism” to describe their own diverse views.[1] Perhaps they thought of themselves as…

  • The buffet and the sushi conveyor

    The return of mutationism to mainstream evolutionary biology is evident in the way mainstream articles now describe the role of mutation in evolution, in our reliance on mathematical models that evoke a mutationist view, and in evo-devo research programs that focus on identifying causative major-effect mutations. This shift has happened in a kind of sub-conscious…

  • Why the “four fundamental forces” view is mistaken

    Over at Sandwalk, Larry Moran posted some interesting bits rrom his molecular evolution class exam, including a passage from Mike Lynch arguing for his claim that “nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population genetics”.  In this passage, which I’ll quote below, Lynch says that evolution is governed by 4…

  • Conceptual frameworks and the problem of variation

    Conceptual frameworks guide our thinking Our efforts to understand the world depend on conceptual frameworks and are guided by metaphors.  We have lots of them.  I suspect that most are applied without awareness.  If I am approaching a messy problem for the first time, I might begin with the idea that there are various “factors”…

  • Mendelian-Mutationism: the Forgotten Evolutionary Synthesis

    What is Mendelian-mutationism?  And why do we argue in a recent paper in that it represents a forgotten evolutionary synthesis (Stoltzfus and Cable, 2014, Mendelian-Mutationism: The Forgotten Evolutionary Synthesis. J Hist Biol. doi:10.1007/s10739-014-9383-2)? For me, the story started a long time ago with our theoretical demonstration (graph at right) that bias in the…

  • The surprising case of origin-fixation models

    In a recent QRB paper with David McCandlish, we review the form, origins, uses, and implications of models (e.g., the familiar K = 4Nus) that represent evolutionary change as a 2-step process of (1) the introduction of a new allele by mutation, followed by (2) its fixation or loss. What could…

  • The Great Non-Debate on Evolutionary Theory (Nature, Oct 2014)

    Some of you may have noticed a recent exchange in Nature on the question of whether evolutionary biology needs a re-think. The online article does not make clear the alignments of the listed authors, but those arguing in favor of a re-think are: Kevin Laland, Tobias Uller, Marc Feldman, Kim Sterelny, Gerd B. Müller, Armin Moczek, Eva Jablonka,…

  • Re-reading Provine (1971), part 1

    Will Provine‘s seminal work of history, The Origins of Theoretical Population Genetics (1971), recounts how the foundations of modern neo-Darwinism were established in the first 2 decades of the 20th century.  Superficially, Provine’s book aligns with the standard triumphalist narrative in which the architects of the Modern Synthesis combine selection and genetics to yield a workable…

  • The Mutationism Myth (6): Back to the Future

    This post wraps up a 6-part series on the Mutationism Myth (a more scholarly version of this material ended being published in J. Hist. Biol. by Stoltzfus and Cable, 2014), and sets the stage for the future by locating the primary weakness of the 20th century neo-Darwinian consensus in its theory of variation.

  • Mutationism Myth (5): The Restoration

    This is the 5th in a series of 2010 blogs entitled “The Mutationism Myth” (a more scholarly version of this material ended being published in J. Hist. Biol. by Stoltzfus and Cable, 2014) The Mutationism Myth, part 5. The Restoration In the Mutationism Myth (see part 1), the Modern Synthesis (MS) rescues evolutionary biology from the…