[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

It's because you're not saying the same thing as the papers.

How can that be the case when I have supported everything I have said with the papers . Show me where something I said was different to the papers.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I'm not going to go over this again.

Good; that would be quite unnecessary.

Despite you claiming all is well, just like the papers say I suspect there is some resistance to the EES.

All is well; resistance to the EES is expected, it's resistance to a suggested change in structural approach, not to the science. Time will tell whether or not it is justified.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How can that be the case when I have supported everything I have said with the papers . Show me where something I said was different to the papers.

The papers don't support what you're saying. We've spent the majority of this thread telling you that. You simply ignore it or deny it.

 

[Speedwell]

I'm not going to go over this again. All I can say is that if this was a formal debate much of the attacks would have been censored. They prevented proper debate and sidetracked things. That to me is an unbalanced response and unjustified considering it began almost immediately before I had said much at all. Almost like it was pre-determined which makes me think when you mentioned confirmation bias who really had the bias. Like I said the EES is rarely acknowledged on this Forum which is telling itself. Despite you claiming all is well, just like the papers say I suspect there is some resistance to the EES.

I don't have any bias for or against EES. I'm not an expert in biology, just an interested layman. I have been aware of EES for some years and as much as I understand of it it appears to be an intriguing development. It may even lead to the re-conceptualization of evolution as some of its supporters claim. And yes, there is debate about it within evolutionary biology. Not about the science itself, which is the same for all parties, but how it is to be fitted into a comprehensive paradigm of evolution. That's my position on EES.

But you've been trying to pick a fight about it ever since you posted that Royal Society paper over in the Creation/Evolution forum and we agreed with you about it's content.

Your response was, "Most people only conceive evolution as natural section and random mutations." That falsehood, not EES itself, has been the basis of all subsequent discussion.

 

[stevevw]

Good; that would be quite unnecessary.

All is well; resistance to the EES is expected, it's resistance to a suggested change in structural approach, not to the science. Time will tell whether or not it is justified.

Fair enough I agree with this. Though I am unsure what you mean by science. Wouldnt a change in the structural approach requires a difference in science. IE, as mentioned the SET, views the EES forces as constraints to adaptive evolution. Whereas the EES sees these forces as actual causes of evolution. There is a difference in the interpretation and value which also means the scientific understanding is devalued.

A good example is the forces associated with social sciences (Inclusive inheritance). The SET does not really regard this as scientific when it comes to biological evolution. Whereas the EES makes it a central force, therefore, valuing the science as relevant to evolutionary change.

 

[Speedwell]

Fair enough I agree with this. Though I am unsure what you mean by science. Wouldnt a change in the structural approach requires a difference in science. IE, as mentioned the SET, views the EES forces as constraints to adaptive evolution. Whereas the EES sees these forces as actual causes of evolution. There is a difference in the interpretation and value which also means the scientific understanding is devalued.

Not constraint, but augmentation. Only the degree of augmentation is under discussion by evolutionary scientists..

A good example is the forces associated with social sciences (Inclusive inheritance). The SET does not really regard this as scientific when it comes to biological evolution. Whereas the EES makes it a central force, therefore, valuing the science as relevant to evolutionary change.

Not really.

But you gave the game away in your response to Gottservant this morning:

"Are you basically saying that the adaptive view of evolution where undirected and random modifications have created everything we see is not enough to account for what we see?"

EES is no more teleological than SET. That is not what the debate is about nor why "some people" resist it.

EES is not the 'droid you're looking for.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Fair enough I agree with this. Though I am unsure what you mean by science.

I mean making observations, forming hypotheses, and testing hypotheses.

Wouldnt a change in the structural approach requires a difference in science. IE, as mentioned the SET, views the EES forces as constraints to adaptive evolution. Whereas the EES sees these forces as actual causes of evolution. There is a difference in the interpretation and value which also means the scientific understanding is devalued.

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

A good example is the forces associated with social sciences (Inclusive inheritance). The SET does not really regard this as scientific when it comes to biological evolution. Whereas the EES makes it a central force, therefore, valuing the science as relevant to evolutionary change.

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

 

[stevevw]

Not constraint, but augmentation. Only the degree of augmentation is under discussion by evolutionary scientists.

