Talk:Reticulate evolution

"Reticulate evolution dynamics contradict the neo-Darwininan theory" -- except that they do not?

This statement is too strong, resembling a near straw-man of the evolutionary synthesis (probably what's referred to by "neo-Darwinian theory"). It implicitly oversimplifies it as if it held as dogma that the totality of evolution is described in its absolute entirety in a very strict tree-like pattern, with hybridization and more complex relationships between lineages/branches being denied beforehand as heresies. There is, however, no incompatibility or contradiction. The founders of the Modern Synthesis did recognize hybridization (the existence of multiple species concepts also make simpler claims somewhat inherently problematic). None of the notions described in the article require discarding neither the entirety nor parts of the Modern Synthesis, but only add more complexity to it. Even if "neo-Darwininan theory" is being used in a more strict sense, only adaptive evolution by natural selection without inheritance of acquired traits, there's no conflict, but addition. There would only be some conflict with an implicit straw-man notion that late 19th Century neo-Darwinism was currently held as the complete description of evolution -- which would be a rather curious suggestion for one to make if indeed deliberately omitting the Modern Synthesis, rather than referring to it as "neo-Darwinian theory." If reticulate evolution is fairly summarized in the article, with no omission of far more radical, revolutionary claims, I'd say that a better wording would be something along the lines that "reticulate evolution dynamics further add to the core of concepts laid out in the Modern Synthesis." 45.234.133.156 (talk) 23:57, 30 July 2024 (UTC)