[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Speedwell]

No, Steve is playing with a full deck, he's just not showing all his cards.

 

[stevevw]

Would 'causal contributors' make you happy? Whatever, that's semantic quibbling. I'm not going to get into another long and pointless debate with you - 'been there, done that.

Suffice to say that phenotype and environment dictate the outcome of natural selection. Different mechanisms of variation and adaptation take effect over different timescales; natural selection contributes to, and acts on, all of them.

Thank you for at least acknowledging these influences the EES mention and that natural selection can be guided by these influences. I rarely hear people acknowledge their role. That was my point that natural selection is not the only influence but is often given credit for all the changes we see which is an assumption and not fact. I know this from a number of debates in which adaptive explanations have been given for any and every phenotype throughout history and today.

I would like to ask considering the article posted below highlighting what the EES represents which states that the EES influences share the responsibility for generating variation.

Do you think there are times when natural selection is not responsible or bypassed when it comes to phenotype variation such as with development processes that produce well suited and integrated features that don't need selection or adaption. Or under niche construction where creatures make environments suitable for themselves rather than them having to be adapted to environments. Thus bypassing the need for selective evolution through gene change and adaptations through random mutations (Modern Synthesis).

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection).

Developmental bias and plasticity therefore play central roles in the EES as generators of novel, yet potentially functional and coordinated, phenotype variation.

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.

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.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

 

[stevevw]

No, Steve is playing with a full deck, he's just not showing all his cards.

So what do you think I am hiding.

 

[stevevw]

I’m saying your posts are rubbish.

Why, this can be an opportunity to show others why and support your assertions.

 

[stevevw]

Straw man - who is making it the 'be all and end all'?

I base this on two facts. 1) in the time I have been debating on CF I have never heard anyone every mention other forces for evolution than adaptive evolution by natural selection. Even you are minimizing the EES influences to just something that is controlled and subjected through NS in the end rather than being forces on par with NS.

As the quote I posted from your link explains, both SET and EES are studying the same mechanisms based on the same data. Your description misrepresents them.

You are missing the point as I mentioned earlier. Yes both views of evolution see the EES influences as part of evolution. But the difference is the SET view regards those influences as minor players, something that may constrain natural selection but still natural selection is the only force in evolution.

Whereas in the EES are saying they are actual causes of evolutionary change on par with NS. They can produce well adapted variation on their own without the need for NS having to select anything or for random mutations to produce variation. That is current disagreement between the traditionalists and the EES supporters and the distinction you keep missing.

IE
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

 

[VirOptimus]

Why, this can be an opportunity to show others why and support your assertions.

Its obvious if one reads your posts, I dont need more support than that.

 

[stevevw]

Its obvious if one reads your posts, I dont need more support than that.

I am not asking why in regards to your criticisms of me. I am asking why you think my posts on the EES are rubbish. Because at the moment all your doing is criticizing the person and not participating in the thread. Why even come into this thread if that's the case. That is not in the spirit of debate.

So I will ask you again what are you views on the EES. Do you agree or disagree that there are other forces in evolution that can diminish the role of natural selection.

 

[SelfSim]

... Do you agree or disagree that there are other forces in evolution that can diminish the role of natural selection.

Why do you keep using the term: 'forces'?
A force in physics is defined as having a direction .. which has no relevance in evolution.
Also, natural selection doesn't 'oppose' anything either, so there's nothing to 'diminish' ...(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thank you for at least acknowledging these influences the EES mention and that natural selection can be guided by these influences. I rarely hear people acknowledge their role. That was my point that natural selection is not the only influence but is often given credit for all the changes we see which is an assumption and not fact. I know this from a number of debates in which adaptive explanations have been given for any and every phenotype throughout history and today.

I would like to ask considering the article posted below highlighting what the EES represents which states that the EES influences share the responsibility for generating variation.

Do you think there are times when natural selection is not responsible or bypassed when it comes to phenotype variation such as with development processes that produce well suited and integrated features that don't need selection or adaption. Or under niche construction where creatures make environments suitable for themselves rather than them having to be adapted to environments. Thus bypassing the need for selective evolution through gene change and adaptations through random mutations (Modern Synthesis).

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection).

Developmental bias and plasticity therefore play central roles in the EES as generators of novel, yet potentially functional and coordinated, phenotype variation.

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.

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.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

I have explained what I think of your interpretation of this topic, and I'm sorry that you seem unable to understand it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I base this on two facts. 1) in the time I have been debating on CF I have never heard anyone every mention other forces for evolution than adaptive evolution by natural selection. Even you are minimizing the EES influences to just something that is controlled and subjected through NS in the end rather than being forces on par with NS.

When people explain the fundamentals of evolution on a forum like CF, they have to generalise and simplify; so they describe basic principles. But various evolutionary mechanisms have been described or discussed at times.

