Modern synthesis

@article{bateson1922evolutionary,
    author = "Bateson, William",
    title = "Evolutionary Faith and Modern Doubts",
    year = "1922",
    journal = "Science",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.55.1412.55",
    doi = "10.1126/science.55.1412.55",
    number = "1412",
    pages = "55-61",
    volume = "55"
}

@phdthesis{huxley1942evolution1,
    author = "Huxley, J",
    title = "Evolution",
    year = "1942",
    publisher = "The Modern Synthesis: New York \& London, Harper \& Brothers",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Huxley, J., 1942, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis: New York \& London, Harper \& Brothers.}"
}

@article{salisbury1971doubts,
    author = "Salisbury, Frank B.",
    title = "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution",
    year = "1971",
    journal = "The American Biology Teacher",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.2307/4443526",
    doi = "10.2307/4443526",
    number = "6",
    pages = "335-354",
    volume = "33"
}

@misc{salisbury1971doubts2,
    author = "Salisbury, F. B",
    title = "Doubts about the modern synthetic theory of evolution",
    year = "1971",
    howpublished = "American Biology Teacher, v. 33, p. 335-338",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Salisbury, F. B., 1971, Doubts about the modern synthetic theory of evolution: American Biology Teacher, v. 33, p. 335-338.}"
}

The current (synthetic) theory of evolution has been criticized on the grounds that it implies that macroevolutionary processes (speciation and morphological diversification) are gradual. The extent to which macroevolution is gradual or punctuational remains to be ascertained. Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution. But microevolutionary principles are compatible with both gradualism and punctualism; therefore, logically they entail neither. Thus, macroevolution and microevolution are decoupled in the important sense that macroevolutionary patterns cannot be deduced from microevolutionary principles.

@article{stebbins1981is,
    author = "Stebbins, G. Ledyard and Ayala, Francisco J.",
    title = "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?",
    year = "1981",
    journal = "Science",
    abstract = "The current (synthetic) theory of evolution has been criticized on the grounds that it implies that macroevolutionary processes (speciation and morphological diversification) are gradual. The extent to which macroevolution is gradual or punctuational remains to be ascertained. Macroevolutionary processes are underlain by microevolutionary phenomena and are compatible with the synthetic theory of evolution. But microevolutionary principles are compatible with both gradualism and punctualism; therefore, logically they entail neither. Thus, macroevolution and microevolution are decoupled in the important sense that macroevolutionary patterns cannot be deduced from microevolutionary principles.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1126/science.213.4511.967",
    doi = "10.1126/science.213.4511.967",
    number = "4511",
    pages = "967-971",
    volume = "213"
}

@phdthesis{stebbins1981is3,
    author = "Stebbins, G. L. and Ayala, F. J",
    title = "Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?",
    year = "1981",
    publisher = "Science, v. 213, p. 967-971",
    note = "talkorigins\_source = {true}; raw\_reference = {Stebbins, G. L., and Ayala, F. J., 1981, Is a New Evolutionary Synthesis Necessary?: Science, v. 213, p. 967-971.}"
}

@article{crossref2007the,
    title = "THE NOBEL PRIZE 1901",
    year = "2007",
    journal = "Neurosurgery",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1227/01.neu.0000303184.49555.e0",
    doi = "10.1227/01.neu.0000303184.49555.e0",
    number = "5",
    pages = "890",
    volume = "61"
}

Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory. The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

@article{müller2017why,
    author = "Müller, Gerd B.",
    title = "Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary",
    year = "2017",
    journal = "Interface Focus",
    abstract = "Since the last major theoretical integration in evolutionary biology—the modern synthesis (MS) of the 1940s—the biosciences have made significant advances. The rise of molecular biology and evolutionary developmental biology, the recognition of ecological development, niche construction and multiple inheritance systems, the ‘-omics’ revolution and the science of systems biology, among other developments, have provided a wealth of new knowledge about the factors responsible for evolutionary change. Some of these results are in agreement with the standard theory and others reveal different properties of the evolutionary process. A renewed and extended theoretical synthesis, advocated by several authors in this issue, aims to unite pertinent concepts that emerge from the novel fields with elements of the standard theory. The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015",
    doi = "10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015",
    number = "5",
    pages = "20170015",
    volume = "7"
}

@article{anddoroninamarina2021modern,
    author = "Doronina Marina, Doronina Marina",
    title = "MODERN SYNTHETIC THEORY OF EVOLUTION",
    year = "2021",
    journal = "Астраханский вестник экологического образования",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.36698/2304-5957-2021-2-172-177",
    doi = "10.36698/2304-5957-2021-2-172-177",
    number = "2",
    pages = "172-177",
    volume = "20"
}

By the middle decades of the twentieth century, a synthesis between Mendelian genetics and the Darwinian selection theory had emerged that attracted the support of the majority of evolutionary biologists. The genetical theory of natural selection was applied to field studies and palaeontology, giving rise to disagreements among biologists and historians over the nature and ultimate impact of the synthesis.

@misc{bowler2021evolutionary,
    author = "Bowler, Peter J",
    title = "Evolutionary Ideas: The Modern Synthesis",
    year = "2021",
    booktitle = "Encyclopedia of Life Sciences",
    abstract = "By the middle decades of the twentieth century, a synthesis between Mendelian genetics and the Darwinian selection theory had emerged that attracted the support of the majority of evolutionary biologists. The genetical theory of natural selection was applied to field studies and palaeontology, giving rise to disagreements among biologists and historians over the nature and ultimate impact of the synthesis.",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470015902.a0029254",
    doi = "10.1002/9780470015902.a0029254",
    pages = "899-904"
}

@incollection{danchin2023from,
    author = "Danchin, Étienne",
    title = "From the Modern Synthesis to the Inclusive Evolutionary Synthesis: An Einsteinian Revolution in Evolution",
    year = "2023",
    booktitle = "Synthese Library",
    url = "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-33358-3\_18",
    doi = "10.1007/978-3-031-33358-3\_18",
    pages = "401-427"
}