Arlin Stoltzfus has a guest blog series on the conflict between Mutationism and the Modern Synthesis on Larry Moran's Sandwalk:

Introduction to "The Curious Disconnect"

The "Mutationism" Myth I. The Monk's Lost Code and the Great Confusion

Theory vs Theory

The Mutationism Myth, II. Revolution

The Mutationism Myth: III Foundations of Evolutionary Genetics

If I understand the basis of Stoltzfus' arguments correctly, he seems to be arguing that Darwin's original formulation of natural selection, which was later incoporated in the Modern Synthesis, implicitly depended on models of variation and heredity different for the models of variation and heredity that geneticists observed. Thus, evolution is more-or-less non-Darwinian in the strict sense that, to the extent that Darwin's original formulation depended on the his models of varaition and heredity, evolution does not follow Darwin's initial assumptions about variation and heredity.

Surely that was why Darwinism was replaced by the Modern Synthesis ?!

I was just recently reading Origin vol. 6 and some of this came through. I just passed over it as Darwin's unavoidable lack of evidence later provided by genetics. Stoltzfus expounds on this, but not as a criticism of Darwin. He is criticizing the founders of the Modern Synthesis for mischaracterizing the Mutationalist criticism of Darwin. They tended to demonize the Mutationalists as having attempted to refute Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection, when in fact all that they actually criticized was his source of variation: specifically that the source was the environment. The Mutationalists corrected that, and the Modern Synthesis built on that, but the Mutationalists are not credited with the innovation. Instead they were demonized by the authors of the Modern Synthesis and, as a result, Darwin's original hypothesis on the source of variation is misrepresented today because of that failing of the founders of the Modern Synthesis: i.e. the credit for the genetic origin of variation should go to the mutationalists, not to Darwin.

So, the only thing really revelatory, up to MMIII, is the correction of the historical account concerning Darwin's hypothesis for the origin of variation. Actually, reading Darwin does the same thing, if you pay attention, which I didn't. I haven't gotten back to the blog but I hope it builds from here and does not just continue to belabor this interesting but non-essential bit of history.

eversbane wrote:So, the only thing really revelatory, up to MMIII, is the correction of the historical account concerning Darwin's hypothesis for the origin of variation. Actually, reading Darwin does the same thing, if you pay attention, which I didn't. I haven't gotten back to the blog but I hope it builds from here and does not just continue to belabor this interesting but non-essential bit of history.

Hmmm...as far as "revelation" is concerned, Stoltzfus doesn't seem too concerned as to the "misattribution" per se, rather he seems concerned with how the Darwinian hypothesis of heredity was reconciled with the Mendelian theory of heredity in the Modern Synthesis. In particularm, Stoltzfus points out that the Darwinian hypothesis of heredity was an extrenalist hypothesis in which infinitessimal variations were introduced into to the individual as a response to the individual's changing environment whereas the Mendelian theory of heredeity was a internalist theory in which discrete changes were introduced into the individual independently of the individual's changing enviroment.

That is all that immediately clear to me from having read the blog entries. However, as far I can discern, Stoltzfus goes on to assert that, instead of abandoning the Darwinian hypothesis of heredity for the Mendelian theory of heredity, the founders of the Modern Synthesis tried to recnocile the former with the latter, thereby introducing the concept of the "gene pool" which obey the laws of Mendelian heredity but buffers a population against sudden change in genetic composition. This is problematic because it prohibits mutation bias from contributing to the direction of evolution, which has been both predicted in theory (Yampolsky and Stoltzfus 2001, Stoltzfus 2009) and confirmed in experiement ([urlhttp://www.uoregon.edu/~pphil/courses/genarch/rokyta2005.pdf]Rokyta et al 2005[/url]).

Well, he spends a lot of time berating the founders of the Modern Synthesis for telling lies (originating and perpetuating myths) about the Mutationalists.

Your other point I accept.

I'm encouraged by this discussion, which includes honest direct questions and careful answers. I hope that you folks will consider bringing an enlightened discussion to Sandwalk where the Curious Disconnect blog appears.

