Abstract

The historical reconstruction of the origins of the Neutral Theory of Molecular Evolution (NTME) has been seen purely as an extension of a long-held theoretical debate between the classical and balance schools of Population Genetics. In this perspective, the NTME is but a different interpretation of the then recently published data on high intrapopulation genetic variability. In this paper we try to show that this thesis is deficient and partially incorrect. We show that the sources for the construction and development of the NTME are more varied than this traditional account. We support the Dietrich Historical Thesis, which is the view that different versions of the NTME (Kimura, and King and Jukes) show different kinds of experimental and theoretical support and coincide in recognizing the importance of the then new molecular experimental approach and of its comparative results in evolutionary biology. We stress this case to show the limits of the traditional approach in history and philosophy of science that emphasizes the theoretical activities of scientists and the theoretical characterization of disciplines