Rethinking the Charles’ Darwin Legacy

Beyond Darwin’s Shadow

Few books in history have so thoroughly reshaped our understanding of existence as Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species. Published in 1859, his theory of evolution by natural selection provided a powerful, evidence-based mechanism for the bewildering diversity of life on Earth, establishing a foundation that underpins all of modern biology.²⁻³⁰ Yet, Darwin himself viewed his work not as a final, immutable dogma, but as a contribution to a grand, ongoing scientific conversation.⁴⁻¹¹⁻³³ He understood that the intricate tapestry of life might be woven with more threads than he had identified.

To grasp the nature of the challenges to his theory, one must first understand its core. Classical Darwinism rests on a few elegant propositions: individuals within a species vary, and these variations are heritable; more offspring are produced than can possibly survive, leading to a “struggle for existence”; and in this struggle, individuals with traits better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing those advantageous traits to the next generation.¹⁻²⁻³⁻⁵⁻⁶ This process, natural selection, coupled with the assumption that evolution proceeds through the slow, steady accumulation of these small changes—a concept known as gradualism—forms the heart of the Darwinian engine of change.⁷⁻⁸⁻¹⁰⁻¹²

This essay explores the rich history of scientific alternatives that have challenged not the fact of evolution, but the exclusivity and tempo of Darwin’s proposed mechanisms. It deliberately sets aside non-scientific challenges like creationism, which operate outside the bounds of empirical inquiry, to focus on the vibrant, and often contentious, debates that have taken place within biology.⁴⁻²⁰⁻²¹⁻²⁴ From the very beginning, Darwin’s insistence on a slow, incremental pace, encapsulated in the phrase Natura non facit saltum (“Nature never makes leaps”), created a point of profound intellectual tension.¹⁰⁻²⁶ While this gradualist perspective was essential to his worldview, it did not always align with the evidence scientists saw elsewhere. The fossil record, for instance, often shows species appearing quite suddenly, persisting unchanged for millions of years, and then vanishing.¹⁰⁻¹⁵ This apparent discord between theory and observation became a primary catalyst for alternative thinking. Over the next century and a half, a recurring theme emerged: the search for mechanisms that could account for the rapid, large-scale innovations that seem to punctuate the history of life. Theories proposing “jumps” or “leaps”—from the saltationism of the early 20th century to the cooperative mergers of symbiogenesis—have repeatedly surfaced, suggesting that the steady, gradual march envisioned by Darwin may only be part of a much more complex and dynamic story.⁴⁹⁻⁵⁵⁻¹⁵

Part I: The Early Challengers – Alternative Engines of Change

In the decades following the publication of Origin, Darwin’s central idea of natural selection faced a period of doubt, sometimes called “the eclipse of Darwinism.”⁴⁻¹⁶⁻²⁰ During this time, many biologists accepted that evolution occurred but questioned whether natural selection was its primary engine, leading to the rise of several prominent alternative theories.

Lamarck’s Ghost: The Inheritance of Experience

Long before Darwin, the French naturalist Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed a comprehensive theory of evolution in 1809. Often reduced to a caricature of giraffes stretching their necks, Lamarck’s actual framework was more sophisticated. It involved two main forces: first, an innate “complexifying force” that drove organisms progressively from simple to more complex forms over time; and second, the now-famous principle of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.³¹⁻⁴³⁻¹¹³⁻¹²⁷ According to this second principle, changes acquired by an organism during its lifetime—driven by new needs and the resulting use or disuse of organs—could be passed on to its offspring.²¹⁻³³⁻ᴮ¹

The critical distinction between Lamarck’s and Darwin’s views lies in the source and nature of variation. For Lamarck, variation was directed; an organism’s interaction with its environment could directly shape its heritable features in an adaptive way.³¹⁻³⁵⁻¹¹³ For Darwin, variation was random with respect to an organism’s needs; the environment acted only as a filter, selecting from a pool of pre-existing, undirected variations.³⁻¹¹ It is a historical irony, however, that Darwin himself did not entirely dismiss this “Lamarckian” inheritance. He included a section on the “Effects of the increased Use and Disuse of Parts” in Origin of Species and later developed his own “pangenesis” theory, which proposed that particles called “gemmules” from all over the body could transmit acquired changes to the germ cells.³³⁻⁴⁰⁻¹²⁶⁻ᴮ¹

In the late 19th century, a revival known as neo-Lamarckism gained traction, championed by figures like American paleontologist Edward Drinker Cope, who saw it as a way for organisms to actively drive their own evolution.⁴¹⁻ᴮ¹ However, the theory’s influence waned significantly with the work of German biologist August Weismann. His germ-plasm theory proposed a strict separation between the body’s somatic cells and the “immortal” germ cells (sperm and egg), creating what became known as the Weismann barrier. This conceptual wall seemed to make it impossible for characteristics acquired by the body to influence the next generation, dealing a near-fatal blow to Lamarckian ideas.²⁵⁻²⁹⁻ᴮ¹

Yet, Lamarck’s ghost has found a faint, modern echo in the field of epigenetics. This field studies heritable changes in gene expression that occur without altering the underlying DNA sequence. Environmental factors like diet or stress can cause epigenetic marks (such as DNA methylation) that can, in some cases, be transmitted across generations.³⁷⁻³⁸⁻⁴⁰ This “soft inheritance” is not the same as classical Lamarckism—the effects are often transient and do not represent a permanent change to the genes themselves—but it has reopened a fascinating debate about the ways in which an organism’s life experiences can leave a mark on its descendants.¹¹¹⁻¹²⁵

The Straight Path and The Great Leap: Orthogenesis and Saltationism

Two other major alternatives emerged from a dissatisfaction with the perceived randomness and slow pace of Darwinian selection: orthogenesis and saltationism.