I have not minimized 'EES influences'. This is just another example of misinterpreting or misunderstanding what you read.

 

[Speedwell]

So what do you think I am hiding.

The reason that you support Suzan Mazur as a beacon of truth about the Altenberg conference even though the attendees have denounced her account of it.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not asking why in regards to your criticisms of me. I am asking why you think my posts on the EES are rubbish. Because at the moment all your doing is criticizing the person and not participating in the thread. Why even come into this thread if that's the case. That is not in the spirit of debate.

So I will ask you again what are you views on the EES. Do you agree or disagree that there are other forces in evolution that can diminish the role of natural selection.

If you understood evolution at all you would understand why your posts are "rubbish." Natural selection selects from amongst varied phenotypes. It has no influence on how variation is produced--which is what EES is about. It is not a "force" or an entity, it is merely a fact of life. Creatures are born, they interact with their environment, and those that are more successful at it are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are less successful. That will happen no matter how the variations between individuals are generated. So explain to me how you think that process can be "diminished" by changing the way variation is generated.

 

[stevevw]

I have explained what I think of your interpretation of this topic, and I'm sorry that you seem unable to understand it.

I am asking you for your views on the specific quotes I posted above not a complete explanation. In light of what the papers say do you think the EES forces diminish natural selections role and can bypass it altogether in producing well suited adaptive variations.

 

[stevevw]

The reason that you support Suzan Mazur as a beacon of truth about the Altenberg conference even though the attendees have denounced her account of it.

I am not making Suzan Mazur some beacon of truth. I merely said she was a non-creationists so that cannot be used against her. I quoted what the scientists said which was a fact. But I fail to understand how this makes the rest of the papers of the EES false in what they say when they support the same things. Read them for yourself. But still this is avoiding debating the content. All I see is attacks on people and sources which are fallacies.

So I will pose the same simple question. In light of what the papers say do you think the EES forces diminish natural selections role and can bypass it altogether in producing well suited adaptive variations.

 

[Speedwell]

I am not making Suzan Mazur some beacon of truth. I merely said she was a non-creationists so that cannot be used against her. I quoted what the scientists said which was a fact. But I fail to understand how this makes the rest of the papers of the EES false in what they say when they support the same things. Read them for yourself. But still this is avoiding debating the content. All I see is attacks on people and sources which are fallacies.

So I will pose the same simple question. In light of what the papers say do you think the EES forces diminish natural selections role and can bypass it altogether in producing well suited adaptive variations.

No. And if you think that is what EES is proposing you have failed to understand it. Natural selection does not produce variants. It tests all variations, even if they were tailored for reproductive success by some other process than classical random variation.

 

[stevevw]

If you understood evolution at all you would understand why your posts are "rubbish." Natural selection selects from among varied phenotypes. It has no influence on how variation is produced--which is what EES is about.

I never said natural selection produces variation. I understand perfectly well that Natural Selection (NS) acts on variation. I have said this in earlier posts. I have said that standard evolutionary synthesis (SET) views random mutation as the source of variation and that selection weeds out the variation that is unsuitable for the environment leaving those variations that can adapt to changing environments. I compared this against the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) by saying how can NS act on the variation from the EES when it is already well suited, integrated and adaptive. That the EES produces variations that don't need selecting in the sense that they are selected by the creatures themselves or don't contain unsuitable or non-beneficial variations thus NS has little to do but refine things and go along with what has already been presented.

It is not a "force" or an entity, it is merely a fact of life.

See I get two different claims here, one says its not a force and another from experts in the field that say it is. Who am I to think that the experts may know what they are talking about. So how can this be rubbish unless you want to say that the experts are talking rubbish. I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. This is from the experts.

Michael Lynch is a well known and top evolutionary scientist focusing on population genetics. He states
First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (1859b) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection
The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

Here is an article from Nature Education. That’s the well known scientific journal Nature.com and they teach evolution.
Natural selection results in organisms that are more likely to survive and reproduce. Another driving force behind evolution is genetic drift
evolution | Learn Science at Scitable
In other words another driving force besides natural selection is genetic drift.

The papers on the EES influences also refer to these as forces
The researchers also argue that natural selection isn't necessarily the primary force in evolution - the limitations of development and the environments organisms live in can also play a role.

A NCT framework recognizes that the niche-altering activities of humans, and partner species, are not simply adaptive responses to environmentally induced selective pressures, but are instead dynamic evolutionary forces (Odling-Smee et al. 2013: 17).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evolution-20161122

Creatures are born, they interact with their environment, and those that are more successful at it are more likely to survive and reproduce than those who are less successful. That will happen no matter how the variations between individuals are generated. So explain to me how you think that process can be "diminished" by changing the way variation is generated.