I don't think you understand the EES properly. They state that the SET sees the EES forces as constraints and absences of adaptive evolution rather than separate evolutionary forces themselves. IE

For example, developmental bias is generally understood as imposing constraints on adaptive evolution (table 2), such as the limit on the absolute size of terrestrial arthropods imposed by breathing via a tracheal system. Constraints, so conceived, are causes of the absence of evolution; they might explain why adaptation has not occurred in a given circumstance, or why phenotypes are not globally optimal, but it is selection that gives directionality in evolution and explains adaptation.

This conception of bias is different from the traditional characterization of developmental constraints: rather than accounting for the absence of evolution or adaptation, developmental bias is also a source of adaptive variation. Developmental bias and niche construction are, in turn, recognized as evolutionary processes that can initiate and impose direction on selection.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Rather than being free to make any shape or number of teeth, it appears that natural selection is pushing species along a highly specific pathway created by the mechanisms of development. The existence of exceptions – rodents such as voles with different ratios of teeth – demonstrates that the old way of thinking (that developmental ‘constraints’ restrict selection) isn’t quite right. The effect of development is both subtler and more interesting: developmental mechanisms bias the landscape for selection, and help to determine which features evolve.

Science in flux: is a revolution brewing in evolutionary theory? | Aeon Essays

Not really.

What do you mean not really? It is common knowledge that the traditional view of evolution doesn't place the social sciences in high regard when it comes to evolution.

But you gave the game away in your response to Gottservant this morning:

"Are you basically saying that the adaptive view of evolution where undirected and random modifications have created everything we see is not enough to account for what we see?"

As I said that is from a completely different thread about God's influence. What has this got to do with the scientific debate we are having on the mechanisms of the EES. Once again a logical fallacy. It makes me question why you throw that in when it is totally irrelevant. Like you cannot discredit the science so you then attempt to discredit the person. Once again playing the person and not the ball.

Debaters should be able to keep topics separate. Are you saying because I have participated in debates about God's creation that I can never debate any science topics.

EES is no more teleological than SET. That is not what the debate is about nor why "some people" resist it.

How is the EES teleological. It is only based on science.

 

[stevevw]

I mean making observations, forming hypotheses, and testing hypotheses.

Isn't the EES based on a different hypothesis? Some say its a different paradigm altogether. IE evolution is more constructive in development and reciprocal with the EES rather than programmed to develop through genes with the SET. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments as with eth SET, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments.

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

So what about when the supporters of SET say the EES forces are not causes of evolution but only constraints or absences of why adaptive evolution doesn't always follow the adaptive view and therefore are not causes themselves.

 

[Speedwell]

As I said that is from a completely different thread about God's influence. What has this got to do with the scientific debate we are having on the mechanisms of the EES. Once again a logical fallacy. It makes me question why you throw that in when it is totally irrelevant. Like you cannot discredit the science so you then attempt to discredit the person. Once again playing the person and not the ball. Debaters should be able to keep topics separate. Are you saying because I have participated in debates about God's creation that I can never debate any science topics.

Gotcha! I didn't say anything about God or God's influence.

How is the EES teleological. It is only based on science.

You think it constrains or directs SET which you regard as "undirected and random."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Isn't the EES based on a different hypothesis? Some say its a different paradigm altogether. IE evolution is more constructive in development and reciprocal with the EES rather than programmed to develop through genes with the SET. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments as with eth SET, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments.

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

So what about when the supporters of SET say the EES forces are not causes of evolution but only constraints or absences of why adaptive evolution doesn't always follow the adaptive view and therefore are not causes themselves.

I don't think they say that, it's incoherent; only you say that.

 

[stevevw]

Gotcha! I didn't say anything about God or God's influence.

Of course you are. You often insinuate that any comment I make on science is motivated by my beliefs IE
Speedwell said in post 17
So what are you? Presumably, as a Christian, you must be some kind of a creationist--if not a biblical creationist. Your hero Susan Mazur is an apologist for ID; is that what you are? An IDist?

You think it constrains or directs SET which you regard as "undirected and random."

But that is not just about teleology. It is also about cause and effect which is determined by science. It is about matching the correct cause with the outcome and not assuming a cause which requires the science to determine the correct cause.

 

[stevevw]

No, that's a crude mischaracterization.