Orthogenesis: Evolution on Rails

Orthogenesis proposed that evolution is not random but is channeled along fixed, predetermined paths by internal, organismal forces.⁴³⁻⁴⁴⁻⁴⁵⁻⁴⁷ This idea, with intellectual roots stretching back to the pre-evolutionary concept of a “Great Chain of Being,” suggested a kind of internal momentum, pushing a lineage in a specific direction regardless of environmental pressures.²⁷⁻⁴³⁻¹¹⁶ It found particular favor among paleontologists who, studying the fossil record, saw what appeared to be straight-line trends, such as the inexorable increase in the size of horses or the elaborate antlers of the Irish elk.⁴⁴⁻ᴮ⁵

The theory ultimately fell from favor for two main reasons. First, it lacked a plausible physical mechanism, often invoking vague, untestable “mysterious inner forces” or vitalistic principles.⁴³⁻¹¹⁶ Second, it was powerfully critiqued by the architects of the Modern Synthesis. Figures like George Gaylord Simpson and Ernst Mayr argued that what appeared to be directed trends could be better explained by conventional natural selection operating consistently over long periods.¹¹⁶ Later, Stephen Jay Gould sought to reframe the debate, suggesting that while evolution is not progressive in the sense of having a predetermined goal, it can exhibit “directionality” as a result of historical and developmental constraints.¹²⁹⁻¹³⁰⁻¹³¹

Saltationism: Evolution by Jumps

In direct opposition to Darwinian gradualism, saltationism proposed that major evolutionary changes, including the origin of new species, occur in sudden, large leaps.⁴⁹⁻⁵⁰⁻ᴮ⁶ Early geneticists like Hugo de Vries and William Bateson, leading the “mutationist” school, argued that the small variations Darwin prized were merely non-heritable fluctuations. True, lasting change, they claimed, came from large-scale mutations that created new species in a single bound.²⁵⁻⁵⁰⁻¹²²

This idea found its most famous, and controversial, expression in the “hopeful monster” hypothesis of geneticist Richard Goldschmidt in 1940. Goldschmidt argued that the difference between microevolution (small changes within a species) and macroevolution (the origin of new body plans) was too vast to be bridged by the slow accumulation of tiny mutations.¹³⁻ᴮ⁶ He proposed that on rare occasions, a large-scale “systemic mutation” in a key developmental gene could produce a radically new, yet viable, organism—a “hopeful monster”—capable of founding an entirely new lineage.¹¹⁹⁻¹²¹⁻¹²² Though widely ridiculed by his contemporaries, Goldschmidt’s focus on the evolutionary importance of major changes in developmental genes was remarkably prescient. Decades later, the field of evolutionary developmental biology (“evo-devo”) would confirm that mutations in exactly these kinds of “master control” genes can indeed produce profound, large-scale changes in an organism’s body plan, giving Goldschmidt’s monster a measure of vindication.ᴮ⁶⁻¹¹⁹

These early debates reveal a fundamental philosophical divide over the very source of evolutionary creativity. Darwinism is profoundly externalist: the environment, through natural selection, is the primary creative agent shaping life from a raw material of random variation.³⁻¹¹ In contrast, theories like orthogenesis and Lamarckism are fundamentally internalist, positing that the impetus for change arises from within the organism, whether through a pre-programmed drive or a directed response to its needs.⁴³⁻¹¹³ Saltationism represents a middle ground, where a large internal change (mutation) is then subject to external validation by the environment. This tension over whether the organism is a passive recipient of external forces or an active agent in its own transformation was a defining feature of early evolutionary thought and prefigures many of the debates still active today.²⁰⁻⁶³⁻⁶⁵

Part II: The 20th-Century Refinements – New Forces in the Equation

After the Modern Synthesis successfully merged Darwinian selection with Mendelian genetics in the mid-20th century, it became the undisputed paradigm of evolutionary biology.¹⁴⁻¹⁵⁻¹⁶ Yet even within this new framework, discoveries continued to emerge that challenged the all-encompassing power of natural selection and the gradualist model.

A Random Walk: Kimura’s Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution

The dawn of molecular biology in the 1950s and 60s allowed scientists to peer into the machinery of life at its most fundamental level: DNA and proteins. What they found was a puzzle. When the Japanese biologist Motoo Kimura began comparing protein sequences between different species, he discovered that genetic mutations appeared to be accumulating at a remarkably constant, clock-like rate—far faster than would be expected if every single change had to be painstakingly vetted by natural selection.⁶¹⁻¹⁴¹

This observation led him to formulate the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution in 1968.ᴮ⁴⁻ᴮ⁹ Its central, revolutionary claim was that the vast majority of evolutionary changes at the molecular level are not caused by Darwinian selection, but by the random fixation of selectively neutral mutations through a process called genetic drift.¹⁴¹⁻¹⁴²⁻¹⁴³ These are mutations that have no effect on an organism’s fitness, such as those occurring in non-coding “junk” DNA or those that don’t alter the final protein product (synonymous mutations).ᴮ⁴ According to Kimura, the fate of these mutations is determined not by a struggle for survival, but by pure chance.

Neutral Theory does not deny that natural selection is responsible for shaping the adaptive traits we see in organisms. Rather, it proposes that this adaptive evolution is just the tip of the iceberg. Beneath the surface, a vast sea of neutral genetic variation is constantly churning, driven by the random processes of mutation and drift.¹⁴¹⁻¹⁴³ This introduced a powerful non-Darwinian, non-adaptive mechanism as a major force in evolution, suggesting that much of the genetic difference between species is not a record of adaptive struggles, but the simple, accumulated noise of random chance.

Cooperation as Creation: The Symbiogenesis Revolution

Darwin’s framework famously emphasized competition—the “struggle for existence”—as the engine of evolution. But what if cooperation, not conflict, was responsible for some of life’s greatest innovations? This is the central premise of symbiogenesis, a theory that highlights partnership as a primary creative force.⁵⁵⁻⁵⁹

The theory was most powerfully championed by the American biologist Lynn Margulis, who in the 1960s resurrected and provided robust evidence for a radical idea: the origin of the complex eukaryotic cell (the type that makes up all animals, plants, fungi, and protists) was the result of a series of symbiotic mergers.¹²³⁻¹²⁴⁻¹³⁷ Her endosymbiotic theory proposed that key organelles within our cells, such as mitochondria (our cellular power plants) and chloroplasts (the sites of photosynthesis in plants), were once free-living bacteria.⁵⁵⁻ᴮ⁷ Billions of years ago, these bacteria were engulfed by an ancestral host cell. Instead of being digested, they established a permanent, mutually beneficial residence, eventually becoming so integrated that they are now indispensable parts of a new, more complex whole.⁵⁶⁻ᴮ⁷

The evidence for this ancient merger is compelling. Both mitochondria and chloroplasts contain their own separate, circular DNA, much like bacteria, and they replicate by their own means, independent of the host cell’s division.⁵⁵⁻ᴮ⁷ Symbiogenesis represents a profound challenge to the Darwinian gradualist model. It is a form of saltational evolution—a quantum leap in complexity achieved not through the slow accumulation of mutations, but through the sudden, cooperative fusion of entire organisms and their genomes.⁵⁶⁻ᴮ⁸ It demonstrates that evolution can proceed not just by the branching of lineages, but by their merging.

