[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You said that "developmental plasticity, niche construction, and inclusive inheritance are all the result of genetic variation and natural selection, and their generational outputs are all subject to natural selection."

Yet the EES papers clearly say that for example niche construction and inclusive inheritance can produce variations that can be inherited without gene change. The fact that inclusive inheritance is also known as non-genetic inheritance shows this is the case.

That is not a contradiction. Natural selection still operates - organisms that make beneficial changes in their environment have a selective advantage. Organisms whose symbiomes change balance beneficially have a selective advantage - and vice-versa.

As already explained, this is a categorisation (and definitional) issue; should the symbiome be considered part of the organism, or the environment, or both? Is evolution more than just the change in gene frequencies of populations? and so-on.

You're not seeing the wood for the trees.

 

[stevevw]

That is not a contradiction. Natural selection still operates - organisms that make beneficial changes in their environment have a selective advantage. Organisms whose symbiomes change balance beneficially have a selective advantage - and vice-versa.

Then why do the EES papers say that natural selection is bypassed altogether in certain situations?

In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

There still seems to be a lack of recognition of the EES. It's not just about NS still being included but the amount of credit and power NS is given at the expense of other EES forces.

The point is the SET makes NS the only determining factor for preserving and thus producing adaptive and heritable variation. Because variation under the SET is randomly produced through genes NS becomes the determining force that sorts and selects what is an adaptive benefit. But the EES forces can produce a nonrandom adaptive variation that is heritable because variations produced are from nonrandom processes. They can bias, diminish, and bypass NS which spreads the emphasis from 1 force (NS) to several making the EES forces on par with NS or a replacement for NS.

So it is not so much a case that NS is not at work but that it is always promoted as the only force working on its own for the production of adaptive and heritable variation. When science shows there are other forces. Not acknowledging this is misleading and takes away from the EES. Even you said this when you claim that NS is always the only force at work in determining adaptive and heritable variation.

As already explained, this is a categorization (and definitional) issue; should the symbiome be considered part of the organism, or the environment, or both? Is evolution more than just the change in gene frequencies of populations? and so-on.

You're not seeing the wood for the trees.

OK but then not acknowledging this and continuing to promote the one interpretation is misleading and biased towards one view of evolution. The issue is the category, definition, or concepts given to evolution channel how people think and is what determines the direction the science takes. It determines what is investigated, what insights and hypotheses are made. It determines the language used and this determines what will be focused on.

The point is that the supporters of the SET are restricting those categories and definitions to a narrow and certain view when the science is there that supports an expansive view. This continued restrictive view of evolution is part of why the continued adaptive view based on gene change and NS is being promoted this leads to a devaluing of the science supporting the EES and why the EES is being pushed. The science is what should lead the way and not the personal views of supporters of a particular assumption of evolutionary cause.

 

[VirOptimus]

Then why do the EES papers say that natural selection is bypassed altogether in certain situations?

In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

There still seems to be a lack of recognition of the EES. It's not just about NS still being included but the amount of credit and power NS is given at the expense of other EES forces.

The point is the SET gives NS the only emphasis. It is regarded as the only determining factor for preserving and thus producing adaptive and heritable variation. Because variation under the SET is randomly produced NS becomes the determining force for evolution. But the EES forces can bias, diminish, and bypass NS which spreads the emphasis from 1 force to several making the EES forces on par with NS. The variation produced by the EES forces can be adaptive and heritable sometimes without genes so this de-emphasizes the SET view and NS.

So it is not so much a case that NS is not at work but that it is always promoted as the only force working on its own for the production of adaptive and heritable variation. When there are other forces that can make NS a non-force or bias and minimize its influence. Not acknowledging this is misleading and takes away from the EES. Even you said this when you claim that NS is always the only force at work in determining adaptive and heritable variation.

OK but then not acknowledging this and continuing to promote the one interpretation is misleading and biased towards one view of evolution. The issue is the category, interpretation, or definition given to evolution is what determines the direction the science takes. It determines what is investigated, what insights and hypotheses are made.

The point is that the supporters of the SET are restricting those categories and definitions to a narrow and certain view when the science is there that supports a widening and expansion. The continued restriction of evolution is part of why the continued adaptive view based on gene change and NS is being promoted.

Try to write an article for peer-review with your "take" on the ToE, if you cant, well then your views dont matter.

We have seen through your wall-of-text blatherings.

 

[stevevw]

Try to write an article for peer-review with your "take" on the ToE, if you cant, well then your views dont matter.

We have seen through your wall-of-text blatherings.

