In 1978, Michael J. D. White wrote about an extension of the modern synthesis based on new research from speciation.[20] In the 1980s, entomologist Ryuichi Matsuda coined the term "pan-environmentalism" as an extended evolutionary synthesis which he saw as a fusion of Darwinism with neo-Lamarckism.[21] He held that heterochrony is a main mechanism for evolutionary change and that novelty in evolution can be generated by genetic assimilation.[21][22] An extended synthesis was also proposed by the Austrian zoologist Rupert Riedl, with the study of evolvability.[23]
Gordon Rattray Taylor in his 1983 book The Great Evolution Mystery called for an extended synthesis, noting that the modern synthesis is only a subsection of a more comprehensive explanation for biological evolution still to be formulated.[24] In 1985, biologist Robert G. B. Reid authored Evolutionary Theory: The Unfinished Synthesis, which argued that the modern synthesis with its emphasis on natural selection is an incomplete picture of evolution, and emergent evolution can explain the origin of genetic variation.[25][26][27]
In 1988, ethologist John Endler wrote about developing a newer synthesis, discussing processes of evolution that he felt had been neglected.[28]
In 2000, Robert L. Carroll called for an "expanded evolutionary synthesis" due to new research from molecular developmental biology, systematics, geology and the fossil record.[29]
The idea of an extended synthesis was relaunched in 2007 by Massimo Pigliucci,[50][51][52] and Gerd B. Müller,[38][52] with a book in 2010 titled Evolution: The Extended Synthesis, which has served as a launching point for work on the extended synthesis.[52] This includes:
The role of prior configurations, genomic structures, and other traits in the organism in generating evolutionary variations.[53][54]
Other processes such as evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, reticulate evolution, horizontal gene transfer, symbiogenesis are said by proponents to have been excluded or missed from the modern synthesis.[59][60] The goal of Piglucci's and Müller's extended synthesis is to take evolution beyond the gene-centered approach of population genetics to consider more organism- and ecology-centered approaches. Many of these causes are currently considered secondary in evolutionary causation, and proponents of the extended synthesis want them to be considered first-class evolutionary causes.[61]
Michael R. Rose and Todd Oakley have called for a postmodern synthesis, they commented that "it is now abundantly clear that living things often attain a degree of genomic complexity far beyond simple models like the "gene library" genome of the Modern Synthesis".[62] Biologist Eugene Koonin has suggested that the gradualism of the modern synthesis is unsustainable as gene duplication, horizontal gene transfer and endosymbiosis play a pivotal role in evolution.[63] Koonin commented that "the new developments in evolutionary biology by no account should be viewed as refutation of Darwin. On the contrary, they are widening the trails that Darwin blazed 150 years ago and reveal the extraordinary fertility of his thinking."[63]
The early biologists of the organicist movement have influenced the modern extended evolutionary synthesis. Recent research has called for expanding the population genetic framework of evolutionary biology by a more organism-centered perspective.[69][70] This has been described as "organism-centered evolution" which looks beyond the genome to the ways that individual organisms are participants in their own evolution.[70][71][72]Philip Ball has written a research review on organism-centered evolution.[73][74]
Rui Diogo has proposed a revision of evolutionary theory, which he has termed ONCE: Organic Nonoptimal Constrained Evolution.[75] According to ONCE, evolution is mainly driven by the behavioural choices and persistence of organisms themselves, whilst natural selection plays a secondary role.[75][76][77] ONCE cites examples of reciprocal causation between organism and the environment, Baldwin effect, organic selection, developmental bias and niche construction.[76][77][78]
Predictions
The extended synthesis is characterized by its additional set of predictions that differ from the standard modern synthesis theory:
Rapid evolution can result from simultaneous induction, natural selection[4] and developmental dynamics[80]
Biodiversity can be affected by features of developmental systems such as differences in evolvability[4]
Heritable variation is directed towards variants that are adaptive and integrated with phenotype[4]
Niche construction is biased towards environmental changes that suit the constructor's phenotype, or that of its descendants, and enhance their fitness[2]
Publications from the project include over 200 papers, a special issue,[85] and an anthology on Evolutionary Causation.[86] In 2019 a final report of the 2016–2019 consortium was published, Putting the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis to the Test.[87]
The project was headed by Kevin N. Laland at the University of St Andrews and Tobias Uller at Lund University. According to Laland what the extended synthesis "really boils down to is recognition that, in addition to selection, drift, mutation and other established evolutionary processes, other factors, particularly developmental influences, shape the evolutionary process in important ways."[88]
Status
Biologists disagree on the need for an extended synthesis. Opponents contend that the modern synthesis is able to fully account for the newer observations, whereas others criticize the extended synthesis for not being radical enough.[89] Proponents think that the conceptions of evolution at the core of the modern synthesis are too narrow[90] and that even when the modern synthesis allows for the ideas in the extended synthesis, using the modern synthesis affects the way that biologists think about evolution. For example, Denis Noble says that using terms and categories of the modern synthesis distorts the picture of biology that modern experimentation has discovered.[91] Proponents therefore claim that the extended synthesis is necessary to help expand the conceptions and framework of how evolution is considered throughout the biological disciplines.[2][92] In 2022, the John Templeton Foundation published a review of recent literature.[93]
^Bock, Walter J. (July 1981). "Reviewed Work: The Evolutionary Synthesis. Perspectives on the Unification of Biology". The Auk. 98 (3): 644–646. ISSN0004-8038. JSTOR4086148.