The papers don't seem to see this as a crude mischaracterization. They seem to explain the overarching differences in concept and interpretation with the EES to the SET as follows

In fact, the conceptual change associated with the EES is largely a change in the perceived relationship between genes and development: a shift from a programed to a constructive view of development. Although genes are fundamental to development and heredity, they are not causally privileged in either of these processes [9,129,130]. In the EES, the special evolutionary role of genes (and other components of development) is to be found in a mechanistic description of how DNA affects evolution of life cycles, and not by metaphors such as control, program or blueprint.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I don't think they say that it's incoherent; only you say that.

I think this is an accurate description of the basic conceptual differences between the EES and the SET as the papers say.

A traditional interpretation
Thus, while these phenomena (EES forces) demand evolutionary explanations, they do not themselves constitute valid, even partial, evolutionary explanations for organismal diversity and adaptation. For example, developmental bias is generally understood as imposing constraints on adaptive evolution (table 2), such as the limit on the absolute size of terrestrial arthropods imposed by breathing via a tracheal system. Constraints, so conceived, are causes of the absence of evolution; they might explain why adaptation has not occurred in a given circumstance, or why phenotypes are not globally optimal, but it is selection that gives directionality in evolution and explains adaptation.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

SET consistently frames these phenomena (EES forces) in a way that undermines their significance. For instance, developmental bias is generally taken to impose ‘constraints’ on what selection can achieve — a hindrance that explains only the absence of adaptation. By contrast, the EES recognizes developmental processes as a creative element, demarcating which forms and features evolve, and hence accounting for why organisms possess the characters that they do.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[Speedwell]

Of course you are. You often insinuate that any comment I make on science is motivated by my beliefs IE
Speedwell said in post 17
So what are you? Presumably, as a Christian, you must be some kind of a creationist--if not a biblical creationist. Your hero Susan Mazur is an apologist for ID; is that what you are? An IDist?


But that is not just about teleology. It is also about cause and effect which is determined by science. It is about matching the correct cause with the outcome and not assuming a cause which requires the science to determine the correct cause.

Maybe I have misunderstood you entirely, but what I think is,

that you look at SET as you understand it ("undirected and random") and don't see how it provides enough directed or goal-oriented change to account for the complexity and diversity of life as we know it. Is that right?

that you look at EES and think it may satisfy that deficiency. Is that right?

 

[VirOptimus]

The papers don't seem to see this as a crude mischaracterization. They seem to explain the overarching differences in concept and interpretation with the EES to the SET as follows

In fact, the conceptual change associated with the EES is largely a change in the perceived relationship between genes and development: a shift from a programed to a constructive view of development. Although genes are fundamental to development and heredity, they are not causally privileged in either of these processes [9,129,130]. In the EES, the special evolutionary role of genes (and other components of development) is to be found in a mechanistic description of how DNA affects evolution of life cycles, and not by metaphors such as control, program or blueprint.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I think this is an accurate description of the basic conceptual differences between the EES and the SET as the papers say.

A traditional interpretation
Thus, while these phenomena (EES forces) demand evolutionary explanations, they do not themselves constitute valid, even partial, evolutionary explanations for organismal diversity and adaptation. For example, developmental bias is generally understood as imposing constraints on adaptive evolution (table 2), such as the limit on the absolute size of terrestrial arthropods imposed by breathing via a tracheal system. Constraints, so conceived, are causes of the absence of evolution; they might explain why adaptation has not occurred in a given circumstance, or why phenotypes are not globally optimal, but it is selection that gives directionality in evolution and explains adaptation.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

SET consistently frames these phenomena (EES forces) in a way that undermines their significance. For instance, developmental bias is generally taken to impose ‘constraints’ on what selection can achieve — a hindrance that explains only the absence of adaptation. By contrast, the EES recognizes developmental processes as a creative element, demarcating which forms and features evolve, and hence accounting for why organisms possess the characters that they do.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

A few posts of yours that show that you are an ID/creationist proponent;

Why Evolution is True

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Can you stop the charade now?

 

[stevevw]

Maybe I have misunderstood you entirely, but what I think is,

that you look at SET as you understand it ("undirected and random") and don't see how it provides enough directed or goal-oriented change to account for the complexity and diversity of life as we know it. Is that right? that you look at EES and think it may satisfy that deficiency. Is that right?

I think its not as simplistic a view to say that the SET is just undirected (NS) and random processes (mutation). But primarily I agree that there is a lot of over-emphasis and assumption that Neo Darwinism alone can account for all the variety and complexity we see. (that is also reflected in the scientific literature).

