Talk:Modern synthesis (20th century)

Where is Neodarwinism?

This article is what comes up when one types in Neodarwinism but there is no mention of the term anywhere in the article. There is also no mention of the significant role that Dawkins played in defining the term with books like the selfish gene. I'm not a biologist and I would rather leave the editing of this page to actual biologists but if no one else fixes this then I will. --MadScientistX11 (talk) 14:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

@MadScientistX11: The Modern synthesis happened before Dawkins was out of short trousers. Do see towards the end of the article, as there have been several later syntheses or attempts at them (and no doubt there'll be more), and the name 'modern' has caused confusion as everyone thinks they're modern. The term neo-Darwinism does occur in the article (hyphenated) but I see it's wikilinked and redirects here, so I've fixed that now; the unhyphenated form indeed isn't here (yet). You may well be right that the term needs more discussion here or in other articles, I'll think what best to do and see to it. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)

NeoDarwinism no longer redirects here (it never should have). I have mentioned Dawkins in the article, suitably linked and cited, in discussion of what happened after the modern synthesis. I'll note for the record that Dawkins did not define the term - that happened in the 1880s, nor did he contribute to the early 20th century synthesis, which was basically over by the time he graduated. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Other scientists who contributed to the modern synthesis

There are a few often forgotten scientists that conducted research in genetics that contributed to the modern synthesis.

• C. D. Darlington
• Nikolay Timofeev-Ressovsky
• Sergei Chetverikov
• Hermann Joseph Muller
• Edgar Anderson
• E. B. Babcock
• Alfred Sturtevant
• Walter Max Zimmermann

The above scientists are mentioned by Douglas J. Futuyma (Futuyma DJ. 2015. Can modern evolutionary theory explain macroevolution? In Macroevolution: Explanation, Interpretation and Evidence (eds Serrelli E, Gontier N, editors. ), pp. 29–85. Basel, Germany: Springer.) Any help trying to integrate some of the above into the article would be helpful. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:34, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Also the snail studies of Arthur Cain and Philip Sheppard. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

It also seems to be a good source about the history/development aspects, nice. —PaleoNeonate – 20:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• R. A. Fischer.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:53, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Alternative syntheses, multiple viewpoints

Multiple alternative syntheses are already discussed in the article, and the many overlapping and varying viewpoints over nearly a century on what the synthesis might be are also described in detail. It's therefore not appropriate to give prominence to one person - the physiologist Noble - who's not even working in the field. I've accordingly removed a discussion of his views from the first paragraph of the lead section, which I remind editors is simply a summary of the article body. Chiswick Chap (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

Make this about a socio-political event, not a theory that no one can agree on

This page needs reform. First of all, it includes synthetic work (in the sense of the Wikipedia guidelines), like the diagram showing alleged antecedents of the Modern Synthesis.

Second, the main content is presented as a list of ideas of historic scientists and is labeled "Events in the synthesis." That is very strange, if a "synthesis" is a scientific theory. The content of a theory is not defined biographically. A theory does not have events "in" it. Scientific theories are made of propositions, not people. The article needs to be explicit about what is the assumed conception of a "synthesis."

Thirdly, the notion that a comprehensive unifying theory of evolution emerged in the mid-20th century is a matter of dispute. Conceptions of such a theory among scientists remain deeply shaped by distorted claims that historians treat as propaganda (they literally have a term for it: "Synthesis Historiography"). For instance, consider Winsor's article on Mayr's Essentialism Story, which she literally says was "fabricated" by Mayr. Indeed, the reader finds out at the end of this article, when Betty Smocovitis is quoted, that historians and philosophers dispute the "notorious" concept of a scientific synthesis.

One piece of Synthesis propaganda repeated in this article is that Weismann, rather than the early geneticists, introduced hard inheritance into evolutionary thinking. Historians (Winther, 2001; Griesemer and Wimsatt, 1989) object that Mayr's story does not reflect what Weismann actually believed. In Synthesis Historiography, the early geneticists play no positive role. Darwin's followers have never forgiven them for refuting Darwin's fluctuation-blending theory, so they draw attention to Weismann as if Weismann somehow brought genetical thinking into evolution.

Ultimately, this article needs to decide whether it is going to be responsive to (1) readers who want to find out about a socio-political event in the history of science, the historic convergence of ideas and interests in the mid-twentieth century that historians call The Synthesis, or (2) readers whose motivation is to understand contemporary scientific thinking, because they have heard that something called the Modern Synthesis theory underlies all contemporary thinking about evolution.

Only the first option is possible. The second issue is so fraught that no Wikipedia article could do it justice.

The current text is already tending in the direction of the first option. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dabs (talk • contribs) 15:27, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, thanks for the thoughts. On events, however, the key point to grasp is that the precise contents of "the synthesis" are not sharply defined; we have Huxley's book but it is only one point of view, as is Mayr's, whereas the historic events are well-defined. The historiographic view (such as Smocovitis's) is therefore central, and we necessarily take a historiographic approach, in which events are primary and interpretations (theories) are secondary. The only way we could make it about "a socio-political event" as you suggest would be to take sides on one or other interpretation, something we can't do. As for the diagram, it shows the ingredients of the synthesis as defined by Gould and cited to him in the caption; these are about the least controversial things about the entire business (they are what Huxley thought were the things being synthesised, for instance) and could be cited to many other authors on the subject. On your (1) and (2), we certainly want to help readers find their way about, but late 20th and 21st century developments are out of the article's scope; however, your goal (1) is broadly correct, with the caveat that an "event" that nobody can date to a precise moment is stretching the meaning of the word; the smaller "events" such as individual moments of publication are much more sharply defined, and the MS certainly covered several of those, so there is no paradox there. Chiswick Chap (talk) 15:39, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm baffled. The article itself already quotes an authoritative source saying "the only thing [scholars] agreed on was that it was a historical event" while the scientific part is a "moving target" (because scientists keep shifting the goal-posts). You are disputing their use of the word "event", again showing the out-of-control editorial attitude at work here? Jonathan Hodge recites the standard Synthesis tale and writes in 2009 that "historians of science have long been showing that no such simple tales of triumphant mathematical-Darwinian-Mendelian synthesis stand up to critical, scholarly scrutiny." What I am saying is not to repeat a tale that scholars believe does not stand up to scrutiny, but instead (1) guide the reader away from dubious notions of a unified theory and state that such a theory is not covered, and (2) limit the main content of the article to the historical event recognized by scholars. Therefore I would agree that "late 20th and 21st century developments are out of the article's scope" but I am baffled that you are saying this, given that the article already covers developments that are dated from the 1970s to 2009. Dabs (talk) 16:23, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

Don't be, and I'm not disputing the word's meaning; it's just that it can be seen as one big thing or many small ones, and both views plainly make sense here; I'm happy to call the small ones "elements" if you find that less confusing. We are certainly in agreement that no single triumphalist tale can be correct, as Hodge rightly says. As for elements to 2009, no point being baffled there either: those are clearly labelled "(6) After the synthesis" and "(7) Later syntheses", i.e. NOT the "Modern synthesis (20th century)" but other things that have frequently been muddled up with the MS(20th C), and are included to define what's in and what isn't. Unfortunately (as you must be well aware) "Modern synthesis" is often used to include all such elements, which is why we have "20th century" in the title here. As for your redefined (1), the article already certainly shows the reader that the thing is not a unified theory; that in turn makes your redefined (2) nonsense, as there is not a single universally-agreed event agreed by scholars (though they may perhaps be beginning to congregate behind Smocovitis), and certainly not by biologists. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 23 December 2020 (UTC)