Speciation: Goldschmidt's Heresy, Once Supported by Gould and Dawkins, is Again Reinstated

TL;DR

This paper argues for reinstating Goldschmidt's chromosomal view of speciation, supported by historical, theoretical, and recent biological evidence, challenging the dominant gene-centric perspective.

Contribution

It revisits and supports Goldschmidt's heresy of chromosomal speciation using historical context, modeling, and recent biological data, challenging the gene-centric view.

Findings

Historical support for chromosomal speciation models

Modeling studies affirm non-genic mechanisms of speciation

Recent biological evidence aligns with Goldschmidt's chromosomal view

Abstract

The view that the initiation of branching into two sympatric species may not require natural selection emerged in Victorian times (Fleeming Jenkin, George Romanes, William Bateson). In the 1980s paleontologist Steven Jay Gould gave a theoretical underpinning of this non-genic "chromosomal" view, thus reinstating Richard Goldschmidt's "heresy" of the 1930s. From modelling studies with computer-generated "biomorphs," zoologist Richard Dawkins also affirmed Goldschmidt, proclaiming the "evolution of evolvability." However, in the 1990s, while Gould and Dawkins were recanting, bioinformatic, biochemical and cytological studies were providing a deeper underpinning. In 2001 this came under attack from leaders in the field who favored Dawkins' genic emphasis. Now, with growing evidence from multiple sources, we can reinstate again Goldschmidt's view and clarify its nineteenth century roots.