@vsbuffalo Vince, there is no Modern Synthesis. The original theory— the one that Provine (2001) said "came unravelled some time in the 1980s"– was sent down the memory hole The illusion of an ongoing MS is done with smoke and mirrors https://t.co/wYAB8e
@EvolOdonata Actually this 2017 piece suggested the idea of the Synthesis as a tribe or "cultural identity group," and some 2019 blogs on Sandwalk presented the EES-SET conflict as a culture war Probably you got the idea from there https://t.co/8TtawhDg9
Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” https://t.co/DnW0SW8vaY
@BSL_MDX @ArlinStoltzfus @DevoEvoMed @brown_birds Arlin's right, a proper, plural historical account of evolutionary theories is needed and I believe him when he's saying others are murkying the water. https://t.co/2VIUg7RZFg
@WTF_R_species @brown_birds Substantive args, pls. "Earnest" is compatible with "wrong and misguided" For long-form args not suitable for twitter, try "Why we don't want another Synthesis" https://t.co/wYAB8ePv2m book sampled here https://t.co/frlH6Md
@charlesmorphy Acho que aqueles dois indicam bem o caminho pra construir o roteiro que tô pensando. Mas eu também verei esse daí e certamente deixarei nas refs. Outro que quero abordar também é este do @ArlinStoltzfus (que já é outra forma de olhar, muito
Thanks! I wish this were required reading for aspiring EES-SET pundits. The main problem with classic causation in the shifting-gene-freqs paradigm is not reductionism: it's that you can't get evo dynamics right without the intro of novelty by mutation-and
This opinion article is so good. The origin-fixation framework makes sense even to explain the adaptationist bias I had during my introduction to evolutionary thinking. Things are getting clearer. Thanks @ArlinStoltzfus https://t.co/CjWW9ep3ml
The Modern Synthesis is dead! Long live evolutionary biology! Print from @ArlinStoltzfus 2017: https://t.co/6rXQVs9Lk3 https://t.co/uwxKAP2vum
14/ If we stopped identifying with the Synthesis myth, and stopped giving credence to gatekeepers merely for invoking this allegedly infallible tradition, the Synthesis will go away: it isn't a real theory, just the noise made by apologists for tradition
RT @DialecticBio: This was a very illuminating and entertaining read about why an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis' is unnecessary https://…
RT @DialecticBio: This was a very illuminating and entertaining read about why an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis' is unnecessary https://…
7/ First, I'm not making a radical call for the death of grand theories. The original Mod Synth died a long time ago, e.g., Provine (2001) said it "came unraveled" in the 1980s. If you want to know how that happened, read this: https://t.co/wYAB8ePv2m
RT @ArlinStoltzfus: This is Buranyi's analysis, not mine, but I discussed this with the author and I'm quoted, so I'm happy to chat about i…
RT @DialecticBio: This was a very illuminating and entertaining read about why an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis' is unnecessary https://…
Arlin has a great article related to this, imo, but it doesn't walk the line of this original article at all really https://t.co/5YTSlXvZNC
This was a very illuminating and entertaining read about why an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis' is unnecessary https://t.co/DWxUZXbym3 (2017) https://t.co/2grfwi9xWC
@greg_m_priest @yoginho @ehud I would argue it a bit differently, that Mayr, et al. deliberately fostered a monoculture that echoed their views of science, history and philosophy, and that this kind of monoculture is intrinsically at odds with a healthy sc
RT @ArlinStoltzfus: This is Buranyi's analysis, not mine, but I discussed this with the author and I'm quoted, so I'm happy to chat about i…
This is Buranyi's analysis, not mine, but I discussed this with the author and I'm quoted, so I'm happy to chat about it with anyone at #evol2022. For more on why we don't want another "Synthesis" see https://t.co/uUzTIS3ZLa.
@OscardelaCroixS @sanewman1 @joshiamitabhevo @StatedClearly The architects of the original Mod Synth called on pop-gen (via the shifting-gene-freqs theory) plus caricatures to endorse neo-Darwinism (selection as potter, variation as clay) and reject mutati
@joshiamitabhevo @sanewman1 @kohn_gregory @msruggerio @ishtvibhu 3/ Important Mod Synth theories no longer widely promoted include Darwinian gradualism, the creativity of selection, the gene pool theory, the shifting-gene-frequencies theory, and Dobzhansky
@AlanEyre1 That's fine for historical purposes, but in contemporary evo discourse, Mod Synth and neo-D no longer denote fixed theories, but have drifted in meaning, used now to refer to flexible traditions disputed in arguments for or against orthodoxy h
I've been writing about this distinction for 20 years, so it is gratifying to see the textual support piling up from independent scholarship in Beatty's paper. For comparison, see this: https://t.co/wYAB8ePv2m
"The OMS failed rather quickly as a master theory when, in the early 1960s, the results of comparative sequencing prompted biochemists to invoke precisely the kind of mutation-driven view that Fisher and the architects of the OMS had sought to exclude." h
@Decliano @yellow_dusk @lastpositivist This is an argument to reject "Synthesis" propaganda and move on: https://t.co/wYAB8ePv2m
Example: this paper says we don't want another 'Synthesis' bc the first one died in the molecular revolution after a brief tour as a theory, then came back as a propaganda zombie. Some, seeing only the title, cite this as an endorsement of the Synthesis. h
@JacksonWheat1 @InvokingTheism I would guess you have no rigorous or historically grounded conception of the Synthesis as a falsifiable theory, and that you will defend it by shifting the goalposts to equate it with whatever is mainstream. This is the basi
RT @yoginho: To quote @ArlinStoltzfus: "... the historical narrative of the Grand Unifying Theory is false, and evolutionary biology does n…
To quote @ArlinStoltzfus: "... the historical narrative of the Grand Unifying Theory is false, and evolutionary biology does not need a master theory.” Amen. Paper here: https://t.co/qW3p5ndyyh.
