Changes

The '''modern evolutionary synthesis''' is a school of [[evolution|evolutionary]] thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, [[Hugo de Vries|de Vries]]’ mutations, and studies in [[population genetics]].<ref name="roth">http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>

The '''modern evolutionary synthesis''' is a school of [[evolution]]ary thought which incorporates the concepts of natural selection, [[Hugo de Vries|de Vries]]’ mutations, and studies in [[population genetics]].<ref name="roth">http://creation.com/ariel-a-roth-biology-in-six-days</ref>

The [[creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. Ariel A. Roth, who holds a Ph.D. in biology from the [[University of Michigan]],  wrote concerning the modern evolution synthesis school of evolutionary thought:

The [[creation science|creation scientist]] Dr. Ariel A. Roth, who holds a Ph.D. in biology from the [[University of Michigan]],  wrote concerning the modern evolution synthesis school of evolutionary thought:

''See also:'' [[Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]

''See also:'' [[Recent clamour to revise the modern evolutionary synthesis]] and [[Theory of evolution and little consensus]]

In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July of 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi

In 2005, Massimo Pigliucci, in a book review for the prestigious science journal ''Nature'', wrote: "The clamour to revise [[Neo-Darwinism|neo-darwinism]] is becoming so loud that hopefully most practising evolutionary biologists will begin to pay attention. It has been said that science often makes progress not because people change their minds, but because the old ones die off and the new generation is more open to novel ideas."<ref name="arn">http://www.arn.org/blogs/index.php/literature/2008/07/25/how_much_of_evolutionary_theory_needs_fi</ref> In July 2008, Elizabeth Pennisi

wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />

wrote in the prestigous science journal ''Science'': "Seventy years ago, evolutionary biologists hammered out the modern synthesis to bring Darwin's ideas in line with current insights into how organisms change through time. Some say it's time for Modern Synthesis 2.0."<ref name="arn" />