[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

To close to home?

What do you mean to close to home. Here we have scientific thinkers who also hold a belief in God and come to the same conclusion as I. Yet no one is jumping on them and questioning their motives for what they say in regards to science.

 

[VirOptimus]

What do you mean to close to home. Here we have scientific thinkers who also hold a belief in God and come to the same conclusion as I. Yet no one is jumping on them and questioning their motives for what they say in regards to science.

That you dont see the difference is very telling.

But I’m right, and you know it. Dont understand why you cant be honest about your motives.

 

[stevevw]

That you dont see the difference is very telling.

But I’m right, and you know it. Don't understand why you can't be honest about your motives.

But what I am interested in is why a person's motives negate the scientific facts. Are you saying anyone who has religious belief then has religious motives in their thinking and that therefore disallows them to speak on scientific matters? That you dismiss any comments for religious people on scientific matters because of this religious motive.

 

[VirOptimus]

But what I am interested in is why a person's motives negate the scientific facts. Are you saying anyone who has religious belief then has religious motives in their thinking and that therefore disallows them to speak on scientific matters? That you dismiss any comments for religious people on scientific matters because of this religious motive.

Science is about describing physical reality, mixing it with religion makes it not science.

 

[stevevw]

Science is about describing physical reality, mixing it with religion makes it not science.

That is obvious. So how have I mixed the science with religion in this thread?

 

[VirOptimus]

That is obvious. So how have I mixed the science with religion in this thread?

You have a prefered outcome, you only post this to indirectly try to support your religious view. You are not a scientist, you are a preacher.

Everyone versed in science see this.

 

[stevevw]

I found it telling that the people who literally wrote the book on niche construction (Odling-Smee, Laland, & Feldman: "Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution" - Monographs in Population Biology #37) say that it transforms the sources of natural selection,

Yes transforms the sources of natural selection to the point that the source itself determines its adaptive fit rather than natural selection. In other words, it has done the job of NS. In the SET NS determines which random variation provides an adaptive fit between the creature and the environment. Under the EES the creature itself through EES forces like niche construction and developmental processes determines the adaptive fit either through its own actions or through developmental processes designed to produce the adaptive fit.

You can say NS needs to come in later and give the change a rubber stamp but the adaptive fit has already been produced.

which is clearly very different from the repeated claim in this forum that 'EES says that' niche construction and the other 'EES forces' are causally 'on a par' with natural selection (a claim, incidentally, nowhere to be found in the quoted articles).

This suggests that the fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process - the relationship between heritable variation and natural selection, pointed out early on, still persists.

Then why would the EES authors including the above refer to Niche construction and the other EES forces like this

Another distinctive feature of the EES is its recognition that adaptation can arise through both natural selection and internal and external constructive processes.
and
In addition, in the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, and causation does not run solely in one direction from the external environment to populations and, instead of a single inheritance mechanism, several modes of transmission exist between generations.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

So it seems adaptive variation can arise both through natural selection (NS) and internal and external constructive processes (EES forces such as niche construction and development). Natural selection isn't the only way adaptive variation can happen. Isn't that just another way of saying the EES forces and NS are both on the same level, they both contribute?

According to the EES site which Laland is part of niche construction is seen as on par with NS as a cause of evolutionary change. IE

When explaining adaptation, is niche construction equivalent to natural selection?

Advocates consider (internally and externally expressed) constructive processes, such as niche construction, to be of the same explanatory importance as natural selection

NCT argues that niche construction is a distinct evolutionary process, potentially of equal importance to natural selection.

there are now sufficient data to warrant a rethink, and to recognize as evolutionary processes a new category of phenomena that systematically bias the action of selection, which includes niche construction, but also “developmental bias” (Arthur 2004; Müller 2007).
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Even the predictions of the EES state that the EES forces are on the same level as NS as far as the cause of evolution is concerned. Prediction 6 says

adaptation can be caused by natural selection, environmental induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning, and cultural transmission (see: Baldwin effect, meme, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ecological inheritance, non-Mendelian inheritance)[4]
Error - Cookies Turned Off

This example probably explains things the best in how niche construction can produce an adaptive fit between a creature and the environment just like NS can do.

