Speciation, natural selection, and networks: three historians versus theoretical population geneticists

Abstract

In 1913, the geneticist William Bateson called for a halt in studies of genetic phenomena until evolutionary fundamentals had been sufficiently addressed at the molecular level. Nevertheless, in the 1960s, the theoretical population geneticists celebrated a "modern synthesis" of the teachings of Mendel and Darwin, with an exclusive role for natural selection in speciation. This was supported, albeit with minor reservations, by historians Mark Adams and William Provine, who taught it to generations of students. In subsequent decades, doubts were raised by molecular biologists and, despite the deep influence of various mentors, Adams and Provine noted serious anomalies and began to question traditional "just-so-stories." They were joined in challenging the genetic orthodoxy by a scientist-historian, Donald Forsdyke, who suggested that a "collective variation" postulated by Darwin's young research associate, George Romanes, and a mysterious "residue" postulated by Bateson, might relate to differences in short runs of DNA bases (oligonucleotides). The dispute between a small network of historians and a large network of geneticists can be understood in the context of national politics. Contrasts are drawn between democracies, where capturing the narrative makes reversal difficult, and dictatorships, where overthrow of a supportive dictator can result in rapid reversal.

Keywords: Bateson’s residue; Biometricians; Chargaff’s parity rules; Eclipse of Darwinism; Macroevolution; Modern synthesis; Romanes’ collective variation.