I don't need to write a peer review article because the wall of text as you refer to is from peer-reviewed articles already written by experts much more knowledgable on evolution and the EES than you or I. All I am doing is relaying their papers to you to digest and take or leave.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't need to write a peer review article because the wall of text as you refer to is from peer-reviewed articles already written by experts much more knowledgable on evolution and the EES than you or I. All I am doing is relaying their papers to you to digest and take or leave.

No, you are mis-quoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding as has been pointed out all though your posting history.

So your "take" is very much not supported by peer-reviews.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then why do the EES papers say that natural selection is bypassed altogether in certain situations?

In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

It's a question of timescales; the variation they're describing is form of phenotypic adaptation that precedes the genetic assimilation that eventually fixes it in the population - IOW it is contingent and temporary.

From the EES Glossary:

Plasticity-first evolution: a mechanism of adaptive evolution in which environmental induction leads to developmental reorganization and production of a novel developmental variant that is accommodated by individual phenotypes. If the environmental stimulus is recurrent, the phenotype will be refined and stabilized by genetic accommodation.

Genetic accommodation: gene frequency change due to selection on variation in the regulation, form, or side effects of the novel trait in the subpopulation of individuals that express the trait.

Genetic assimilation: a form of ‘genetic accommodation’ that occurs when natural selection causes environmentally induced (i.e. plastic) phenotypes to lose their environmental sensitivity over evolutionary time.​

[my bolding]

This is not rocket science. You simply need to understand how the topics described in the EES relate to the SET.

The point is that the supporters of the SET are restricting those categories and definitions to a narrow and certain view when the science is there that supports an expansive view.

Not really. This has already been explained.

Enough!

 

[stevevw]

No, you are mis-quoting, misrepresenting and misunderstanding as has been pointed out all though your posting history.

So your "take" is very much not supported by peer-reviews.

How am I not understanding the papers on the Extended Evolutionary Theory (EES)? What they are basically saying is that there needs to be an expansion of the Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET). This is based on

1) that the SET takes a more narrow view of evolution based on restricting variations to genes caused by random mutations and that natural selection (NS) is the sole cause of adaptive variation.

2) that the EES expands that view by including other forces such as developmental bias, developmental plasticity, niche construction, and inheritance beyond genes that can cause adaptive and beneficial variations sometimes bypassing/diminishing and biasing NS and therefore directing the course of evolution. That these additional variations can be heritable other than genes.

The EES papers clearly state this and there is no doubt about it. I have posted ample support for this within those so-called walls of text blabberings you assert. I cannot see what the big deal is.

This is even set out in a table in the papers
Table 1 from The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions | Semantic Scholar

 

[VirOptimus]

How am I not understanding the papers on the Extended Evolutionary Theory (EES)? What they are basically saying is that there needs to be an expansion of the Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET). This is based on

1) that the SET takes a more narrow view of evolution based on restricting variations to genes caused by random mutations and that natural selection (NS) is the sole cause of adaptive variation.

2) that the EES expands that view by including other forces such as developmental bias, developmental plasticity, niche construction, and inheritance beyond genes that can cause adaptive and beneficial variations sometimes bypassing/diminishing and biasing NS and therefore directing the course of evolution. That these additional variations can be heritable other than genes.

The EES papers clearly state this and there is no doubt about it. I have posted ample support for this within those so-called walls of text blabberings you assert. I cannot see what the big deal is.

This is even set out in a table in the papers
Table 1 from The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions | Semantic Scholar

Q.E.D.

 

[stevevw]

Q.E.D.

What does Q.E.D. mean.

 

[stevevw]

It's a question of timescales; the variation they're describing is form of phenotypic adaptation that precedes the genetic assimilation that eventually fixes it in the population - IOW it is contingent and temporary.

From the EES Glossary:

Plasticity-first evolution: a mechanism of adaptive evolution in which environmental induction leads to developmental reorganization and production of a novel developmental variant that is accommodated by individual phenotypes. If the environmental stimulus is recurrent, the phenotype will be refined and stabilized by genetic accommodation.

Genetic accommodation: gene frequency change due to selection on variation in the regulation, form, or side effects of the novel trait in the subpopulation of individuals that express the trait.

Genetic assimilation: a form of ‘genetic accommodation’ that occurs when natural selection causes environmentally induced (i.e. plastic) phenotypes to lose their environmental sensitivity over evolutionary time.​

[my bolding]

This is not rocket science. You simply need to understand how the topics described in the EES relate to the SET.

