How microbes “jeopardize” the modern synthesis

The title of this series of reviews is, "How Microbes 'Jeopardize' the Modern Synthesis."To understand how the study of microbial evolution is changing evolutionary theory, it is important to understand what evolutionary theory is.One common view is that the modern synthesis furnished a general, unified theory of evolution, and that new findings about microbes show that this theory is false in important ways and must be replaced by a new, equally general and unified theory [1][2][3].But there are other (and we think better) ways to think about this, focused not on theoretical conflict but on theoretical integration [4].One better way is to see evolutionary theory as a toolkit of explanatory resources, which may be variously combined to explain evolutionary phenomena of interest [5][6][7]).These resources are neither true nor false in themselves.Rather, they are applicable or inapplicable to particular episodes or patterns in evolutionary history.For example, the Stable Ecotype Model describes a possible pattern of speciation.The model itself is neither true nor false; the appropriate question is how well it captures actual cases of speciation [8].Perhaps if it never applied, it could be declared false, but in biology one should never say "never."This toolkit is the core of evolutionary theory.As it develops, biologists make claims about the range and nature of circumstances in which particular resources are applicable-call these "scope claims".Scope claims are relative to the state of biological science at a given time: what problems are of most concern, what alternative resources are available, and what organisms are most centrally studied.Scope claims are thus ephemeral products of their time, even as the explanatory resources they concern endure [9].The strongest claims about microbes "jeopardizing" the modern synthesis turn on (a) identifying the synthetic theory with particular scope claims and (b) stripping those scope claims from their initial context of utterance.For instance, the prevalence of lateral gene transfer (LGT) among microbes might be seen as a challenge to the gradualism of the synthesis.But let us place that gradualism in its historical context.First, the synthesis primarily studied sexually reproducing populations, and often explicitly excluded microbes [10][11].Second, debates over gradualism in this period primarily concerned the adequacy of gradualistic theories of speciation [12][13][14].LGT is not primarily a speciation mechanism; indeed, it rather complicates the very idea of bacterial species [15][16][17][18].Debates about the role of LGT in evolution are by and large not part of the same debate over gradualism that was so central to the synthesis.The blame for such confusions does not lie entirely with the critics of the synthesis.Proponents have also given undue importance to their scope claims, treating the synthesis as having furnished a general theory of evolution.But there is good reason to think there never was and never can be such a theory, unless it is something so general as to be uninformative, such as: the current diversity and adaptedness of organisms is best understood as the result of genetic and ecological processes (which we for the most part understand) operating over the last four

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.