Stops and Starts: The Theory of Punctuated Equilibrium

Another major challenge to gradualism emerged from the fossil record itself. In 1972, paleontologists Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould addressed a long-standing puzzle: the geological strata rarely showed the smooth, intermediate forms that Darwin’s theory predicted. Instead, the record was dominated by species that appeared suddenly, persisted for millions of years with little to no change (a phenomenon they called “stasis”), and then disappeared just as abruptly.⁹⁻¹⁰⁻¹⁵

Darwin had attributed these gaps to the imperfection of the fossil record, but Eldredge and Gould proposed a different explanation.¹⁰ Their theory of Punctuated Equilibrium (PE) argued that this pattern was not an artifact, but a true reflection of the evolutionary process. Their now-famous mantra was “stasis is data.”¹⁵ PE posits that most significant evolutionary change is not happening slowly within an entire lineage (a process called phyletic gradualism), but is instead concentrated in rare, rapid bursts of speciation.⁹⁻¹⁰ These bursts, they argued, typically occur in small, geographically isolated populations at the periphery of a species’ range. Because the populations are small and the change is geologically rapid, the odds of finding transitional fossils are low. If one of these new species then becomes successful and expands its range, it appears suddenly in the fossil record, where it then enters its own long period of stasis.¹⁰⁻¹⁴

PE is not a rejection of natural selection, but a theory about its tempo and mode. It suggests that evolution’s pace is not steady but jerky, characterized by long periods of boredom interrupted by moments of creative frenzy. It also shifts the focus of large-scale evolution. Macroevolutionary trends, from this perspective, may be less about the gradual transformation of entire species and more about a process of “species selection,” where the differential birth and death rates of species themselves shape the tree of life over geological time.¹⁵

These 20th-century theories reveal a crucial evolution in the concept of “evolution” itself. The Modern Synthesis had solidified the definition of evolution as “a change in gene frequency over time” in a population.¹⁰⁻¹⁷ This is a fundamentally gene-centric and population-level view. Kimura’s Neutral Theory operated at the sub-organismal, molecular level, arguing that most of these gene-frequency changes were driven by random drift, not selection.ᴮ⁴⁻ᴮ⁹ In contrast, Punctuated Equilibrium and Symbiogenesis operated at a macro level, above the population. PE argued that the microevolutionary model of changing gene frequencies could not simply be scaled up to explain the grand patterns of the fossil record, proposing instead a higher level of sorting among species.¹³⁻¹⁵ Symbiogenesis described a network-level fusion of entire lineages, a process difficult to capture with population genetics alone.⁵⁵⁻⁵⁹⁻ᴮ⁸ The challenges were no longer just about proposing new mechanisms, but about questioning the very scale at which evolution operates, pushing the science toward a more pluralistic and hierarchical view of life’s history.

Part III: The New Frontier – The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)

The most recent and comprehensive challenge to the traditional framework is the ongoing effort to formulate an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES). This is not a single, rival theory but a broader conceptual framework that seeks to integrate a suite of processes—such as developmental plasticity, niche construction, and extra-genetic inheritance—that proponents argue were either marginalized or insufficiently developed within the Modern Synthesis (MS).⁶⁴⁻⁶⁵⁻⁶⁶ The debate is not about whether the core tenets of the MS are wrong, but whether they are sufficient to explain the full spectrum of evolutionary phenomena revealed by modern biology.⁶⁴⁻⁹²⁻⁹³⁻¹⁴⁵⁻ᴮ¹⁰ The EES proposes a shift in perspective, arguing for the relative importance of additional causal factors in evolution. The fundamental differences in their core assumptions are summarized below.

The Active Organism: Reciprocal Causation and Niche Construction

A central pillar of the EES is the concept of reciprocal causation.⁶³⁻⁶⁷⁻ᴮ¹¹ It challenges the traditional one-way street of evolution, where environments pose problems and organisms passively adapt. Instead, the EES posits a two-way interaction: organisms actively shape their environments, and those modified environments in turn shape the evolutionary trajectories of the organisms themselves.⁸⁴

This process is formalized in Niche Construction Theory (NCT).⁸⁰⁻⁸³ Organisms are not just passive inhabitants of an ecological niche; they are active ecosystem engineers.⁸⁰⁻⁸¹ This construction can be physical, like beavers building dams to create wetlands, or earthworms altering the chemical and physical structure of soil.¹⁰⁴⁻¹⁰⁵⁻¹⁰⁶ It can also be cultural, as when early humans who practiced dairy farming created the selective environment that favored the evolution of adult lactase persistence.¹⁰⁴⁻⁸⁵ These actions are not random; they are directed and can systematically alter selection pressures.

A key consequence of this process is ecological inheritance.⁸⁰⁻⁸¹⁻⁸⁴ Organisms pass down to their descendants not only their genes but also a modified environment—a legacy of dams, burrows, altered soils, or cultural knowledge. This creates a second, non-genetic channel of heredity that can introduce momentum and feedback loops into evolution, profoundly altering its dynamics and direction.⁸²

The Responsive and Biased Organism: Plasticity and Development

The EES also places a new emphasis on the organism’s own developmental processes as a cause of evolutionary change. Two key concepts here are phenotypic plasticity and developmental bias.

Phenotypic plasticity is the ability of a single genotype to produce a range of different phenotypes in response to varying environmental conditions.⁷⁴⁻⁷⁵⁻⁷⁸⁻⁷⁹ The traditional view often saw plasticity as a potential hindrance to evolution, as it could buffer a population from selection by allowing individuals to adjust without underlying genetic change.⁷⁶⁻⁷⁷⁻ᴮ¹³ The EES, however, reframes plasticity as a potential leader. In a process called plasticity-led evolution, a novel environment might induce a new, adaptive phenotype across a population. This plastic response allows the population to survive and thrive, creating the conditions for natural selection to later refine and stabilize the trait through genetic changes, a process known as genetic assimilation.¹⁰²⁻¹⁵⁵⁻ᴮ¹³ For example, a bird species colonizing a new island might plastically alter its foraging behavior to exploit new foods; this new behavior then creates selection pressures favoring morphological changes (like beak shape) that make the new foraging strategy more efficient.⁹⁹⁻¹⁰⁰⁻¹⁰¹⁻¹⁰²

This responsiveness is not infinite. Developmental bias refers to the fact that an organism’s developmental systems are not a blank slate; they are structured in ways that make certain variations more likely to arise than others.⁶⁸⁻⁶⁹⁻⁷² This directly challenges the core MS assumption that new variation is completely random.⁶³⁻⁷²⁻ᴮ¹² Development creates “lines of least resistance” that channel evolution down certain paths. This is visible in the fossil record and in living organisms: snail shells only occupy specific regions of all theoretically possible shapes; centipedes always have an odd number of leg pairs; and the color composition of butterfly eyespots often evolves in a linked, constrained manner.⁶⁹⁻⁹⁶⁻⁹⁷⁻¹⁴⁹ By channeling variation, developmental bias can explain puzzling phenomena like extremely rapid evolution and the repeated, parallel evolution of similar forms in different lineages, such as the diverse cichlid fishes in African rift lakes or the famous finches of the Galápagos.⁷²⁻⁷³⁻⁹⁸

The Expanded Inheritance: Beyond the Gene

Perhaps the most significant extension proposed by the EES is the concept of inclusive inheritance.⁶³⁻⁸⁷⁻ᴮ¹¹ This framework argues that heredity is a multi-channel system, and the transmission of DNA is only one part of the story.