RT @yoginho: @KordingLab There is an argument to be made that the modern synthesis was more about what is *not* evolutionary biology, than…
RT @yoginho: @KordingLab There is an argument to be made that the modern synthesis was more about what is *not* evolutionary biology, than…
I should add that @ArlinStoltzfus has written a great piece about this issue exactly. Check it out: https://t.co/qW3p5ndyyh.
@KordingLab There is an argument to be made that the modern synthesis was more about what is *not* evolutionary biology, than what is. Amundson’s book (“Changing Role of the Embryo”) has more on this, and @ArlinStoltzfus has also written about the issue: h
[9/9] (...) sino que hace una afirmación general precisa sobre el tamaño de sus efectos en la evolución." https://t.co/MyGGUVXXt0
Yes! In fact, the entire paper by @ArlinStoltzfus’ on this topic is well worth reading (and citing)! https://t.co/qW3p5ndyyh
@yoginho I like to think of evolutionary theory as a network of subteories rather than a general theory (each one with different premises, even with contradictions between subteories). There are those who support this notion... or so I think. https://t.co
RT @LonelyJoeParker: Journal club today @kewscience: Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” @arlinstoltzfus https://t.co/glAgiOYoRw
Journal club today @kewscience: Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” @arlinstoltzfus https://t.co/glAgiOYoRw
RT @rvosa: "Why we don't want another Synthesis", opinion piece by @arlinstoltzfus about woolly metanarratives in evolutionary biology: htt…
RT @rvosa: "Why we don't want another Synthesis", opinion piece by @arlinstoltzfus about woolly metanarratives in evolutionary biology: htt…
RT @rvosa: "Why we don't want another Synthesis", opinion piece by @arlinstoltzfus about woolly metanarratives in evolutionary biology: htt…
RT @rvosa: "Why we don't want another Synthesis", opinion piece by @arlinstoltzfus about woolly metanarratives in evolutionary biology: htt…
Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” https://t.co/YbKYNFopNT
"Why we don't want another Synthesis", opinion piece by @arlinstoltzfus about woolly metanarratives in evolutionary biology: https://t.co/YoJfLZEKRr
RT @Kybernesia: We need something completely new altogether to account for major transitions Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” https:/…
We need something completely new altogether to account for major transitions Why we don’t want another “Synthesis” https://t.co/Fw0ui5cmqz
RT @andrewjroger: Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
RT @andrewjroger: Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
RT @andrewjroger: Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
RT @andrewjroger: Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
RT @andrewjroger: Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
Has anyone done a synthesis on expected waiting times for articles on the need for a new modern synthesis? https://t.co/LjI5U4jpDJ
Article worth reading on the modern synthesis and whether or not we need a new one. https://t.co/en15Fm4Hwd
RT @Tierhon: This was a fun read: https://t.co/uDNQYFzD4C 'Darwin-studied-earthworms-therefore-we-win'
RT @ZaminIqbal: An interesting read. Was not prepared for "The dynamics that give the “gene pool” its mojo are...." https://t.co/jK6xLw7K7s
RT @ArisKatzourakis: @LonelyJoeParker @eugene_koonin @phylogenomics try https://t.co/hmXEvxVm2Z, and the reviews section, v.interesting.
@LonelyJoeParker @eugene_koonin @phylogenomics try https://t.co/hmXEvxVm2Z, and the reviews section, v.interesting.
This was a fun read: https://t.co/uDNQYFzD4C 'Darwin-studied-earthworms-therefore-we-win'
RT @naomiattar: Interesting discussion with Ford Doolittle and Eugene Koonin in the open peer review correspondence https://t.co/ZLltyWFSYJ
RT @ZaminIqbal: An interesting read. Was not prepared for "The dynamics that give the “gene pool” its mojo are...." https://t.co/jK6xLw7K7s
An interesting read. Was not prepared for "The dynamics that give the “gene pool” its mojo are...." https://t.co/jK6xLw7K7s
RT @naomiattar: Interesting discussion with Ford Doolittle and Eugene Koonin in the open peer review correspondence https://t.co/ZLltyWFSYJ
Interesting discussion with Ford Doolittle and Eugene Koonin in the open peer review correspondence https://t.co/ZLltyWFSYJ
RT @MoSephius: Must revisit some old articles after this read: https://t.co/IwMZwMT4BY. Any opinions @3rdreviewer @yanivbrandvain and other…
Must revisit some old articles after this read: https://t.co/IwMZwMT4BY. Any opinions @3rdreviewer @yanivbrandvain and other evol ppl?
RT @ArlinStoltzfus: Tired of wooly debates over a shape-shifting "Modern Synthesis"? Just say no. Here's why. https://t.co/192X762HpI
RT @ArlinStoltzfus: Tired of wooly debates over a shape-shifting "Modern Synthesis"? Just say no. Here's why. https://t.co/192X762HpI
Tired of wooly debates over a shape-shifting "Modern Synthesis"? Just say no. Here's why. https://t.co/192X762HpI
Why we don't want another "Synthesis". https://t.co/saW3SgtMhM
RT @evodevo_papers: Why we don't want another "Synthesis". https://t.co/BdjRjWskjL #evodevo
Why we don't want another "Synthesis". https://t.co/BdjRjWskjL #evodevo