Editing Brian Goodwin (section)

==Reception==
Biologist [[Gert Korthof]] has praised the research of Goodwin commenting he tried to "improve Darwinism in a scientific way."<ref>[http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho23.htm "How the Leopard Changed Its Spots"]. Retrieved 2014-04-25.</ref> [[David B. Wake]] has also positively reviewed Goodwin's research describing him as a "thoughtful scientist, one of the great dissenters from the orthodoxies of modern evolutionary, genetic and developmental biology".<ref>[[David B. Wake|Wake, David B]]. (1996). ''How the Leopard Changed Its Spots: The Evolution of Complexity by Brian Goodwin''. ''[[American Scientist]]''. Vol. 84, No. 3. pp. 300-301.</ref>

Goodwin had argued that [[natural selection]] was "too weak [a] force" to explain evolution and only operated as a filter mechanism. He claimed that modern evolutionary biology failed to provide an explanation for the theory of biological form and had ignored the importance of [[morphogenesis]] in evolution. He claimed to provide a new evolutionary theory to replace neo-Darwinism. In a critical review, biologist Catherine S. C. Price noted that although he had succeeded in providing an alternative to mutation as the only source of variation, he failed to provide an alternative to natural selection as a mechanism of adaptation.<ref name="Price 1995">Price, Catherine S. C. (1995). ''Structurally Unsound''. ''[[Evolution (journal)|Evolution]]''. Vol. 49, No. 6. pp. 1298-1302.</ref> Price claimed Goodwin's "discussion of evolution is biased, insufficiently developed and poorly informed", and that he misrepresented Darwinism, used [[straw man]] arguments and ignored research from [[population genetics]].<ref name="Price 1995"/>

The evolutionary biologist [[Günter P. Wagner]] described Goodwin's structuralism as "a [[pseudoscience|fringe]] movement in evolutionary biology".<ref name=Wagner2014>[[Günter P. Wagner|Wagner, Günter P.]], ''Homology, Genes, and Evolutionary Innovation''.  Princeton University Press. 2014. Chapter 1: The Intellectual Challenge of Morphological Evolution: A Case for Variational Structuralism. Page 7</ref>