A major focus is on transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. This involves the inheritance of molecular “marks” on or around DNA—such as DNA methylation patterns or histone modifications—that regulate which genes are turned on or off.⁸⁹⁻¹⁰⁹ These marks can be influenced by an organism’s environment and, in some cases, can be passed down to offspring, affecting their traits without any change to the genetic code itself.³⁷⁻⁴⁰ For example, studies in mammals have shown that a parent’s diet, stress levels, or exposure to certain toxins can induce epigenetic changes that affect the health, metabolism, and behavior of their children and even grandchildren.¹⁰⁷⁻¹⁰⁸ This represents a scientifically grounded mechanism for a form of “soft inheritance,” though one that is typically less stable over many generations than genetic inheritance.ᴮ¹

Other channels of extra-genetic inheritance include parental effects (the transmission of hormones, nutrients, or antibodies via the egg or placenta), behavioral inheritance (such as learning a specific birdsong or tool-use technique from a parent), and the inheritance of a community of symbiotic microbes that are crucial for health and development.⁸⁷⁻⁹⁰⁻⁹¹⁻ᴮ¹⁵

Taken together, the core concepts of the EES—reciprocal causation, developmental bias, and inclusive inheritance—converge on a powerful central theme: the restoration of the organism as an active and causal agent in its own evolution. The gene-centric view of the Modern Synthesis often portrayed the organism as a passive “vehicle” or “survival machine” built by its genes. The EES refutes this. The organism, through niche construction, actively creates and modifies its selective environment.⁸¹⁻⁸² Through phenotypic plasticity, its own responses can initiate and guide evolutionary change.ᴮ¹³ Through its internal developmental architecture, it channels the very variation upon which selection acts.⁶⁸⁻⁷² This represents a fundamental shift in perspective from a gene-centered to an organism-centered view of evolution, one that seeks to reintegrate the rich complexity of development, ecology, and physiology into the heart of evolutionary theory.⁶³⁻⁶⁵⁻¹⁴⁵

Conclusion: A More Complex and Pluralistic Synthesis

The story of evolution since Darwin is not one of overthrowing a flawed idea, but of building upon, refining, and expanding a revolutionary one. The core Darwinian mechanism of natural selection acting on heritable variation remains the only explanation for the adaptive complexity of life and is not seriously disputed within mainstream science.²⁻³ However, the century and a half of inquiry and debate since Origin of Species has revealed that it is not the whole story.

The persistent challenges to strict Darwinian gradualism and the singular focus on selection have pushed the field toward a more pluralistic and multi-layered understanding of the evolutionary process. Evolution is not driven by a single engine, but by a dynamic interplay of many forces operating at different levels and timescales. Natural selection filters variation, but random genetic drift shapes much of the unseen molecular world (Neutral Theory). Evolutionary leaps can be achieved not only through conflict but also through cooperation and merger (Symbiogenesis). The very variation that selection acts upon is not entirely random but is channeled and constrained by an organism’s internal developmental systems (Developmental Bias). And far from being passive recipients of environmental forces, organisms actively construct their own worlds (Niche Construction) and respond adaptively to change (Phenotypic Plasticity), creating complex feedback loops that drive their own evolution. Finally, inheritance itself has been revealed as a multi-channel system, encompassing epigenetic, ecological, and behavioral legacies alongside the genetic code.

The ongoing debate surrounding the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis demonstrates that evolutionary theory is not a static set of beliefs. It is a vibrant, self-correcting, and expanding field of science. The synthesis, it seems, is never truly finished. It is constantly being tested, challenged, and enriched by new discoveries—a testament to the enduring power of the scientific process that Darwin himself so powerfully set in motion.