Eversbane, I agree that much can be learned by re-reading Darwin. For many years, I read the Origin with blinders on. But after I started reading what the Mendelians said, I realized that I was just superimposing my 20th century understanding of genetics on Darwin and ignoring the parts that didn't fit. When I went back to look at the Origin, especially chapter 3, I realized that the Mendelians were right.

Two other points:

Yes, Eversbane, eventually we will get beyond revisionist history and Synthesis-bashing, to contemporary issues. But first, we need to dig ourselves out of the current muddle, and learn to recognize the parts of contemporary thinking that represent ghosts of the past. Otherwise those ghosts are going to keep coming back to haunt us.

Mjpam, your comment about the key problem of the Modern Synthesis is right on. The Mendelians synthesized genetics and selection. The Modern Synthesis tries to unite genetics and Darwinism. To rationalize Darwinian doctrines in genetic terms, the Modern Synthesis relies heavily on a "gene pool" metaphor. The "gene pool" is alleged to be a dynamic system that "maintains" a mixed-and-mashed assortment of "random" infinitesimal variation due to the combined effects of recombination, recessivity, assortment, etc.

The role of the "gene pool" in Synthesis rhetoric is to serve as a buffer that cuts off evolution from mutation, so that evolution appears to begin with the "gene pool" (full of variation, ready to go) and does not seem to depend on individual events of mutation that introduce new alleles. The architects of the Modern Synthesis claimed that new mutations don't start an evolutionary change, but merely serve to keep evolution's tank of fuel, the "gene pool", filled up. They claimed that the rate of evolution would not correlate with the rate of mutation, due to the buffering effects of the "gene pool". Biases in mutation would not influence the direction of evolution, because selection chooses the right direction from the abundance of possibilities "maintained" in the gene pool.

Thus, the "gene pool" idea reconciled genetics with Darwinan doctrines, but the same arguments needed to rationalize Darwinism also make the Modern Synthesis incompatible with molecular evolution.

Aha!! Post 1. Now we have you. Bwahahaha...


sorry.

Wow. Thanks for taking the time to drop by, and for opening my eyes. Darwin is actually a much more interesting read now that I've dumped the assumption that I already know what he was saying.

On that topic, which I am sure you would prefer I take to the blog (which I might): I get the feeling that Darwin made a small, though perhaps unavoidable, mistake in putting a bit too much stock into breeders' anecdotes. Of course, he didn't have the tools required to test those anecdotes, so he did the best he could with what he had to hand.

just a feeling.

Well, I'm glad that Arlin dropped by, because I was getting a little tired of trying to read around and between mjpam's typos:

In particularm

But WHICH particularm, mj? The right or the left arm?

Stoltzfus points out that the Darwinian hypothesis of heredity was an extrenalist

But I thought adrenalin was an internal hormone, mj? Or are you talking about an external jolt of adrenalin from, like, one of those Epi-Pens?

hypothesis in which infinitessimal

Very small decimals? A mathematical expression in the mouth of a Slytherin speaker?

variations were introduced into to the individual as a response to the individual's changing environment whereas the Mendelian theory of heredeity

Ah, I see where they went wrong! They erected Mendelian heredity as a deistic theory... Tch, tch!

was a internalist

If you're going to drop the "n" from the article, I think you'll want to go with the Cockney "hinternalist" there.

theory in which discrete changes were introduced into the individual independently of the individual's changing enviroment.

Whew! Ya finally managed to spit that last part out! Good on ya!

Maybe ya otter try typing with marbles in yer mouth, mj...!

With that friendly little poke at our typing-challenged friend, we return you to your Arlin exposition...

arlin wrote:'*snip*

Hi Arlin Nice to have you here. I followed your set of posts on Sandwalk which were very interesting. I hope that you continue to contribute to the community here and, if you choose to do so, introduce yourself in the welcome thread.

Mazille-

I can understand your comment, given that you are not familiar with the previous interactions that Steviepinhead and I have. I can assure that, even if he did not mean for his comment to be in good-natured fun, I took it as such.

And I got lost enough in our previous (and, I would, agree good-natured) interaction, that I interacted here in the same way that we have interacted on other forums, with different rules.

I recognize the error of my ways in this context, and apologize.

Though "heredeity," in particularm, was nigh-irresistable...!