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 a 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.

The pertinent point in the above is that niche construction can produce adaptive fit to environments 'rather than natural selection'. Therefore it is another source of adaptive variation just like natural selection. The other important point here is that this emphasis on the EES forces being additional sources of adaptive variations besides natural selection is contrasted against natural selection being the only source according to the mainstream view. The SET sees variation as being the produce of genetic mutations and the adaptation of variation only being caused by NS.

Under the EES both the product of variations and variation being made adaptive can happen in the one process at the same time because some variation is produced with an adaptive fit as a response to environmental pressure through either the creature's developmental processes or by the creature itself changing the environment to suit. That is where the confusion comes in because people don't equate that the variation is already adaptive and therefore is doing the job of NS as well.

Even though technically NS still needs to rubberstamp these variations that are already adaptive. In other words, they are already made adaptive before NS even gets involved. In this sense, the EES forces are the same as NS even though they are different processes.

The other thing to consider is that these processes are often intertwined where NS and the EES forces can work together. Who can determine what % is because of NS and what is the result of the EES forces? Sometimes NS may be more prominent and other times the EES forces. It's not a clear and straight forwards situation.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes transforms the sources of natural selection to the point that the source itself determines its adaptive fit rather than natural selection. In other words, it has done the job of NS. In the SET NS determines which random variation provides an adaptive fit between the creature and the environment. Under the EES the creature itself through EES forces like niche construction and developmental processes determines the adaptive fit either through its own actions or through developmental processes designed to produce the adaptive fit.

You can say NS needs to come in later and give the change a rubber stamp but the adaptive fit has already been produced. Then why would the EES authors including the above refer to Niche construction and the other EES forces like this

Another distinctive feature of the EES is its recognition that adaptation can arise through both natural selection and internal and external constructive processes.
and
In addition, in the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, and causation does not run solely in one direction from the external environment to populations and, instead of a single inheritance mechanism, several modes of transmission exist between generations.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

So it seems adaptive variation can arise both through natural selection (NS) and internal and external constructive processes (EES forces such as niche construction and development). Natural selection isn't the only way adaptive variation can happen. Isn't that just another way of saying the EES forces and NS are both on the same level, they both contribute?

According to the EES site which Laland is part of niche construction is seen as on par with NS as a cause of evolutionary change. IE

When explaining adaptation, is niche construction equivalent to natural selection?

Advocates consider (internally and externally expressed) constructive processes, such as niche construction, to be of the same explanatory importance as natural selection

NCT argues that niche construction is a distinct evolutionary process, potentially of equal importance to natural selection.

there are now sufficient data to warrant a rethink, and to recognize as evolutionary processes a new category of phenomena that systematically bias the action of selection, which includes niche construction, but also “developmental bias” (Arthur 2004; Müller 2007).
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Even the predictions of the EES state that the EES forces are on the same level as NS as far as the cause of evolution is concerned. Prediction 6 says

adaptation can be caused by natural selection, environmental induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning, and cultural transmission (see: Baldwin effect, meme, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, ecological inheritance, non-Mendelian inheritance)[4]
Error - Cookies Turned Off

This example probably explains things the best in how niche construction can produce an adaptive fit between a creature and the environment just like NS can do.

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 a 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.

The pertinent point in the above is that niche construction can produce adaptive fit to environments 'rather than natural selection'. Therefore it is another source of adaptive variation just like natural selection. The other important point here is that this emphasis on the EES forces being additional sources of adaptive variations besides natural selection is contrasted against natural selection being the only source according to the mainstream view. The SET sees variation as being the produce of genetic mutations and the adaptation of variation only being caused by NS.

Under the EES both the product of variations and variation being made adaptive can happen in the one process at the same time because some variation is produced with an adaptive fit as a response to environmental pressure through either the creature's developmental processes or by the creature itself changing the environment to suit. That is where the confusion comes in because people don't equate that the variation is already adaptive and therefore is doing the job of NS as well.

