Neo‐darwinism still haunts evolutionary theory: A modern perspective on Charlesworth, Lande, and Slatkin (1982)

Abstract

The Modern Synthesis (or “Neo‐Darwinism”), which arose out of the reconciliation of Darwin's theory of natural selection and Mendel's research on genetics, remains the foundation of evolutionary theory. However, since its inception, it has been a lightning rod for criticism, which has ranged from minor quibbles to complete dismissal. Among the most famous of the critics was Stephen Jay Gould, who, in 1980, proclaimed that the Modern Synthesis was “effectively dead.” Gould and others claimed that the action of natural selection on random mutations was insufficient on its own to explain patterns of macroevolutionary diversity and divergence, and that new processes were required to explain findings from the fossil record. In 1982, Charlesworth, Lande, and Slatkin published a response to this critique in Evolution, in which they argued that Neo‐Darwinism was indeed sufficient to explain macroevolutionary patterns. In this Perspective for the 75th Anniversary of the Society for the Study of Evolution, we review Charlesworth et al. in its historical context and provide modern support for their arguments. We emphasize the importance of microevolutionary processes in the study of macroevolutionary patterns. Ultimately, we conclude that punctuated equilibrium did not represent a major revolution in evolutionary biology – although debate on this point stimulated significant research and furthered the field – and that Neo‐Darwinism is alive and well.

Genetic diversity using biochemical, physiological, karyological and molecular markers of Sesamum indicum L

“…Genetic drift, mutation, and natural selection within and among populations stimulate genetic diversity and differentiation of populations. Population genetics is helpful for the evolution of organisms that respond to different biotic and abiotic stresses determining resources, genetic composition, and differentiation of populations ( Hancock et al, 2021 ).…”

The complex genome and adaptive evolution of polyploid Chinese pepper (Zanthoxylum armatum and Zanthoxylum bungeanum)

“…With the severe environment in the later Cenozoic, Chinese pepper evolutionary strategy might have undergone a transition from rapid reproduction and growth to high resistance to the adverse environment, which is consistent with recent work that describes the resurgence of gymnosperm diversification and expansion in the late Cenozoic (Figure 7 ; Stull et al ., 2021 ). Additionally, the genetic difference in flavonoid metabolism and responses to severe climates between Z. armatum and Z. bungeanum provide an ideal example to study the relationship between genomic evolution, environmental factors and phenotypic innovation, which is known as ‘Neo‐darwinism’ in evolutionary theory (Hancock et al ., 2021 ; Noble, 2015 ). First, the metabolic analysis revealed the superiority of flavonoid accumulation in Z. bungeanum , which suggested the enhanced adaptation to severe climates (An et al ., 2020 ; Schulz et al ., 2015 , 2021 ).…”

How we study cryptic species and their biological implications: A case study from marine shelled gastropods

“…On a timescale of millions of years, cryptic species pose an especially difficult task, as molecular data are unavailable to assist with identifying morphologically similar species from fossils (“the fossil species recognition problem,” Allmon, 2016, p. 71). Several authors suggest cryptic species in the fossil record are likely numerous (e.g., Hancock et al, 2021; Hoffman & Reif, 1990; Levinton & Simon, 1980; Levinton, 2001, 312 ff. ; Pennell et al, 2014), and that this is an argument against being able to study speciation in deep time, especially punctuated equilibrium (a pattern where a species shows relatively rapid morphological change at its divergence, then shows stasis for most of its duration; Eldredge & Gould, 1972).…”