Talk:Modern synthesis (20th century)

Add a section regarding criticism of the synthesis
There has been a notable amount of scientific criticism from various scientists (non-religious criticism) towards the modern synthesis. For example, Lynn Margulis, James Lovelock, Denis Noble, etc. Although I am a Neo-Darwinian myself and although this is the most robust mechanism proposed for evolution till now, I think there should be added a section for scientific criticism towards this synthesis because there is a notable amount from notable scientists. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 08:17, 4 May 2024 (UTC)


 * Criticism sections are deprecated on Wikipedia. More specifically, the article describes many different views of the synthesis, including its disputed beginnings, while it was in progress, and afterwards, so any such section would at best be redundant to the main text. Far better, if you know of a specific view that is well-regarded and not yet included, would be to add a brief mention of that in an appropriate part of the article. You should note that many objections are directed towards evolution more generally rather than the 20th-century synthesis as such; and that the term "synthesis" is slippery: the article distinguishes later syntheses which unfortunately have also sometimes been called "modern". Chiswick Chap (talk) 08:22, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
 * "You should note that many objections are directed towards evolution more generally rather than the 20th-century synthesis as such"
 * As I said, scientific criticism which are non-religious. There is a whole separate article for that. The people I mentioned gave a scientific criticism to the modern synthesis. More importantly, all 3 of those people are evolutionary biologists who proposed alternative scientific explanations. For example, there is a criticism section for the Gaia Hypothesis, Neutral theory, and the Extended Synthesis. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 13:11, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * With respect, no; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS on an argument not to use on Wikipedia. Many articles are incorrectly or poorly written; that is no reason to imitate them.


 * Your scientists are objecting to theories long after the events described in this article; those are briefly summarized here as things that FOLLOWED the "modern synthesis". The neutral theory and so on are already discussed here briefly; they apply to LATER SYNTHESES, not to the mid-20th century "modern synthesis" which is a historic thing, long ago completed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 * Okay, but they're not "my scientists". I already stated in my OC that I am a Neo-Darwinian. Asaduzzaman Khan Shahriar (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2024 (UTC)