What Were The Four Primary Research Questions/Unknowns, Shaped The Modern Synthesis?

1. What were the four primary research questions/unknowns, the answers to which, shaped the Modern Synthesis? Explain what each question involved exactly.

2. What key figures contributed to each of the questions? For each individual, explain how their work contributed helped to address the outstanding questions and, hence, shape the synthesis.

3. What are the primary tenets of the Modern Synthesis? What is explicitly left out of the synthesis that was a part of Darwin’s original theory?

During what Julian Huxley termed the "Eclipse of Darwin," biologists came to accept the basic premise of evolution but failed to find agreement on the processes that made it possible. While Charles Darwin's On the Origin of Species provided a sufficient argument

Absent from this synthesis is the influence of Lamarck, whose Law of Use and Disuse was crucial to Darwin's original theories. In its selective incorporation of ideas and emphasis on genes and the individual, it has recently found itself in a Kuhnian crisis because it fails to explain the roles of epigenetics, group selection, and culture. Today, it seems that these new dimensions of the evolutionary puzzle have resurrected the ideas of the heretofore discredited Jean Baptiste and helped to rally cries for a new, extended synthesis.

4. What is meant by an ‘inertial reference frame’?

5. What is Galileo’s Principle of Relativity? State what it says. An inertial reference frame refers to a state of shared, constant motion. Galileo's Principle of Relativity states that all of the laws of motion operate the same within an inertial reference frame. What this means is that if a set of objects shares the same state of motion, whether in a field of grass situated on a planet rotating and revolving around the sun or inside the cabin of a boat sailing in the ocean, the laws of motion will act the same between those

A crisis begins when new discoveries are made that do not fit the paradigm and normal science begins to improvise. Normal science gets murky as some conduct experiments following along the lines of new findings to map out new solutions. According to Kuhn, this is typically not a surprise, but rather comes during a series of incompatible discoveries or disappointments in the shortcomings of the existing paradigm. However, in spite of those anomalies and defects, a crisis does not always halt scientific work. Normal science will continue in spite of these new findings and try to course correct so as to accommodate or extend the paradigm in order to fit new information. In the face of incompatibility, scientists will either try to reconcile the anomalies within the paradigm or pass the buck, calling for new tools and methods to be developed in order to study them better. These steps will either re-establish and strengthen the paradigm or give way to a new paradigm that can accommodate new