Been reading recently many scientific publications which claim neo-Darwinism (modern synthesis) is either outdated, wrong or in some cases "crumbled" or "dead" due to recent discoveries in science. Here are some of these publications, and they all seem to be calling for a totally new evolutionary synthesis beyond neo-Darwinism or an extended synthesis. Eugene Koonin Eugene Koonin, The Origin at 150: Is a new evolutionary synthesis in sight?" Trends in Genetics, 25(11), November 2009, pp. 473-475 and Eugene Koonin, Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics, Nucleic Acids Research, 37(4), 2009, pp. 1011-1034 Writes: Koonin also states in the above paper "The edifice of the modern synthesis has crumbled, apparently, beyond repair". Eugene Koonin, in his research paper, titled "Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics", published 12 Feb 2009, says: "Now, 50 years after the consolidation of the Modern Synthesis, evolutionary biology undoubtedly faces a new major challenge and, at the same time, the prospect of a new conceptual breakthrough"....."By contrast, the insistence on adaptation being the primary mode of evolution that is apparent in the Origin, but especially in the Modern Synthesis, became deeply suspicious if not outright obsolete, making room for a new worldview that gives much more prominence to non-adaptive processes"......"Collectively, the developments in evolutionary genomics and systems biology outlined here seem to suggest that, although at present only isolated elements of a new, 'postmodern' synthesis of evolutionary biology are starting to be formulated, such a synthesis is indeed feasible. Moreover, it is likely to assume definitive shape long before Darwin's 250th anniversary" His papers can be read here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2784144/ and http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2651812/ Michael Rose and Todd Oakley Michael R Rose and Todd H Oakley, in their research paper, titled "The new biology: beyond the Modern Synthesis" published on 24 November 2007 wrote: "The last third of the 20th Century featured an accumulation of research findings that severely challenged the assumptions of the "Modern Synthesis" which provided the foundations for most biological research during that century. The foundations of that "Modernist" biology had thus largely crumbled by the start of the 21st Century. This in turn raises the question of foundations for biology in the 21st Century". See their section in the paper titled "Dead parts of the Modern Synthesis" http://www.biology-direct.com/content/2/1/30/ Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb Eva Jablonka and Marion J. Lamb have written many papers, one of which was titled "Soft inheritance: Challenging the Modern Synthesis". According to the paper: Mae-Wan Ho and Peter Saunders Mae Wan Ho and Peter Saunders in their paper Beyond neo-Darwinism an epigenetic approach to evolution write: We argue that the basic neo-Darwinian framework the natural selection of random mutations is insufficient to account for evolution. The role of natural selection is itself limited: it cannot adequately explain the diversity of populations or of species; nor can it account for the origin of new species or for major evolutionary change. The evidence suggests on the one hand that most genetic changes are irrelevant to evolution; and on the other, that a relative lack of natural selection may be the prerequisite for major evolutionary advance. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0022519379901917 Lynn Margulis On the role of natural selection in evolution. Question: And you don't believe that natural selection is the answer? Margulis: "This is the issue I have with neo-Darwinists: They teach that what is generating novetly is the accumulation of random mutations in DNA, in a direct set by natural selection. If you want bigger eggs, you keep selecting the gens that are laying the biggest eggs, and you get bigger and bigger eggs. But you also get hens with defective feathers and wobbly legs. Natural selection eliminates and maybe maintains, but it doesn't create." http://discover.coverleaf.com/discovermagazine/201104?pg=68#pg70 Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee et al. Kevin N. Laland, John Odling-Smee, Marcus W. Feldman and Jeremy Kendal on niche construction: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3093243/ J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton J. B. Edelmann and M. J. Denton write in their "The uniqueness of biological self-organization: challenging the Darwinian paradigm" how the neo-Darwinists have ignored self-organization which is an important factor in evolution. http://mechanism.ucsd.edu/teaching/philbio/readings/edelmann.biologicalselforganization.2007.pdf James A. Shapiro James Shapiro in his book Evolution: A View from the 21st Century proposes an important new paradigm for understanding biological evolution, the core organizing principle of biology. Shapiro introduces crucial new molecular evidence that tests the conventional scientific view of evolution based on the neo-Darwinian synthesis, shows why this view is inadequate to today's evidence, and presents a compelling alternative view of the evolutionary process that reflects the shift in life sciences towards a more information- and systems-based approach. Shapiro integrates advances in symbiogenesis, epigenetics, and saltationism into a unified approach that views evolutionary change as an active cell process, regulated epigenetically and capable of making rapid large changes by horizontal DNA transfer, inter-specific hybridization, whole genome doubling, symbiogenesis, or massive genome restructuring. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non-Darwinian_evolution Any opinions about any of these scientific publications? Would you agree that neo-Darwinism is outdated, incomplete, crumbled or dead? Are we seeing a totally new synthesis of evolution emerging?