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

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. One Sentence Summary: Twentieth century evolutionary disputes coalesced around Gould and Dawkins who both supported and then rejected Goldschmidt’s now favored chromosomal view. Main Text: There are two groups of hypotheses on the initiation of a branching process that can lead to new species. One group emphasizes the role of natural selection in changing gene frequencies so that species arrival is fundamentally no different than species survival. Macroevolution is merely extrapolated microevolution. It is challenged by a group that downplays the role of natural selection and posits non-genic discordance between members of a species. Macroevolution is not extrapolated microevolution. For some speciations one group may apply. For other speciations the other group may apply. Agreement is sought as to which initiation mechanisms are actually, rather than hypothetically, capable of originating species, and which are most likely to have operated in the general case (1-3).