^Hubbs, C.L. (1943). "Evolution the new synthesis". American Naturalist. 77 (771): 365–68. doi:10.1086/281134.
^Kimball, R.F. (1943). "The great biological generalization". Quarterly Review of Biology. 18 (4): 364–67. doi:10.1086/394682. S2CID88212178.
^Karl P. Schmidt, Evolution the Modern Synthesis by Julian Huxley, Copeia, Vol. 1943, No. 4 (Dec. 31, 1943), pp. 262-263
^Wilkins, Adam S (2008). "Waddington's Unfinished Critique of Neo-Darwinian Genetics: Then and Now". Biological Theory. 3 (3): 224–232. doi:10.1162/biot.2008.3.3.224. S2CID84217300.
^Parnell, Dennis R. (1978). "Heralding a New Synthesis: Modes of Speciation by M. J. D. White". Systematic Botany. 3 (1): 126. doi:10.2307/2418537. JSTOR2418537.
^ abPearson, Roy Douglas (1988). "Animal Evolution in Changing Environments". Acta Biotheoretica. 37: 31–36. doi:10.1007/BF00050806.
^Shapiro, Arthur M. (1988). "Animal Evolution in Changing Environments"(PDF). Journal of the Lepidopterists' Society. 42 (2): 146–147. Archived from the original on 2023-11-05. Retrieved 2023-11-05.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: bot: original URL status unknown (link)
^Cornell, John F. (1987). "Evolutionary Theory: The Unfinished Synthesis by Robert G. B. Reid". Journal of the History of Biology. 20 (3): 424–425. JSTOR4331027.
^Endler, John A; McLellan, Tracy (1988). "The Processes of Evolution: Toward a Newer Synthesis". Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics. 19: 395–421. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.19.110188.002143. JSTOR2097160.
^Vermeij, Geerat J (1987). "Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought by Niles Eldredge". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 62 (1): 79–80. doi:10.1086/415312.
^Davidson, Eric H. (2006). The regulatory genome : gene regulatory networks in development and evolution. Amsterdam [Netherlands]. ISBN978-0120885633. OCLC61756485.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Huneman, Philippe (2010). "Assessing the Prospects for a Return of Organisms in Evolutionary Biology". History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences. 32 (2–3): 341–372. PMID21162374.
^ abSmith, J. Maynard; Burian, R.; Kauffman, S.; Alberch, P.; Campbell, J.; Goodwin, B.; Lande, R.; Raup, D.; Wolpert, L. (September 1985). "Developmental Constraints and Evolution: A Perspective from the Mountain Lake Conference on Development and Evolution". The Quarterly Review of Biology. 60 (3): 265–287. doi:10.1086/414425. ISSN0033-5770. S2CID85201850.
^Huneman, Philippe; Walsh, Denis M. (2017-08-17). Challenging the modern synthesis : adaptation, development, and inheritance. Huneman, Philippe,, Walsh, Denis M., 1958-. New York, NY. ISBN9780199377183. OCLC1001337947.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
^Agafonov VA, Negrobov VV, Igamberdiev AU. (2021). "Symbiogenesis as a driving force of evolution: The legacy of Boris Kozo Polyansky". Biosystems. 199: 104302. doi:10.1016/j.biosystems.2020.104302. PMID33227379.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Arnold, Anthony J; Fristrup, Kurt (1982). "The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: A Hierarchical Expansion". Paleobiology. 8 (2): 113–129. doi:10.1017/s0094837300004462. S2CID124286915.
Postdarwinism: "The New Synthesis". A review of Ecological Developmental Biology: Integrating Epigenetics, Medicine, and Evolution, by Scott F. Gilbert and David Epel (Sinauer, 2009).
Weber, Bruce H (2011). "Extending and Expanding the Darwinian Synthesis: The Role of Complex Systems Dynamics". Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences. 42 (1): 75–81. doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2010.11.014. PMID21300318.
Haig, David (2007). "Weismann rules! OK? Epigenetics and the Lamarckian Temptation". Biology and Philosophy. 22 (3): 415–428. doi:10.1007/s10539-006-9033-y. S2CID16322990.