Actually those who support the EES are saying that the relegation of the forces that the EES highlight to being subtle and making little difference is what they are trying to dispel. That is is what part of the problem is in that natural selection is being highlighted at the expense of these other forces.I think you are confused about what I'm saying. I am not attacking Massimo. I have a great deal of respect for him.
I don't know enough about biology to really even understand the differences being discussed. I understand what kin selection is, and I was under the impression that it can be comfortably accommodated in the existing framework. So my reaction to the OP is that, from my perspective, whether one side or the other wins, the differences are so subtle that I probably won't be able to even tell the difference.
The standard evolutionary theory has minimized these additional forces to the sidelines as little or no consequence and to being something that may constrain NS. Whereas the EES elevates forces like developmental bias and plasticity, niche construction, and non-genetic inheritance as causes of evolution like NS and in fact, can direct the course of what NS can and cannot do. So the issue is determining what role NS plays if any in some situations.
The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
The incorporation of new data into the existing conceptual framework of evolutionary biology may explain why calls for an EES are often met with skepticism; even if the topics discussed above were historically neglected, there is now a substantial amount of research dedicated to them. However, for a second group of evolutionary researchers, the interpretation given in the preceding section underestimates the evolutionary implications of these phenomena (Table 2). From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes [90]. Hence, the EES entails not only new research directions but also new ways to think about, and interpret new and familiar problems in evolutionary biology.
The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution, one of the oldest controversies in evolutionary biology (e.g. [116,117]). In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.
The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that the EES is more than simply an extension of ‘business as usual’ science: it requires conceptual change [15]. The additional evolutionary processes that the EES highlights are more than just non-essential ‘add-ons’ [10] and may be as important in shaping evolution as those recognized within the field over the past century.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
Last edited:
Upvote
0