Consider the following passage excerpt:
"In the mid-twentieth century, evolutionary biologist Richard Goldschmidt proposed that major evolutionary innovations arise through sudden chromosomal reorganizations—a model initially ridiculed by mainstream biologists. While Goldschmidt's specific mechanistic hypothesis of macromutational saltation was undeniably flawed and deservedly abandoned due to a lack of empirical verification, his underlying contention that morphological divergence cannot be accounted for solely by the gradual accumulation of point mutations was remarkably perceptive. By contrast, the architects of the Modern Synthesis displayed an unfortunate dogmatism; in their rigid commitment to micromutational gradualism, they summarily brushed aside developmental processes as irrelevant to macroevolution, thereby creating an artificial conceptual impasse. Modern evolutionary developmental biology offers a far more sophisticated resolution: by illuminating how mutations in modular gene regulatory networks alter body plans without catastrophic disruption, contemporary researchers have constructed a compelling synthesis that appropriately sidesteps both Goldschmidt's mechanistic excesses and the neo-Darwinian framework's narrow gradualism."
Match each theoretical stance or school of thought mentioned in the passage with the phrase that most accurately characterizes the author's attitude toward it.
- Richard Goldschmidt's specific mechanistic hypothesis of macromutational saltationExplicit repudiation driven by demonstrable empirical deficiencies
- The Modern Synthesis architects' exclusion of developmental processesSharp censure for doctrinaire inflexibility and unwarranted dismissiveness
- Modern evolutionary developmental biology's gene regulatory frameworkCommendation for establishing a balanced, explanatory synthesis