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I did understand this and mentioned it earlier in the thread. Natural Selection does work together with the EES forces and that is an important distinction of the EES but there are also situations where NS is minimized, and biased which I have already mentioned. Technically NS can be bypassed in other ways because the variation produced is already adaptive and well suited. Though I agree that in the end, NS is still the determining factor that variation is tested with and able to be preserved.

 

[VirOptimus]

What does Q.E.D. mean.

Heh, that figures.

 

[stevevw]

Heh, that figures.

I think I worked it out. You are saying that what I just posted just proved your argument. Which from what you said was that I misquoted, misrepresented, and misunderstood the paper. Yet when we check what I said compared to the paper I basically summarised the structural differences straight from the paper, IE

I said
1) that the SET takes a more narrow view of evolution based on restricting variations to genes caused by random mutations and that natural selection (NS) is the sole cause of adaptive variation.

The EES paper says

The structure of the SET
A widely accepted definition of evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, which, to many evolutionary biologists, restricts evolutionary processes to those that directly change gene frequencies—natural selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation. Only selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation are consistently described as evolutionary processes and coverage of developmental bias, plasticity, inclusive inheritance, and niche construction is at best modest (e.g. [95]) and, more commonly, absent [96,97].

I said
2) that the EES expands that view by including other forces such as developmental bias, developmental plasticity, niche construction, and inheritance beyond genes that can cause adaptive and beneficial variations sometimes bypassing/diminishing and biasing NS and therefore directing the course of evolution. That these additional variations can be heritable other than genes.

The EES paper says

The structure of the EES.
The EES includes as evolutionary causes processes that generate novel variants, bias selection, modify the frequency of heritable variation (including, but not restricted to, genes) and contribute to inheritance. A variety of developmental processes (e.g. epigenetic effects, regulation of gene expression, construction of internal and external developmental environments) contribute to the origin of novel phenotypic variation, which may be viable and adaptive (i.e. ‘facilitated variation’). In addition to accepted evolutionary processes that directly change gene frequencies, the EES recognizes processes that bias the outcome of natural selection, specifically developmental bias and niche construction. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity and some forms of inclusive inheritance, are potential sources of bias.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The above pretty well is exact to what I said. There is no misinterpretation or misquoting as it is an exact summary of the structure of the EES and the SET set out in the paper. It is not rocket science and I don't know why you are so resistant to acknowledge what the papers are saying.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Thanks for taking the time to explain things. I did understand this and mentioned it earlier in the thread.

The things you posted strongly suggested you did not understand this, which is why I explained where you were going astray.

Natural Selection does work together with the EES forces and that is an important distinction of the EES but there are also situations where NS is minimized, and biased which I have already mentioned. Technically NS can be bypassed in other ways because the variation produced is already adaptive and well suited.

You clearly still haven't grasped what this is all about. There are no competing 'forces', and natural selection is not 'bypassed' on evolutionary timescales. There is a complex and variable process; putting it very crudely, people are trying to decide how to conceptually partition it and on what timescales. I don't want to keep repeating this.

 

[stevevw]

The things you posted strongly suggested you did not understand this, which is why I explained where you were going astray.

Actually I do understand this and mentioned it earlier in this thread IE even though the EES forces like plasticity may produce well-suited and adaptive variations in the end, natural selection will still rubber-stamp these changes. But I query exactly what that means as technically some of the EES forces actually do a similar job to NS. The point is I don’t think people understand the full implication of what the EES forces like plasticity, niche construction, extra inheritance, and development can do.

The reason why NS is emphasized under the SET is that the variation produced is random and needs to be tested and sorted by NS. That gives NS the pre-eminent and determining power to preserve adaptive variations and therefore is said to cause and direct evolution.

But what if the variations produced by the EES forces are already suitable, beneficial making them adaptive. What role does NS play then. As far as what causes and directs evolution, NS becomes superfluous as in these situations the EES forces become the determining factor that cause and direct evolution and not NS. In that sense NS is biased and its role is minimized and even bypassed in some cases. Yes technically NS will sill rubber stamp these variations but NS is not really causing or directing evolution. The EES papers state this in clear language IE

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.

Natural selection remains a key factor of the EES, but its roles are reinterpreted. In the MS, at least in its bare bones interpretations, organismal shape and structure were regarded entirely as products of external selection, and the directionality of evolutionary change was supposed to result from natural selection alone. In the EES, besides the expanded range of selection to multiple levels of organization, the generative properties of developmental systems are viewed as responsible for producing phenotypic specificity, whereas natural selection serves to release that developmental potential.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The above implies that EES forces like developmental processes produce specific and coordinated new variations that are already well suited and adaptive. In this sense, it is the EES forces that are causing and directing evolution and NS only serves to release these.