It has long been acknowledged that the SET has lacked explanatory power to account for what we see. Gould and Lewontin spoke about this in their famous paper
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme"
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 They spoke about how there was an over-reliance on the adaptive view to explain everything in evolution.

So, therefore, it becomes important to look for evidence for what causes evolution. It makes sense to be open to all possible influences of what causes evolution. Now as time has gone by we are understanding better the role these other EES forces play and how they can influence evolutionary change and how they can account for that missing explanations. This doesn't reject the adaptive view it just determines what is responsible for causing evolution.

 

[Speedwell]

I think its not as simplistic a view to say that the SET is just undirected (NS) and random processes (mutation). But primarily I agree that the assumption that Neo Darwinism alone can account for all the variety and complexity we see.

Yet you have said it, insisted on it in the face of our denials.

It has long been acknowledged that the SET has lacked explanatory power to account for what we see. Gould and Lewontin spoke about this in their famous paper
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme"
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 They spoke about how there was an over-reliance on the adaptive view to explain everything in evolution.

And their work has long been accepted. That paper was published over forty years ago.

So, therefore, it becomes important to look for evidence for what causes evolution. Now as time has gone by we are understanding better the role these other EES forces play and how they can influence evolutionary change. This doesn't reject the adaptive view it just determines what is responsible for causing evolution.

So it is.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The papers don't seem to see this as a crude mischaracterization. They seem to explain the overarching differences in concept and interpretation with the EES to the SET as follows

In fact, the conceptual change associated with the EES is largely a change in the perceived relationship between genes and development: a shift from a programed to a constructive view of development. Although genes are fundamental to development and heredity, they are not causally privileged in either of these processes [9,129,130]. In the EES, the special evolutionary role of genes (and other components of development) is to be found in a mechanistic description of how DNA affects evolution of life cycles, and not by metaphors such as control, program or blueprint.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The resulting theoretical framework differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities. Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions, and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation. Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I think this is an accurate description of the basic conceptual differences between the EES and the SET as the papers say.

A traditional interpretation
Thus, while these phenomena (EES forces) demand evolutionary explanations, they do not themselves constitute valid, even partial, evolutionary explanations for organismal diversity and adaptation. For example, developmental bias is generally understood as imposing constraints on adaptive evolution (table 2), such as the limit on the absolute size of terrestrial arthropods imposed by breathing via a tracheal system. Constraints, so conceived, are causes of the absence of evolution; they might explain why adaptation has not occurred in a given circumstance, or why phenotypes are not globally optimal, but it is selection that gives directionality in evolution and explains adaptation.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

SET consistently frames these phenomena (EES forces) in a way that undermines their significance. For instance, developmental bias is generally taken to impose ‘constraints’ on what selection can achieve — a hindrance that explains only the absence of adaptation. By contrast, the EES recognizes developmental processes as a creative element, demarcating which forms and features evolve, and hence accounting for why organisms possess the characters that they do.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

It's clear that you think your interpretation is supported by the excerpts and quotes you post over and over again as if repeating them will make it true or exhaust us into agreeing. But, as I said previously, we've spent most of the thread explaining why we don't agree. What do you expect to change?

 

[VirOptimus]

It's clear that you think your interpretation is supported by the excerpts and quotes you post over and over again as if repeating them will make it true or exhaust us into agreeing. But, as I said previously, we've spent most of the thread explaining why we don't agree. What do you expect to change?

Thats what preachers do; preach.

 

[stevevw]

A few posts of yours that show that you are an ID/creationist proponent;

Why Evolution is True

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Natural selection v Intelligent design

Can you stop the charade now?

Wow, I didn't realize I had been debating for so long. I don't get what you are trying to say. Those posts are in threads that are about religion and science so of course people are going to have mixed views. This post is purely about the science so talk about ID or creation are going to be irrelevant and derail the thread. They are also old and as I said my views have evolved with time and education.

Once again you are making a logical fallacy in saying that because a person has a belief that they are discredited from talking about certain topics and when they do it is only because of their belief. That if they question the science it isn't because of the science but because of their belief. So are you saying that all people with a belief in God are not allowed to debate about certain topics because of their faith?

You fail to understand human nature and that people (all people) can have opposing views and decern the difference. The point is this thread is based on science so deal with the science. I am not appealing to supernatural forces but ones that can be supported by science. So talk about the science and tell me how the science is wrong like others have done.