Even though technically NS still needs to rubberstamp these variations that are already adaptive. In other words, they are already made adaptive before NS even gets involved. In this sense, the EES forces are the same as NS even though they are different processes.

The other thing to consider is that these processes are often intertwined where NS and the EES forces can work together. Who can determine what % is because of NS and what is the result of the EES forces? Sometimes NS may be more prominent and other times the EES forces. It's not a clear and straight forwards situation.

What is NS "rubberstamping"? Explain in your own words how that is different from "regular" NS.

 

[Speedwell]

That is obvious. So how have I mixed the science with religion in this thread?

You are not satisfied with SET because it's "random."

 

[stevevw]

What is NS "rubberstamping"? Explain in your own words how that is different from "regular" NS.

It is no different from natural selection. I am only using rubber stamping as a descriptive term for how natural selection will confirm something that has already happened. Rubberstamping means automatically approving something that already exists. It is sometimes used to officially accept something.

I am saying that some EES forces can produce adaptive variation just like natural selection can but in a different way. But its still adaptive variation just like natural selection is said to determine. So rubberstamping just acknowledges natural selection is still the determining factor at the end of the day. But it also shows that natural selection does not determine all adaptive variations as the SET views things.

 

[stevevw]

You are not satisfied with SET because it's "random."

No that is only a small part of it. It is more about a narrow view as opposed to an expansive one. or a singular view as opposed to a pluralistic one. To narrow it down to random as opposed to non-random oversimplifies things. Besides when acknowledging that the process is not all random doesn't mean some supernatural process. It actually opens up the explanation to more of a scientific one in having to explain the EES processes in scientific terms.

 

[Speedwell]

To narrow it down to random as opposed to non-random oversimplifies things.

Yes, and it's a good thing that's not what's happening.

 

[stevevw]

It doesn't necessarily, although I think you exaggerate (just like the ID crowd) the response of SET proponents to the new ideas of EES and I wonder why that is. No, the resemblance of your arguments to ID propaganda doesn't necessarily negate them. What it does do is explain the level of resistance you encountered.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the emergence of EES and its gradual acceptance by SET in a serious way without trying to "prove" that there is a serious controversy between them that would be a different thing altogether.

See this is the issue at hand when you say "if you wanted to discuss the emergence of EES and its gradual acceptance by SET in a serious way without trying to "prove" that there is a serious controversy between them".

That is what I have been trying to do. But it seems just the mention of the issue which is the difference is perceived as to what degree the SET has accepted the EES is not making it a big controversy. It is the controversy. I am not making it a bigger issue than it is by just talking about it. I think others have made it a big issue because I mentioned it. It takes two to tango.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, and it's a good thing that's not what's happening.

I agree. But the randomness issue is an important part of the conceptual differences between the EES and the SET as far as what predictions and explanations will be derived from each view. It has significant consequences for how the structure of each is determined.

For example, if variation under the SET is derived from random mutation then natural selection role is more significant. NS then becomes the all-important force that sorts which variation is adaptive among those random variations that may be beneficial or non-beneficial. There is no link between the creature, variation, and the environment and therefore it is only NS that will be the determining factor.

But if under the EES variation is non-random it, therefore, diminishes NS significance as the determining factor. The variation under the EES is non-random for a reason because it is produced as a result of either the creature producing suitable variation to help it adapt or the creature's developmental mechanisms are geared to respond to the environment to produce suitable non-random variation to help it adapt.

This has implications for the assumptions and predictions made. The SET is more adaptive and selective and seeks explanations that are about small adaptive changes through genes only. Creatures are seen as passive entities that are acted upon by an outside force. Even their actions in creating adaptive variations are seen as the result of NS rather than independent processes that can also cause evolution. Whereas the EES is more pluralistic. It takes a more constructive and reciprocal view which recognizes several processes that cause evolutionary change that place the creature itself at the center in being able to direct its own evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, this is for the lurkers...