Bibliography

1. Open University. “Evolution through natural selection: 10.4 Summary.” OpenLearn. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/nature-environment/natural-history/evolution-through-natural-selection/content-section-4.1.
2. TutorChase. “What are the key principles of Darwin’s theory of natural selection?” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/igcse/biology/what-are-the-key-principles-of-darwin-s-theory-of-natural-selection.
3. Khan Academy. “Darwin, evolution, & natural selection.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.khanacademy.org/science/biology/her/evolution-and-natural-selection/a/darwin-evolution-natural-selection.
4. Wikipedia. “Darwinism.” Last modified June 10, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism.
5. CK-12 Foundation. “Explain the basic principles of the theory of evolution by natural selection.” CK-12 Life Science. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.ck12.org/flexi/life-science/theory-of-evolution/explain-the-basic-principles-of-the-theory-of-evolution-by-natural-selection./.
6. Washoe County School District. “Evolution – Nuts and Bolts.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.washoeschools.net/cms/lib/NV01912265/Centricity/Domain/874/Evolution%20-%20Nuts%20and%20Bolts%20Updated%20PDF.pdf.
7. Quora. “What is gradualism in Darwin’s theory of natural selection? Are there other forms of evolution.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.quora.com/What-is-gradualism-in-Darwins-theory-of-natural-selection-Are-there-other-forms-of-evolution.
8. Number Analytics. “Ultimate Guide to Gradualism in Evolutionary Biology.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-gradualism-evolutionary-biology.
9. Lidgard, Scott, and Matthew J. Hopkins. “Gradualism.” In Oxford Bibliographies in Evolutionary Biology. Edited by Jonathan B. Losos. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/abstract/document/obo-9780199941728/obo-9780199941728-0072.xml.
10. EBSCO. “Evolution: Gradualism vs. Punctuated Equilibrium.” Research Starters. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/health-and-medicine/evolution-gradualism-vs-punctuated-equilibrium.
11. Sober, Elliott. “Did Darwin Write the Origin Backwards?” In The Cambridge Companion to Darwin, edited by Jonathan Hodge and Gregory Radick, 119-139. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009. Published online by NCBI Bookshelf, NBK219718. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK219718/.
12. University of Reading. “Gradual Evolution is back.” News. February 2, 2022. https://www.reading.ac.uk/news/2022/Research-News/Gradual-Evolution-is-back.
13. Gilbert, Scott F. “The Embryological Origins of the ‘Hopeful Monster’.” In Developmental Biology, 6th edition. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates, 2000. NCBI Bookshelf, NBK10128. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK10128/.
14. University of Missouri Libraries. “The Modern Evolutionary Synthesis.” Special Collections & Exhibits. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://library.missouri.edu/specialcollections/exhibits/show/darwin/genes.
15. Charlesworth, Brian, Russell Lande, and Montgomery Slatkin. “A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution.” Evolution 36, no. 3 (1982): 474-498. Re-examined in “A neo-Darwinian commentary on macroevolution, 40 years later.” Evolution 76, no. 4 (2022): 669-673. Published on PMC, March 31, 2022. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8979413/.
16. Wikipedia. “Modern synthesis (20th century).” Last modified May 28, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_synthesis_(20th_century.
17. Saneda, T., and K. Field. “Modern Synthesis.” In Biological Anthropology. Social Sci LibreTexts, 2022. https://socialsci.libretexts.org/Bookshelves/Anthropology/Biological_Anthropology/Book%3A_Biological_Anthropology_(Saneda_and_Field)/I%3A_Evolutionary_Theory/1.7%3A_Modern_Synthesis.
18. Scoville, Heather. “What Is the Modern Synthesis of Evolutionary Theory?” ThoughtCo. Last updated August 27, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/modern-evolutionary-synthesis-1224613.
19. Wikipedia. “Alternatives to Darwinian evolution.” Last modified June 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution.
20. Wikipedia. “Alternatives to Darwinian evolution.” Last modified June 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution.
21. Adntro. “The theory of evolution throughout history.” Adntro Blog. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://adntro.com/en/blog/genetic-curiosities/theory-of-evolution-throughout-history/.
22. Quora. “What are some alternative theories to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution? Why do you think they are better than Darwin’s idea.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-alternative-theories-to-Darwins-Theory-of-Evolution-Why-do-you-think-they-are-better-than-Darwins-idea.
23. Georgiev, Georgi Y. “The self-organizing fractal theory as a universal discovery method: the phenomenon of life.” Biotechnology & Biotechnological Equipment 38, no. 1 (2024): 2409448. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13102818.2024.2409448.
24. Fowler, Thomas B., and Daniel Kuebler. “The Evolution Controversy: A Survey of Competing Theories.” Christian Scholar’s Review. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://christianscholars.com/the-evolution-controversy-a-survey-of-competing-theories/.
25. Open University. “A brief history of evolution.” OpenLearn. Last updated August 30, 2019. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-science-technology-and-medicine/history-science/brief-history-evolution.
26. University of British Columbia. “History of Evolutionary Thought.” Zoology 336 Lecture Notes. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~bio336/Bio336/Lectures08/Lecture%202%20History.pdf.
27. Wikipedia. “History of evolutionary thought.” Last modified June 11, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_evolutionary_thought.
28. Laubichler, Manfred D. “The History of Evolutionary Thought.” Essay for One Book, One Northwestern, The Reluctant Mr. Darwin. Northwestern University. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.northwestern.edu/onebook/the-reluctant-mr-darwin/essays/history_evo_thought.html.
29. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “Timeline of Evolutionary Theory.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/resources/timeline-of-evolutionary-theory/.
30. UC Museum of Paleontology. “History of Evolutionary Thought.” University of California, Berkeley. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html.
31. Quora. “What are the differences between Lamarck’s and Darwin’s theories on evolution? Why did one fail while the other succeeded.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-differences-between-Lamarcks-and-Darwins-theories-on-evolution-Why-did-one-fail-while-the-other-succeeded.
32. FuseSchool. “Lamarck vs Darwin | Theory of Evolution.” YouTube video, 3:45. May 26, 2017. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x73bsC7WIsE.
33. Gissis, Snait B., and Eva Jablonka, eds. Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Referenced in “Lamarck, Darwin, and the incredible shrinking theory.” EMBO Reports 20, no. 4 (2019): e48037. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6446194/.
34. Romanes, George John. “Lamarckism versus Darwinism.” Nature 41 (1890): 413. https://scispace.com/pdf/lamarckism-versus-darwinism-35uvux1o81.pdf.
35. Brégliano, Jean-Claude, and Antoine Danchin. “Lamarck and Darwin: two divergent visions of the living world.” Encyclopédie de l’environnement. Last updated February 1, 2018. https://www.encyclopedie-environnement.org/en/life/lamarck-and-darwin-two-divergent-visions-of-living-world-2/.
36. New England Complex Systems Institute. “Lamarck vs. Darwin.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://necsi.edu/lamarck-vs-darwin.
37. Wikipedia. “Lamarckism.” Last modified June 18, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism.
38. Fiveable. “Neo-Lamarckism.” Key Terms in History of Science. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/history-science/neo-lamarckism.
39. BA Notes. “Evolution: Neo-Lamarckism and Inherited Acquired Traits.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://banotes.org/biological-anthropology/evolution-neo-lamarckism-inherited-acquired-traits/.
40. Skinner, Michael K. “Environmental Epigenetics and a Unified Theory of the Molecular Aspects of Evolution: A Neo-Lamarckian Concept that Facilitates Neo-Darwinian Evolution.” Genome Biology and Evolution 7, no. 5 (2015): 1296–1302. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4453068/.
