The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?
Abstract
The modern synthesis, as an exclusive proposition, has broken down on both of its fundamental claims: extrapolationism (gradual allelic substitution as a model for all evolutionary change) and nearly exclusive reliance on selection leading to adaptation. Evolution is a hierarchical process with complementary, but different, modes of change at its three major levels: variation within populations, speciation, and patterns of macroevolution. Speciation is not always an extension of gradual, adaptive allelic substitution to greater effect, but may represent, as Goldschmidt argued, a different style of genetic change—rapid reorganization of the genome, perhaps non-adaptive. Macroevolutionary trends do not arise from the gradual, adaptive transformation of populations, but usually from a higher-order selection operating upon groups of species, while the individual species themselves generally do not change following their geologically instantaneous origin. I refer to these two discontinuities in the evolutionary hierarchy as the Goldschmidt break (between change in populations and speciation) and the Wright break (between speciation and trends as differential success among species). A new and general evolutionary theory will embody this notion of hierarchy and stress a variety of themes either ignored or explicitly rejected by the modern synthesis: punctuational change at all levels, important non-adaptive change at all levels, control of evolution not only by selection, but equally by constraints of history, development and architecture—thus restoring to evolutionary theory a concept of organism.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Mayr, E. (1963) · doi:10.4159/harvard.9780674865327 · Cited by 10,175
The spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian paradigm: a critique of the adaptationist programme
Gould, S. J., & Lewontin, R. C. (1979) · Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series B. Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 · Cited by 7,770 · cited 1×
“I believe that this "adaptationist pro gram" has had decidedly unfortunate effects in biology (Gould and Lewontin, 1979).”
Self-citationKing, M.-C., & Wilson, A. C. (1975) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.1090005 · Cited by 2,815
Cited by
Natural language and natural selection
Pinker, S., & Bloom, P. (1990) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00081061 · Cited by 1,330
Is a new and general theory of molecular systematics emerging?
Edwards, S. V. (2009) · Evolution · doi:10.1111/j.1558-5646.2008.00549.x · Cited by 1,040
A factor analytic description of the Phanerozoic marine fossil record
Sepkoski, J. J. (1981) · Paleobiology · doi:10.1017/s0094837300003778 · Cited by 1,010
Quantitative genetics and developmental constraints on evolution by selection
Cheverud, J. M. (1984) · Journal of Theoretical Biology · doi:10.1016/s0022-5193(84)80050-8 · Cited by 710
Targeting the murine serotonin transporter: insights into human neurobiology
Murphy, D. L., & Lesch, K.-P. (2008) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2284 · Cited by 478
Metadata
- Authors
- Gould, S. J.
- Venue
- Paleobiology
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 1980
- Volume
- 6
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 119-130
- ISSN
- 0094-8373 (ISSN-L)
- 1938-5331
- OpenAlex
- W4251513472
- Cited by
- 583
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 25.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1017/s0094837300012549
- The paper
- Gould, S. J. (1980). Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging? Paleobiology. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0094837300012549
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.