Arlin Stoltzfus on Mutationism and the Modern Synthesis

[mijopaalmc]

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.

 

[Dancing David]

Um, yeah, so sometimes people have errant notions, evolutionary theory has moved way past Darwin and 'mutationsim' is not considered to be the sole means of variation. So in the teaching of evolution at the college level what errors does he feel are being perpetrated?

 

[mijopaalmc]

Um, yeah, so sometimes people have errant notions, evolutionary theory has moved way past Darwin and 'mutationsim' is not considered to be the sole means of variation. So in the teaching of evolution at the college level what errors does he feel are being perpetrated?

Did you happen to catch that Stoltzfus ins a published evolutionary biologist?

One of his most informative publications, if you're not inclined to follow the blog on Sandwalk, is Mutationism and the dual causation of evolutionary change.

 

[Dancing David]

Did you happen to catch "So in the teaching of evolution at the college level what errors does he feel are being perpetrated?" or do you just assume that I did not click and read any of the links.

So there are errors he perceives in the promulgation of the theory of evolution, rather than get a hash of bad popular science, I asked you:

How does this effect the teaching of evolution to the population of people who study evolution?

Or if you rather,

How does this impact the people who do research and publish in the theory of evolution, outside of the popular science field?

 

[Dancing David]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16686641

And all I can say is 'yeah so', that is an abstract and it is rather vague. It also seems to be about something not current.

By the mid-20th century, the opposing Modern Synthesis view was a prevailing orthodoxy: under its influence, "evolution" was redefined as "shifting gene frequencies," that is, the sorting out of pre-existing variation without new mutations; and the notion that mutation-and-altered-development can exert a predictable influence on the course of evolutionary change was seen as heretical.

Let us see, 'mid-20th century' could be anything from 1925-1975 so 85 to 35 years a go.

And then things changed from the 60s onwards, so currently, what is his critique of current theories of the theory of evolution?

 

[Dancing David]

Um from here mijo:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/mutationism-myth-iii.html

... (1932)...1902...1916...1920s,...1902...(1911) ...

The Mutationism Myth suggests that our contemporary understanding of evolution did not emerge until Fisher, Haldane and Wright combined Darwin's principle of selection with Mendelian genetics; and that a generation was wasted while Mendelians developed a "doomed rival" to Darwin's great theory, in the form of a "mutationist" view that denied selection.

 

[shadron]

Having read it, I have to agree that it is either a very abstruse, rarified argument based on a small difference between the observed and the predicted, or else he's chasing butterflies (I get very itchy when someone starts writing about myths and absurdities; it sounds like he wants to change the name to Stolzfus' Theory of Evolution). I conclude it must be high above my pay grade.

One other possibility, I suppose - he cannot write clearly, or simply enough for other then his six closest friends.

 

[mijopaalmc]

Um from here mijo:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.com/2010/05/mutationism-myth-iii.html

... (1932)...1902...1916...1920s,...1902...(1911) ...

The Mutationism Myth suggests that our contemporary understanding of evolution did not emerge until Fisher, Haldane and Wright combined Darwin's principle of selection with Mendelian genetics; and that a generation was wasted while Mendelians developed a "doomed rival" to Darwin's great theory, in the form of a "mutationist" view that denied selection.

Your point?

The point that Stoltzfus is making is that what has been designated "mutationism" in the history of evolutionary theory is misportrayed by supporters of the Modern Synthesis and is in fact not how the geneticists who espoused some on the views now associated with "mutationism" conceived of how mutation operated in evolution.

Having read it, I have to agree that it is either a very abstruse, rarified argument based on a small difference between the observed and the predicted, or else he's chasing butterflies

How do you get that perception of his argument?

(I get very itchy when someone starts writing about myths and absurdities; it sounds like he wants to change the name to Stolzfus' Theory of Evolution).

The why does he cite scientists stuch as Bateson and DeVries who advoacted the position that he is advancing over 80 years before he did?

One other possibility, I suppose - he cannot write clearly, or simply enough for other then his six closest friends.

Can you point to a passage that you think is partucularly unclear?

 

[shadron]

How do you get that perception of his argument?

The why does he cite scientists stuch as Bateson and DeVries who advoacted the position that he is advancing over 80 years before he did?

Can you point to a passage that you think is partucularly unclear?

While I am not a biologist, I consider myself fairly well read in molecular biology and evoltionary theory. I read the series, and I came away with the impression that he is writing way over my head. I cannot tell what he is calling mutationism (I've never seen the word before), I got no compare and contrast of mutationism to whatever it is he is propounding. It therefore appears to me that he is writing for someone who is up to speed on the arguments, or that he is blowing smoke, and I cannot tell which.

His use of hyperbole (the Myths and so on) leads me to believe that he is trying overhard to make a name for himself - therefore the remark about the Stolzfus theory. Large egos I can understand, but I don't particularly like the grandstanding sort of wording.

 

[Dancing David]

Mijo, Hi!

You seem to be avoiding answering my question:

Um, yeah, so sometimes people have errant notions, evolutionary theory has moved way past Darwin and 'mutationsim' is not considered to be the sole means of variation. So in the teaching of evolution at the college level what errors does he feel are being perpetrated?

Your comment is about the history of the theory and the development of the theory of evolution:

The point that Stoltzfus is making is that what has been designated "mutationism" in the history of evolutionary theory is misportrayed by supporters of the Modern Synthesis and is in fact not how the geneticists who espoused some on the views now associated with "mutationism" conceived of how mutation operated in evolution.

And I again ask you directly, other than as a history lesson :
What impact does this have on the instruction and promulgation of the theort today?