41. Vucinich, Alexander. Darwin in Russian Thought. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988. Chapter on “Neo-Lamarckism.” https://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft5290063h&chunk.id=d0e3612&toc.id=d0e3462&brand=ucpress.
42. Uller, Tobias, et al. “Developmental plasticity and the evolution of parental effects.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 374, no. 1764 (2019): 20180113. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2018.0113.
43. Wikipedia. “Orthogenesis.” Last modified May 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis.
44. Britannica. “Orthogenesis.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/science/orthogenesis.
45. Fiveable. “Orthogenesis.” Key Terms in History of Science. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/history-science/orthogenesis.
46. Anthroholic. “Orthogenesis or Progressive Evolution.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://anthroholic.com/orthogenesis-or-progressive-evolution.
47. American Psychological Association. “Orthogenesis.” APA Dictionary of Psychology. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://dictionary.apa.org/orthogenesis.
48. Grehan, John R. “Orthogenesis and Evolution.” Systematic Zoology 38, no. 4 (1989): 346-353. https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Grehan-2/publication/272577459_Orthogenesis_and_Evolution/links/55e8fbec08ae3e12184396fa/Orthogenesis-and-Evolution.pdf.
49. Encyclopedia.pub. “Saltation (biology).” Last updated October 12, 2022. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/28043.
50. Wikipedia. “Saltation (biology).” Last modified January 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology.
51. Reddit. “Difference between saltationism vs gradualism and punctualism?” r/evolution. Posted March 9, 2024. https://www.reddit.com/r/evolution/comments/1bb5s6g/difference_between_saltationism_vs_gradualism_and/.
52. Number Analytics. “The Impact of Saltationism on the Evolution of Species.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/impact-saltationism-evolution.
53. Tattersall, Ian. “Human evolution and the human fossil record.” Proceedings of the British Academy 106 (2000): 49-61. https://www.thebritishacademy.ac.uk/documents/3800/106p049.pdf.
54. Iranzo, J., J. Cuesta, S. Manrubia, and E. V. Koonin. “Quantifying the landscape of saltational evolution of genomes.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 116, no. 44 (2019): 22239-22244. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1909031116.
55. Wikipedia. “Symbiogenesis.” Last modified May 23, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis.
56. Ryan, Frank. “Darwin’s blind spot.” Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 96, no. 10 (2003): 516-517. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1079665/.
57. Cavalier-Smith, Thomas. “Symbiogenesis: Mechanisms, Evolutionary Consequences, and Systematic Implications.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 44 (2013): 145-172. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275487061_Symbiogenesis_Mechanisms_Evolutionary_Consequences_and_Systematic_Implications.
58. O’Malley, Maureen A. “Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 33 (2015): 10270-10277. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421389112.
59. Scoville, Heather. “What Is Symbiogenesis?” ThoughtCo. Last updated November 24, 2019. https://www.thoughtco.com/what-is-symbiogenesis-1224708.
60. Source not used in final report.
61. Wikipedia. “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.” Last modified October 15, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Theory_of_Molecular_Evolution.
62. Jablonka, Eva. “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press, 2023. https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/z7lx4w72.
63. Laland, Kevin N., et al. “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, no. 1813 (2015): 20151019. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4632619/.
64. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “What is the extended evolutionary synthesis?” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/.
65. Wikipedia. “Extended evolutionary synthesis.” Last modified June 18, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis.
66. Pievani, Telmo, and Emanuele Serrelli. “The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis: A Road Map to a Pluralistic and Multi-Level Evolutionary Biology.” New Ideas for the New Millennium, IssueLab, 2020. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/40950/40950.pdf.
67. Laland, Kevin N., et al. “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, no. 1813 (2015): 20151019. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019.
68. Wikipedia. “Developmental bias.” Last modified April 2, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_bias.
69. Wikipedia. “Developmental bias.” Last modified April 2, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_bias.
70. Number Analytics. “Ultimate Guide to Developmental Bias in Evolutionary Genetics.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-developmental-bias-evolutionary-genetics.
71. Picao-Osorio, Joao, et al. “Evolution of developmental bias explains divergent patterns of phenotypic evolution.” bioRxiv (2025). Preprint posted February 5, 2025. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2025.02.04.636455v1.
72. Levis, Nicholas A., and David C. Pfennig. “Developmental bias and the causes of adaptive radiation.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 12 (2024): 1453566. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11521891/.
73. Levis, Nicholas A., and David C. Pfennig. “Developmental bias and the causes of adaptive radiation.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 12 (2024): 1453566. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1453566/full.
74. Levis, Nicholas A. “Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current Challenges.” Genetics 215, no. 1 (2020): 1-12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198268/.
75. Levis, Nicholas A. “Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current Challenges.” Genetics 215, no. 1 (2020): 1-12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198268/.
76. Snell-Rood, E. C., et al. “Plasticity and evolution in a changing world.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 373, no. 1768 (2018): 20170422. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2018.0174.
77. Levis, Nicholas A. “Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current Challenges.” Genetics 215, no. 1 (2020): 1-12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198268/.
78. Wikipedia. “Phenotypic plasticity.” Last modified June 1, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenotypic_plasticity.
79. Pigliucci, Massimo, Crispin J. Murren, and Carl D. Schlichting. “Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation.” Journal of Experimental Biology 209, no. 12 (2006): 2362-2367. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2817147/.
80. Odling-Smee, John, Douglas H. Erwin, Eric P. Palkovacs, Marcus W. Feldman, and Kevin N. Laland. “Niche Construction Theory: A Practical Guide for Ecologists.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 88, no. 1 (2013): 3-28. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/669266.
81. Fogarty, Laurel. “Niche Construction.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press, 2023. https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/xyn6l8i3.
82. Scott-Phillips, Thomas C., et al. “Niche construction and the extended evolutionary synthesis.” Interface Focus 6, no. 6 (2016): 20160086. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4922671/.
83. Scott-Phillips, Thomas C., et al. “The niche construction perspective: A critical appraisal.” Evolution 68, no. 5 (2014): 1231-1243. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4261998/.
84. Wikipedia. “Niche construction.” Last modified May 14, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction.
85. Fiveable. “Niche Construction Theory.” Key Terms in Introduction to Cultural Anthropology. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/introduction-cultural-anthropology/niche-construction-theory.
86. Uller, Tobias, et al. “How development affects evolution.” Evolution 77, no. 2 (2023): 562-578. https://academic.oup.com/evolut/article/77/2/562/6955321.
87. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “Evolution of extra-genetic inheritance: a life-cycle perspective.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/project/inclusive-inheritance/evolution-of-non-genetic-inheritance-a-life-cycle-perspective/.
