Citation: Sandvik, H. (2000) A new evolutionary synthesis: do we need one? Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 205.

DOI: 10.1016/S0169-5347(00)01846-2 [what’s a doi?].

Key words: Nomothetic science, law of nature, idiographic science, spatiotemporal singularity, taxon individuality, Linnean category.

Abstract: A reply to Carroll (2000) in which I show that his reasons for demanding a new evolutionary synthesis are mistaken. He does not realise the distinction between nomothetic and idiographic sciences (no synthesis will ever be able to predict evolutionary history!), and he does not realise that "phyla", "classes" etc. are arbitrary constructs rather than objective entities.

Full text: © 2000 Elsevier Science. If you accept (i) that further reproduction, and all further use other than for personal research is subject to permission from the publisher (Elsevier Science), and (ii) that printouts have to be made on recycled paper, you may download the article here (pdf, 0.1 MB).

Response: Carroll has replied to my letter,
– Carroll, R. L. (2000) A new evolutionary synthesis: reply from R. Carroll. Trends in Ecology and Evolution, 15, 205–206.


[back / tilbake]