Abstract
Current unease over the adequacy of neo-Darwinism as an explanation of many evolutionary events has led to a refurbishing of ideas expressed during the 1940s (and later) by Richard Goldschmidt; these include the concepts of "macromutations" and "hopeful monsters." Because Goldschmidt's ideas in their original form were defined, tested, and found wanting, a revival of their descriptive labels generates confusion and should be discouraged. Many persons who are opposed to neo-Darwinism believe that much of molecular genetics lies outside the conceptual framework of population genetics; this belief is wrong. As a branch of genetics, population genetics embraces (indeed, must embrace) molecular findings, many of which have already been incorporated into the fabric of population and evolutionary genetics.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