88. Jablonka, Eva, and Marion J. Lamb. “Inheritance Systems.” The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2021 Edition), edited by Edward N. Zalta. https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2021/entries/inheritance-systems/.
89. Heard, Edith, and Robert A. Martienssen. “Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: myths and mechanisms.” Cell 157, no. 1 (2014): 95-109. Referenced in “Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance: More Than a Myth.” Frontiers in Genetics 13 (2022): 885834. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8858334/.
90. Stotz, Karola. “Human nature and cognitive-developmental niche construction.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): 851. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4138557/.
91. Bonduriansky, Russell, and Troy Day. “Nongenetic Inheritance and Its Evolutionary Implications.” Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics 40 (2009): 103-125. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/full/10.1086/660911.
92. John Templeton Foundation. “Putting the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis to the Test.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.templeton.org/grant/putting-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis-to-the-test.
93. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “Why is the EES contentious?” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/why-is-the-ees-contentious/.
94. Coyne, Jerry. “Once again, a misguided article on why the theory of evolution is obsolete.” Why Evolution Is True (blog), June 29, 2022. https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2022/06/29/once-again-a-misguided-article-on-why-the-theory-of-evolution-is-obsolete/.
95. Levis, Nicholas A., and David C. Pfennig. “Developmental bias and the causes of adaptive radiation.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 12 (2024): 1453566. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1453566/full.
96. Wikipedia. “Developmental bias.” Last modified April 2, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_bias.
97. Uller, Tobias, et al. “Developmental bias and evolution: A regulatory network perspective.” Genetics 209, no. 4 (2018): 949-966. Referenced in “Developmental Bias and Evolution.” Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/developmental-bias-and-evolution/.
98. Levis, Nicholas A., and David C. Pfennig. “Developmental bias and the causes of adaptive radiation.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 12 (2024): 1453566. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11521891/.
99. Price, Trevor D., Anna Qvarnström, and Darren E. Irwin. “The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1523 (2003): 1433-1440. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1691402/.
100. Price, Trevor D., Anna Qvarnström, and Darren E. Irwin. “The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1523 (2003): 1433-1440. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1691402/.
101. Price, Trevor D., Anna Qvarnström, and Darren E. Irwin. “The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1523 (2003): 1433-1440. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2003.2372.
102. Price, Trevor D., Anna Qvarnström, and Darren E. Irwin. “The role of phenotypic plasticity in driving genetic evolution.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 270, no. 1523 (2003): 1433-1440. https://www.zoology.ubc.ca/~irwin/PDFs/Priceetal2003.pdf.
103. Fogarty, Laurel. “Niche Construction.” In The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences. MIT Press, 2023. https://oecs.mit.edu/pub/xyn6l8i3.
104. Wikipedia. “Niche construction.” Last modified May 14, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niche_construction.
105. Laland, K. N., F. J. Odling-Smee, and M. W. Feldman. “Niche construction, ecological inheritance, and cycles of contingency in evolution.” In The Role of Contingency in Evolution, edited by R. B. Singh, 117-126. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House, 1999. Referenced in PNAS 96, no. 18 (1999): 10242-10247. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.96.18.10242.
106. Number Analytics. “Niche Construction in Evolutionary Biology.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/niche-construction-evolutionary-biology.
107. Gapp, Katharina, et al. “Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance in mammals.” Epigenomes 7, no. 1 (2023): 120. https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/1/120.
108. Nilsson, E., et al. “Calling the question: what is mammalian transgenerational epigenetic inheritance?” Environmental Epigenetics 8, no. 1 (2022): dvac004. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10965103/.
109. Wikipedia. “Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance.” Last modified May 27, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transgenerational_epigenetic_inheritance.
110. Reik, Wolf, Wendy Dean, and Jörn Walter. “Epigenetic reprogramming in mammalian development.” Science 293, no. 5532 (2001): 1089-1093. Referenced in Human Molecular Genetics 14, suppl_1 (2005): R47-R56. https://academic.oup.com/hmg/article/14/suppl_1/R47/560895.
111. Gissis, Snait B., and Eva Jablonka, eds. Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011. Referenced in “Lamarck, Darwin, and the incredible shrinking theory.” EMBO Reports 20, no. 4 (2019): e48037. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6446194/.
112. Hayes, Brian. “Experimental Lamarckism.” American Scientist 90, no. 5 (2002): 404. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/experimental-lamarckism.
113. UC Museum of Paleontology. “Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck.” University of California, Berkeley. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/.
114. Burkhardt, Richard W. “Lamarck, evolution, and the inheritance of acquired characters.” Genetics 194, no. 4 (2013): 793-805. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3730912/.
115. Britannica. “Orthogenesis.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/science/orthogenesis.
116. Wikipedia. “Orthogenesis.” Last modified May 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis.
117. El-Hani, Charbel Niño. “Between the cross and the sword: the crisis of the gene-centric view of evolution.” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences 35, no. 4 (2013): 569-593. Referenced in “Orthogenesis and the Development of Evolutionary Theory.” Journal of the History of Biology 47, no. 3 (2014): 431-459. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24368232/.
118. Fiveable. “Orthogenesis.” Key Terms in History of Science. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://library.fiveable.me/key-terms/history-science/orthogenesis.
119. Theißen, Günter. “The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology.” Theory in Biosciences 124, no. 3-4 (2006): 349-369. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6750007_The_proper_place_of_hopeful_monsters_in_evolutionary_biology.
120. Theißen, Günter. “The proper place of hopeful monsters in evolutionary biology.” Theory in Biosciences 124, no. 3-4 (2006): 349-369. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17046365/.
121. Wikipedia. “Saltation (biology).” Last modified January 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology.
122. Theißen, Günter. “Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay.” Theory in Biosciences 128, no. 1 (2009): 43-51. http://evolocus.com/Publications/Theissen2009.pdf.
123. EBSCO. “Lynn Margulis.” Research Starters. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.ebsco.com/research-starters/biography/lynn-margulis.
124. Wikipedia. “Lynn Margulis.” Last modified June 10, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis.
125. Creed, Robert. “Revisiting Lamarck: A new look at an old idea.” Journal of Evolutionary Biology 26, no. 12 (2013): 2541-2544. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3840504/.
126. Wikipedia. “Lamarckism.” Last modified June 18, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism.
127. UC Museum of Paleontology. “Early Concepts of Evolution: Jean Baptiste Lamarck.” University of California, Berkeley. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://evolution.berkeley.edu/the-history-of-evolutionary-thought/1800s/early-concepts-of-evolution-jean-baptiste-lamarck/.
128. Burkhardt, Richard W. “Lamarck, evolution, and the inheritance of acquired characters.” Genetics 194, no. 4 (2013): 793-805. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254279660_Lamarck_Evolution_and_the_Inheritance_of_Acquired_Characters.
129. Wikipedia. “Stephen Jay Gould.” Last modified June 15, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Jay_Gould.