Yes transforms the sources of natural selection to the point that the source itself determines its adaptive fit rather than natural selection.

A source of natural selection that is transformed, however adaptive, is still a source of natural selection.

In other words, it has done the job of NS. In the SET NS determines which random variation provides an adaptive fit between the creature and the environment.

Maybe this is part of your misunderstanding... natural selection is any natural process that has the effect of eliminating the unfit. So any natural process that, in your terms, 'does the job'* of natural selection, is, by definition, natural selection.

*Natural selection doesn't 'have a job' - that's a teleologism.

Niche construction is not itself natural selection, but provides sources of environmental variation & feedback which result in natural selection. The processes are concurrent, so act synergistically.

Then why would the EES authors including the above refer to Niche construction and the other EES forces like this...
<blah>

Adaptive variation, heritable or otherwise, is not evolution. As already explained, evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over generations - in which adaptive variation plays a role. Natural selection has a role in adaptive variation, but enables evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

What is NS "rubberstamping"? Explain in your own words how that is different from "regular" NS.

What he really means, but seems unable to bring himself to say, is that it takes natural selection for adaptive variation to become evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

It is no different from natural selection. I am only using rubber stamping as a descriptive term for how natural selection will confirm something that has already happened. Rubberstamping means automatically approving something that already exists. It is sometimes used to officially accept something.

I am saying that some EES forces can produce adaptive variation just like natural selection can but in a different way. But its still adaptive variation just like natural selection is said to determine. So rubberstamping just acknowledges natural selection is still the determining factor at the end of the day. But it also shows that natural selection does not determine all adaptive variations as the SET views things.

Man, you really dont even understand the basics.

NS always act on "what is there".

 

[stevevw]

Man, you really dont even understand the basics.

NS always act on "what is there".

Yes that's right and how have I not said that.
I said
natural selection is said to determine.
natural selection is still the determining factor
natural selection does not determine all adaptive variations

This all means natural selection determines what variation is adaptive. Therefore it can only determine a variation adaptive that already exists. I have said many times that variation is produced by random mutations under the SET and is produced by the EES forces under the EES. So I have been consistent in pointing out that natural selection is a determining factor in what variation that already exists.

But what I find interesting is that you choose to point out a semantic issue rather than comment on the point of the content itself. That is your MO always choosing a logical fallacy and trying to undermine the source rather than address the content.

So here's the point again. As you say "NS always act on "what is there". So what if what is already is 'already adaptive'. What if the variation NS is acting on to test and determine as adaptive is already adaptive. What does that mean for NS's role in being the determining factor of what is adaptive? How can NS be the determining factor of something that has already been determined?

 

[stevevw]

What he really means, but seems unable to bring himself to say, is that it takes natural selection for adaptive variation to become evolution.

No you are missing the entire role the EES forces play in what actually causes evolution. Natural selection is said to determine what variation is adaptive under the SET. That is what gives it its importance as a driver of evolution as there is no other way for evolution to happen (for adaptive evolution to happen which is one of the main tenets of the MS).

But under the EES there are other forces that can determine what variation is adaptive therefore are also drivers of evolution just like NS. You could technically say that it is the EES forces that make evolution if they work like NS. NS only confirms (rubberstamps) what is already done. NS is really superfluous in these situations so its just symbolic. It's only important when variation is random and needs testing against environments.

 

[Speedwell]

No you are missing the entire role the EES forces play in what actually causes evolution. Natural selection is said to determine what variation is adaptive under the SET. That is what gives it its importance as a driver of evolution as there is no other way for evolution to happen (for adaptive evolution to happen which is one of the main tenets of the MS).

But under the EES there are other forces that can determine what variation is adaptive therefore are also drivers of evolution just like NS. You could technically say that it is the EES forces that make evolution if they work like NS. NS only confirms (rubberstamps) what is already done. NS is really superfluous in these situations so its just symbolic. It's only important when variation is random and needs testing against environments.

And how is it that the various niches which niche-constructing creatures construct are tested for suitability?