Steve, any chance of you giving examples of the posts in this thread you say are trying to discredit the EES?
Apart from the obvious discrediting of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) in post
Post #65 which says that the EES is 'woo' there are a number of posts that indirectly discredit the EES. This is based on the fact that the posters are either not bothering to understand the EES or are denying its full implications and thus discrediting it.
This comes from two basic reasons that I see repeated throughout the posts.
1) despite acknowledgment of the EES forces there is still a reluctance to see them as
independent evolutionary causes. The language used in posts is still along the lines of the standard view which is primarily about adaptive evolution (variations through mutation, gene change, and natural selection). That the EES forces themselves are the result of natural selection (NS) and not independent evolutionary causes on par with gene change and NS as causes. In other words, the standard view is still maintained at the expense of the EES forces thus discrediting the EES.
For example
Post #32. I said that supporters of the Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET) minimized and underestimate the EES forces and see them as
constraints to NS and explanations for the absence of adaptive evolution through NS. Whereas the EES forces are actually causing evolution on par gene change and NS. This was seen by the poster
"as a fictional caricature of the SET and EES".
The poster also said that
"all parties acknowledge these factors as contributors to evolution", (IE EES forces) but they qualified this by saying
"but all are subject to NS", (all being the EES forces and their outcomes). They also claimed the evidence was inconclusive for the EES.
My contention is that despite the claims that the standard view acknowledges the EES forces
it doesn’t really acknowledge the EES forces because nothing has really been changed. This is qualified with the traditionalist language still being used like
”but all are subject to NS" in how the EES is seen by posters and in mainstream literature. For example, most of the EES paper say the following along similar lines
but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. On the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
Plus, despite claims that evidence for the EES is inconclusive this also doesn't seem to be the case.
Indeed, a growing number of challenges to the classical model of evolution have emerged over the past few years, such as from evolutionary developmental biology [16], epigenetics [17], physiology [18], genomics [19], ecology [20], plasticity research [21], population genetics [22], regulatory evolution [23], network approaches [14], novelty research [24], behavioural biology [12], microbiology [7] and systems biology [25], further supported by arguments from the cultural [26] and social sciences [27], as well as by philosophical treatments [28–31]. None of these contentions are unscientific, all rest firmly on evolutionary principles and all are backed by substantial empirical evidence.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
Plus evidence that the EES forces are not just merely constraints and explanations for the absence of NS but forces in their own right that cause evolution on par with the adaptive view of gene theory and NS. That they can diminish and even bypass NS in the process of producing well suited and adaptive variations is here.
Explaining the origin of adaptations requires understanding how pre-existing developmental processes generate heritable phenotypic variants from genetic, epigenetic, and environmental inputs. Developmental bias and plasticity, therefore, play central roles in the EES as generators of novel, yet potentially functional and coordinated, phenotypic variation.
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.
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.
The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution. 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.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
Particular forms of phenotypic change are taken as the result of internal generative conditions rather than external pruning. Thus, a significant amount of explanatory weight is shifted from external conditions to the internal properties of evolving populations. In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation in many individuals of a population at once and long before natural selection may become effective.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
Other posts along similar lines such as
Post #104 where the poster said they were not denying the EES forces as evolutionary causes but then said it wasn’t helpful to view evolution through this narrow casual way (narrow way as in including the EES forces). That the cause of evolution is heritable variation in populations combined with NS.
IMO and as far as the evidence from the EES papers this is discrediting the EES because what the poster basically described is the traditionalist's view of evolution that the EES papers were saying they dispute.
Including the EES as causes actually expand the evolutionary view not narrow it. That’s why it’s called the (Expanded Evolutionary Synthesis). The EES forces are seen as alternative and additional causes of evolution on par and sometimes instead of the traditionalist's view of heritable variations caused by genes (random mutations) and NS.
* The same poster questioned how variations can happen without genetic change.
* Denied Niche construction as an evolutionary force in its own right by saying the Modern Synthesis (MS) treats it as separate and not a cause.
* Denied inheritance beyond genes as a valid cause of evolution.
As far as I understand the EES provides evidence that the EES forces can produce heritable variation without gene change and adaptive evolution (NS). By not acknowledging the EES forces and calling the EES a narrowing of the evolutionary view it is discrediting the EES. I have provided support for this above and again here.
Biological inheritance is typically defined as the transmission of genes from parents to offspring. However, it is increasingly recognized that there are multiple mechanisms that contribute to heredity [59–61]. Parent-offspring similarity occurs not only because of the transmission of DNA but because parents transfer a variety of developmental resources that enable reconstruction of developmental niches [60,62–65].
More generally, the EES recognizes that the evolutionary process has a capacity for ‘bootstrapping’ such that prior evolution can generate supplementary information-supplying and adaptation-generating evolutionary processes, expressed in plasticity, learning, non-genetic inheritance, niche construction, and culture. 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 programmed 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].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
Other similar posts
Post #63 was similar again
. In response to my claim that the EES can produce non-genetic heritable change, the poster asks how non-adaptive heritable change can even happen. This shows either a lack of understanding and appreciation for the EES as it clearly states that non-adaptive heritable change can happen.
Post #71 I said that the difference between the SET and the EES is that variations are not produced by NS acting on random mutations to get an adaptive fit. The poster said,
“it is the same process for the EES and the SET that produces variation”. I cannot see how this is the case when the EES papers clearly state that there are a number of different evolutionary causes that produce variation in the EES and that some are well suited and have adaptive fit therefore are not the result of random mutations and NS. IE check support already given from EES papers.
Post #89 is another that minimizes the EES by denying that not many of the EES papers mention how there is a big difference in the EES and the SET.
Here are other similar posts #126, #127 and #100,
I won't go into the 2nd point as it is sort of covered in the above which was that posters like in mainstream literature make the standard or traditionalists view of evolution through adaptations based on gene change and NS the prominent view and in doing this they deny and discredit the EES. I won't link evidence for this as I already have above and earlier in this post. But will link the relevant posts.
Post #39,
I said that some make NS the be-all and end-all in pointing out how some determine evolution by the adaptive view through NS which is given prominence as the main and only cause of evolutionary change. I was told by the poster in reply that this claim was a straw man and asked who is making it the be-all and end-all.
The point is the EES papers are stating this and the lack of recognition that the papers state this is a denial of what the EES is saying. If there is a dispute that this is not the case then evidence needs to be supplied. An important clarification needs to be made here. This is not about the personal views of posters alone but the general view as explained in the EES papers so that needs to be addressed. I have given ample support for this.
Post #124,
mentions a similar quote where I stated that most people conceive evolution as by random mutations and natural selection. The poster states that this is a falsehood and not what the EES says about the SET.
Regards
Steve
