New Scientist has devoted much of their September 26th issue to Evolution, but not in a good way. Their emphasis is on 13 ways that we must rethink evolution. Readers of this blog are familiar with this theme because New Scientist is talking about the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES)—a series of critiques of the Modern Synthesis in an attempt to overthrow or extend it [The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis - papers from the Royal Society meeting].

My main criticsm of EES is that its proponents demonstrate a remarkable lack of understanding of modern evolutionary Theory and they direct most of their attacks against the old adaptationist version of the Modern Synthesis that was popular in the 1950s. For the most part, EES proponents missed the revolution in evolutionary theory that occrred in the late 1960s with the development of Neutral Theory, Nearly-Neutral Theory, and the importance of random genetic drift. EES proponents have shown time and time again that they have not bothered to read a modern textbook on population genetics.

The articles in New Scientist cover all the usual EES suspects: plasticity, epigenetics, Lamarckian evolution, niche construction, evolvability, and development. They also cover some new topics like cultural group selection and natural induction along with some genuine issues like genetic drift and horizontal gene transfer. I not going to address the classic EES topics because I've discussed them many times in the past and because Jerry Coyne is eviserating them one-by-one on his website/blog [see: The intellectual vacuity of New Scientist’s evolution issue: 3. The supposed importance of epigenetics in evolution].

The purpose of this post is to demonstrate that the editors and writers at New Scientist are conflating evolution with natural selection and "The Theory of Evolution" with Darwin's Theory of Natural Selection. In the next post I will try and explain why random genetic drift is an important part of modern evolutionary theory and why Jerry Coyne gets it wrong in his recent post: The intellectual vacuity of New Scientist’s evolution issue: 4. The supposed importance of genetic drift in evolution.

Here's how the editors of New Scientist describe The Theory of Evolution [The theory of evolution is a vibrant, living entity still in its prime] ...

The theory of evolution is one of the greatest accomplishments of the human intellect. Some might argue that it is the greatest, although quantum theory or relativity would have their supporters too. But in the biological sciences, it stands unrivalled. It is no less than the grand unified theory of life.

It is also a theory in the truest sense of the word: an interlocking and consistent system of empirical observations and testable hypotheses that has never failed scrutiny. Nothing has even been discovered that falsifies any part of it, despite strenuous efforts by detractors. It all stacks up.

Yet we should resist the temptation to think that evolution is carved in tablets of stone. The radical but irresistible ideas put forward by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1859 remain the core of the theory, yet it has constantly accommodated new knowledge. This happened most conspicuously about a century ago, when the new science of genetics was melded with natural selection to create what became known as the “modern synthesis”.

Today, we are arguably in the midst of another upgrade.

And here's how they describe evolution in the introduction to the main articles [Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature] ....

Our modern conception of evolution started with Charles Darwin and his idea of natural selection – “survival of the fittest” – to explain why certain individuals thrive while others fail to leave a legacy. Then came genetics to explain the underlying mechanism: changes in organisms caused by random mutations of genes.

Now this powerful picture is changing once more, as discoveries in genetics, epigenetics, developmental biology and other fields lend a new complexity and richness to our greatest theory of nature.

You know immediately when someone doesn't understand evolution as soon as they start talking about The Theory of Evolution as if there was only one theory that covers all of evolution [Don't call it "The Theory of Evolution"]. It's clear that the editors are talking about natural selection as the theory. It's clear that, to them, the Modern Synthesis represents simply the fusion of natural selection with genetics and that this represent the current view—the one that's under attack. They have no idea that the Modern Synthesis is effectively dead. It was killed fifty years ago [Debating philosophers: The Modern Synthesis] [Is the "Modern Synthesis" effectively dead?].