The best way to explain this is with an example

The adaptive complementarity of earthworms and soils results to a large extent from the worms changing the soil through niche construction, rather than natural selection changing the worms to typical terrestrial physiology. Attributing all causal significance to natural selection, by treating earthworm soil-processing as solely proximate causes linearizes causation, and thereby fails to capture the reciprocal nature of causation in evolution.
What's wrong with the theory of evolution by natural selection? - Quora

The SET doesn't recognize the role lining things and developmental processes play in causing and directing evolution. The ability to create an adaptive fit between a creature and their environments directs evolution and not NS. NS's role is to preserve variations that prove adaptive to environments. EES forces create variations that are adaptive to environments.

The interesting thing here is that the EES forces show that the variations produced are often a response to environments where the changes are not random therefore well suited and integrated. Whereas under the SET variation is random and needs to be tested and sorted so that magnifies NS role. When the variation is non-random and already sorted and is well suited then as far as what causes and directs evolution this diminishes NS's role.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Actually I do understand this and mentioned it earlier in this thread IE even though the EES forces like plasticity may produce well-suited and adaptive variations in the end, natural selection will still rubber-stamp these changes. But I query exactly what that means as technically some of the EES forces actually do a similar job to NS. The point is I don’t think people understand the full implication of what the EES forces like plasticity, niche construction, extra inheritance, and development can do.

The reason why NS is emphasized under the SET is that the variation produced is random and needs to be tested and sorted by NS. That gives NS the pre-eminent and determining power to preserve adaptive variations and therefore is said to cause and direct evolution.

But what if the variations produced by the EES forces are already suitable, beneficial making them adaptive. What role does NS play then. As far as what causes and directs evolution, NS becomes superfluous as in these situations the EES forces become the determining factor that cause and direct evolution and not NS. In that sense NS is biased and its role is minimized and even bypassed in some cases. Yes technically NS will sill rubber stamp these variations but NS is not really causing or directing evolution. The EES papers state this in clear language IE

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.

Natural selection remains a key factor of the EES, but its roles are reinterpreted. In the MS, at least in its bare bones interpretations, organismal shape and structure were regarded entirely as products of external selection, and the directionality of evolutionary change was supposed to result from natural selection alone. In the EES, besides the expanded range of selection to multiple levels of organization, the generative properties of developmental systems are viewed as responsible for producing phenotypic specificity, whereas natural selection serves to release that developmental potential.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The above implies that EES forces like developmental processes produce specific and coordinated new variations that are already well suited and adaptive. In this sense, it is the EES forces that are causing and directing evolution and NS only serves to release these.

The best way to explain this is with an example

The adaptive complementarity of earthworms and soils results to a large extent from the worms changing the soil through niche construction, rather than natural selection changing the worms to typical terrestrial physiology. Attributing all causal significance to natural selection, by treating earthworm soil-processing as solely proximate causes linearizes causation, and thereby fails to capture the reciprocal nature of causation in evolution.
What's wrong with the theory of evolution by natural selection? - Quora

The SET doesn't recognize the role lining things and developmental processes play in causing and directing evolution. The ability to create an adaptive fit between a creature and their environments directs evolution and not NS. NS's role is to preserve variations that prove adaptive to environments. EES forces create variations that are adaptive to environments.

The interesting thing here is that the EES forces show that the variations produced are often a response to environments where the changes are not random therefore well suited and integrated. Whereas under the SET variation is random and needs to be tested and sorted so that magnifies NS role. When the variation is non-random and already sorted and is well suited then as far as what causes and directs evolution this diminishes NS's role.

Steve, this has all been explained already. If you have some specific questions about evolution we may be able to answer them for you or point you to suitable resources.

 

[VirOptimus]

Steve, this has all been explained already. If you have some specific questions about evolution we may be able to answer them for you or point you to suitable resources.

He will just repeat that he understands and that all other are in error.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He will just repeat that he understands and that all other are in error.

You're probably right, but there's no harm making the offer.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, this has all been explained already. If you have some specific questions about evolution we may be able to answer them for you or point you to suitable resources.

Can you link the posts which explained this again sorry? I cannot remember getting a detailed explanation for the above. That would help a lot. Thanks.

 

[stevevw]

You're probably right, but there's no harm making the offer.

Thank you for engaging.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Can you link the posts which explained this again sorry? I cannot remember getting a detailed explanation for the above. That would help a lot. Thanks.

This whole thread is one long explanation. The bigger picture is more important than the details.