Well,
1. The modern synthesis is not a hypothesis to be accepted or rejected
2. Wrong
3. Wrong.
4. More important than what ?
5. Not really
6. Environmetal influences have little intergenerational consequence
Must try harder !
FYI....I am copying below relevant sentences from the linked article at post 44.
1. A new wave of scientists argues that mainstream evolutionary theory needs an urgent overhaul.
2. “The first eye, the first wing, the first placenta. How they emerge. .....says Armin Moczek, a biologist at Indiana University. “And yet, we still do not have a good answer.
This classic idea of gradual change, one happy accident at a time, has so far fallen flat.”
3. Think of the way a grandfather’s red hair, absent in his son, might reappear in his granddaughter. How was natural selection meant to function when its tiny variations might not even reliably pass from parent to offspring every time?
4.
they found that natural selection was not the all-powerful force that many had assumed it to be. ..... The genes were changing – that is, evolving – but natural selection wasn’t playing a part.......Natural selection seemed to be asleep at the wheel.
5. Other biologists simply found that the modern synthesis had little relevance to their work. As the study of life increased in complexity, a theory based on which genes were selected in various environments started to seem beside the point.
6. its most ambitious claims – that
simply by understanding genes and natural selection, we can understand all life on earth – have been dropped,
7. the EES, call for a new way of thinking about evolution.... Ultimately, they want their sub-fields –
plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution – not just recognised, but formalised in the canon of biology.8. One of the most
fascinating recent areas of research is known as plasticity,
9. the Senegal bichir “is adapting to land in a single generation”.
10. "Plasticity is perhaps what sparks the rudimentary form of a novel trait,” says Pfennig.
Italics mine.