130. Korthof, Gert. “Stephen Jay Gould as a critic of orthodox neo-Darwinism.” Was Darwin Wrong? Accessed June 12, 2024. https://wasdarwinwrong.com/korthof63.htm.
131. Wikipedia. “Orthogenesis.” Last modified May 20, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthogenesis.
132. Sepkoski, David. “A More Modern Synthesis.” American Scientist 90, no. 5 (2002): 468. https://www.americanscientist.org/article/a-more-modern-synthesis.
133. Wikipedia. “Saltation (biology).” Last modified January 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology.
134. Number Analytics. “The Impact of Saltationism on the Evolution of Species.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/impact-saltationism-evolution.
135. Flegr, Jaroslav. “Saltationist evolution.” Frozen Evolution. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.frozenevolution.com/saltationist-evolution.
136. Theißen, Günter. “Saltational evolution: hopeful monsters are here to stay.” Theory in Biosciences 128, no. 1 (2009): 43-51. http://evolocus.com/Publications/Theissen2009.pdf.
137. Wikipedia. “Lynn Margulis.” Last modified June 10, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynn_Margulis.
138. Basile, Jonathan. “Symbioautothanatosis: Science as Symbiont in the Work of Lynn Margulis.” Síntesis 4, no. 2 (2021): 60-86. https://sintesis.uai.cl/index.php/intusfilosofia/article/view/359.
139. Sagan, Dorion. “From Empedocles to Symbiogenetics: Lynn Margulis’s Revolutionary Influence on Evolutionary Biology.” BioSystems 204 (2021): 104395. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/349479577_From_Empedocles_to_Symbiogenetics_Lynn_Margulis’s_revolutionary_influence_on_evolutionary_biology.
140. Sagan, Dorion, ed. Lynn Margulis: The Life and Legacy of a Scientific Rebel. White River Junction, VT: Chelsea Green Publishing, 2012. https://www.rizzoliusa.com/book/9781603584470/.
141. Hughes, Austin L. “The Neutral Theory of Evolution.” Inference: International Review of Science 1, no. 2 (2015). https://inference-review.com/article/the-neutral-theory-of-evolution.
142. Kimura, Motoo. “The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence.” Japanese Journal of Genetics 66, no. 4 (1991): 367-386. https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jjg/66/4/66_4_367/_article.
143. Kimura, Motoo. “The neutral theory of molecular evolution: a review of recent evidence.” Japanese Journal of Genetics 66, no. 4 (1991): 367-386. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1954033/.
144. Ohta, Tomoko. “Motoo Kimura.” Annual Review of Genetics 30 (1996): 1-5. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.genet.30.1.1.
145. Wikipedia. “Extended evolutionary synthesis.” Last modified June 18, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_evolutionary_synthesis.
146. Pigliucci, Massimo, and Andrea Finkelman. “The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: A Conceptual and Philosophical Debate.” BioScience 64, no. 5 (2014): 433-434. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/275113727_The_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis_Debate_Where_Science_Meets_Philosophy.
147. Pievani, Telmo, and Emanuele Serrelli. “The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis: A Road Map to a Pluralistic and Multi-Level Evolutionary Biology.” New Ideas for the New Millennium, IssueLab, 2020. https://www.issuelab.org/resources/40950/40950.pdf.
148. Laland, Kevin N., et al. “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, no. 1813 (2015): 20151019. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4632619/.
149. Monteiro, Antónia, et al. “A release from developmental bias accelerates morphological diversification in butterfly eyespots.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 117, no. 31 (2020): 18580-18588. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2008253117.
150. Hosen, M. J., et al. “Deeply conserved developmental constraints on phalangeal proportions in birds and turtles.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 110, no. 51 (2013): 20678-20683. https://www.pnas.org/doi/abs/10.1073/pnas.1315213110.
151. Number Analytics. “Ultimate Guide to Developmental Bias in Evolutionary Genetics.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.numberanalytics.com/blog/ultimate-guide-developmental-bias-evolutionary-genetics.
152. Levis, Nicholas A., and David C. Pfennig. “Developmental bias and the causes of adaptive radiation.” Frontiers in Cell and Developmental Biology 12 (2024): 1453566. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/cell-and-developmental-biology/articles/10.3389/fcell.2024.1453566/full.
153. Levis, Nicholas A. “Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current Challenges.” Genetics 215, no. 1 (2020): 1-12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198268/.
154. Fusco, Giuseppe, and Alessandro Minelli. “Phenotypic plasticity in development and evolution: facts and concepts.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, no. 1540 (2010): 547-556. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2817147/.
155. Pigliucci, Massimo, Crispin J. Murren, and Carl D. Schlichting. “Phenotypic plasticity and evolution by genetic assimilation.” Journal of Experimental Biology 209, no. 12 (2006): 2362-2367. https://journals.biologists.com/jeb/article/209/12/2362/9393/Phenotypic-plasticity-and-evolution-by-genetic.
156. Fusco, Giuseppe, and Alessandro Minelli. “Phenotypic plasticity in development and evolution: facts and concepts.” Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 365, no. 1540 (2010): 547-556. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2009.0267.
157. Scott-Phillips, Thomas C., et al. “Niche construction and the extended evolutionary synthesis.” Interface Focus 6, no. 6 (2016): 20160086. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4922671/.
158. Wikipedia. “Alternatives to Darwinian evolution.” Last modified June 20, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternatives_to_Darwinian_evolution.
159. Open University. “A brief history of evolution.” OpenLearn. Last updated August 30, 2019. https://www.open.edu/openlearn/history-the-arts/history/history-science-technology-and-medicine/history-science/brief-history-evolution.
160. UC Museum of Paleontology. “History of Evolutionary Thought.” University of California, Berkeley. Accessed June 12, 2024. https://ucmp.berkeley.edu/history/evothought.html.
161. Wikipedia. “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.” Last modified October 15, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Theory_of_Molecular_Evolution.
162. Britannica. “Orthogenesis.” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://www.britannica.com/science/orthogenesis.
163. Wikipedia. “Saltation (biology).” Last modified January 28, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saltation_(biology.
164. Wikipedia. “Symbiogenesis.” Last modified May 23, 2025. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symbiogenesis.
165. O’Malley, Maureen A. “Endosymbiosis and its implications for evolutionary theory.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112, no. 33 (2015): 10270-10277. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1421389112.
166. Wikipedia. “The Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution.” Last modified October 15, 2023. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Neutral_Theory_of_Molecular_Evolution.
167. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “Why is the EES contentious?” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/why-is-the-ees-contentious/.
168. Laland, Kevin N., et al. “The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions.” Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 282, no. 1813 (2015): 20151019. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4632619/.
169. Wikipedia. “Developmental bias.” Last modified April 2, 2024. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_bias.
170. Levis, Nicholas A. “Phenotypic Plasticity: From Theory and Genetics to Current Challenges.” Genetics 215, no. 1 (2020): 1-12. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7198268/.
171. Odling-Smee, John, Douglas H. Erwin, Eric P. Palkovacs, Marcus W. Feldman, and Kevin N. Laland. “Niche Construction Theory: A Practical Guide for Ecologists.” The Quarterly Review of Biology 88, no. 1 (2013): 3-28. https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/669266.
172. Stotz, Karola. “Human nature and cognitive-developmental niche construction.” Frontiers in Psychology 5 (2014): 851. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4138557/.
173. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. “Why is the EES contentious?” Accessed June 12, 2024. https://extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com/about-the-ees/why-is-the-ees-contentious/.