On that basis I agree with you. But my point is how the variation is produced and how it is preserved. The EES differs and disagrees with the SET in saying that random mutations and NS are the main and only way evolution happens. That gathering evidence shows that the EES influences are more prominent than thought and are also causes of evolution which can direct natural selection sometimes bypassing it altogether.

To be clear I am not saying that random mutations and NS are not at work, just the degree and role they play. Is this not the basis for what the EES is saying and if so how am I getting things wrong .

 

[stevevw]

No.

Is that because you cant or because you don't want to. I am not sure you really understand the EES.

And if you think that is what EES is proposing you have failed to understand it. Natural selection does not produce variants. It tests all variations, even if they were tailored for reproductive success by some other process than classical random variation.

I fully understand this. You are misunderstand what the EES is saying. It is saying that the variation that is being produced does not need selecting in the sense of adaptive evolution. That's all I am saying. It is non adaptive in that unlike the SET where there is a range of variation which includes non-beneficial and unsuitable variations that natural selection needs to test as you say to weed out the unsuitable and leave the suitable as far as adapting to environments.

The EES puts the creature in control. Instead of being adapted to environments they can change environments to suit them. In that sense they are doing the selecting. The EES produces variation that is well suited and integrated in the first place and already adaptive. In that sense it is the development system doing the selecting. In some way you could say that natural selection can put its rubber stamp on those already well suited variations but that really overlooks the point of what the EES is saying.

It is saying that unlike adaptive evolution that makes living things passive and only dependent on adaptations to survive that living things are more involved and can dictate what happens through their own actions and their pre-existing mechanisms that can better ensure their survival.[/quote][/QUOTE]

 

[stevevw]

When people explain the fundamentals of evolution on a forum like CF, they have to generalise and simplify; so they describe basic principles. But various evolutionary mechanisms have been described or discussed at times.

I have not minimized 'EES influences'. This is just another example of misinterpreting or misunderstanding what you read.

I am pretty sure I am not misunderstanding things. I am also pretty sure that in my experience at least on this site that the EES has never or rarely been discussed or acknowledged and that every explanation for evolutionary variation has been given an adaptive explanation without consideration for any other influence.

When I say adaptive I mean they say that random variations will gradually throw up some benefit which NS will preserve for adaptive fit and this same process has produced all the features and complexity from from the beginning to now.

Another confirmation is that non-religious and mainstream evolutionary scientists also acknowledge this distinction between SET and the EES in that there are two camps and those who support SET refuse to see the EES as nothing more than minor issues and not causes of evolution. Ye supporters of the EES see it as causes of evolution that direct and control NS.

Nevertheless I have to ask a basic question to clarify that 1) you understand what is involved here and that 2) I am also ensuring that what the papers say, "is what they mean". So that is why I am asking this basic question " do you think the EES is saying that there are other influences on par with natural selection that are non-adaptive and that these influences have the potential to bypass or minimize and control the influence of NS.

 

[VirOptimus]

I am pretty sure I am not misunderstanding things. I am also pretty sure that in my experience at least on this site that the EES has never or rarely been discussed or acknowledged and that every explanation for evolutionary variation has been given an adaptive explanation without consideration for any other influence.

When I say adaptive I mean they say that random variations will gradually throw up some benefit which NS will preserve for adaptive fit and this same process has produced all the features and complexity from from the beginning to now.

Another confirmation is that non-religious and mainstream evolutionary scientists also acknowledge this distinction between SET and the EES in that there are two camps and those who support SET refuse to see the EES as nothing more than minor issues and not causes of evolution. Ye supporters of the EES see it as causes of evolution that direct and control NS.

Nevertheless I have to ask a basic question to clarify that 1) you understand what is involved here and that 2) I am also ensuring that what the papers say, "is what they mean". So that is why I am asking this basic question " do you think the EES is saying that there are other influences on par with natural selection that are non-adaptive and that these influences have the potential to bypass or minimize and control the influence of NS.

We know your position is only based on your religion, not on science.

Why cant you simply admit that? Why the dishonesty?

 

[stevevw]

We know your position is only based on your religion, not on science.

How is this not science
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.

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.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The above paper comes from the Royal Society Biological sciences so you cant get much more scientific than that. Unless you want to call them liars as well.

Why cant you simply admit that? Why the dishonesty?

Because it is not my views I am posting but scientific fact so how is it lying. To say that everything I have said and posted is all a lie is ridiculous and offensive. As I have said I am not fussed about what version evolution takes. It doesn't matter to my faith as God can use whatever he chooses.

The point is non-religious evolutionary scientists support the EES. Are you saying they are also biased and tainted with some belief. You cant keep discrediting scientific facts through ad hominem logical fallacies. you did this in another thread and you have a history of doing this to other people. If you cannot engage in the thread with constructive contributions then I suggest you desist from commenting.