Are there any facts contrary to T.O.E?

[stevevw]

What would count as evidence of agency?

For evolution or rather for changing internal and external conditions in order to adapt and survive there are many forces that support agency. For example Niche Construction is when creatures control their own environments making them conducive of fitness and survival.

Examples are Beaver dams and ant nests to name a couple of obvious ones. But also there are many micro accommodations such as the nesting environments. Humans are the best at this as we have shown we can turn just about any environment into being conducive for survival. Even to the point of bypassing natural selection.

The basic idea is that rather than natural selection doing the sorting by weeding out the unfit it is the creature themselves doing the selecting of their own environments or conditions or making them suitable by the inside knowledge they have about nature and the intelligent choices which are beneficial and adaptive.

Developmental Plasticity means the capacity of existing phenotypes to vary to environments due to natural developmental capacities and recipricle relationships to others and environments. Without the need for a change in core genes. The earth worm is an example of how once removed from water can metabolise the soil to create its own watery environment for survival. Plants will adjust according to the level of light.

Its only later after continued aqasition of these plastic changes that the genes will cement those changes in place. But its certainly not random but an ability to adjust to environments pre genetics through cells and tissues. Thus this supports a self organisation which puts the creature in the driver seat due to inbuilt natural abilities. Rather than being passive entities acted upon by some programmed process.

Then you have inheritence beyond genes. This includes culture, epigenetics and other influences like HGT and symbiosis which is how creatures can coevolve, gain genetic info from surrounding organisms and environments. Or parasites living on other organisms such as the fruit worm who uses fruit as its cocoon. Or the dung beetle. Thus having an ideal already created beneficial environment thanks to nature. Its the organisms ability to know this and benefit from it making them more central to directing their own fate.

But basically as with epigenetics its the conditions one generation lives under that determine expression of the genes for the next without changing the core genes. How creatures live and especially humans is also down to their choices, their agency. You reap what you sow so to speak. Research now shows that epigenetic changes can be passed on to the next generation.

 

[stevevw]

That is a very odd choice of the essayist to make. Referring to epigenetics as "Lamarckian".

Why. If epigenetics effects the expression of genes in future generations postively or negatively and some of these are passed on to the next generation then this points to lifestyle choices as a contributing factor. How your grandparents lived, the conditions they lived under can influence my generation or future generations.

This continually gets repeated and compunded and can contribute to poorer results for individuals but also populations after some time.

Nope. ID is not science. People who "research" ID are not acting as scientsts. I went down the rabbit hole on that one and it's ID all the way down.

Your so fixated on ID like its an allergic reaction that you cannot see the actual point and evidence beyond the gate keeper. I dfid not know that the author had anything to do with ID. I based my determination on the content relating to linking the EES to teleology. Which has been supported independently by a number of sources which are not religious but scientific like the EES itself which is a scientific project.

But by fixating on the gatekeeping people get stuck at the gate, never knowing the content and making their determinations on the person which is a superficial way to refute an arguement. An ad hominem in fact. Your assuming the content is ID when it was about the EES which is science. This is an example of judging a book by its cover.

Its the ability to overcome this bias and chance a look at the content to understand opposing views and then make your judgements. Not make your judgements based on assumptions without knowing the content. Not a good way to research.

 

[stevevw]

It's quaint that you think there is such a thing as "standard evolution theory". Since research into evolution and its mechanisms is ongoing, continuously increasing in depth and breadth, it follows that the theory is dynamic and partly dependent upon the perspective of the researcher. Inasmuch as there is a standard theory it exists as an educational tool to acquaint students with the principles of the subject, not as a definitive statement of current thinking.

As to the ability of "living things ... to direct the outcomes of evolution or their own survival", this has long been recognised as a component of the environment within which selection takes place. Thus your simple assertion is incorrect.

Not according to those who are saying that SET or the MS if you like are not really incorporating the additional or rather highlighted forces the EES has mentioned. Primarily the SET still takes the position of the MS and though it has acknowledged some of the influences the EES makes central it relegates them to secondary influences. Such as behaviour being an exteneded phenotype rather than being an independent force that can actually overide Natural selection.

For example supporters of the EES state

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. The standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

This is true. When ever I have discussed this with supporters of the MS they are always referring things back to genes, random mutations and slight variations in genes which are then taken up by populations to bring about phenotype change. Sure other factors are given some acknowledgement but primarily its about gene to phenotpye change with blind NS doing the shifting to produce the adaptive traits that will survive.

The paper goes on to say

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

I would also point you to the other paper I linked which says more or less the same thing.

the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37]. The gene-centric position remains constitutive of the MS.

The resulting theoretical framework (the EES) differs from the latter (SET) in its core logic and predictive capacities.

The EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108].

The differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions.

EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556681

So how can the current Modern Synthesis be incorporating what the EES is mentioning if supporters of the EES are saying that the EES is a completely new synthesis in core assumptions and predictions. Thats not just some minor adjustments its a fundemental difference in what evolution is. What its core assumptions and predictions are which is basically saying it is changing the core values and thus the entire theorectical framework.

A comparison of the core assumptions of the classical MS and the EES.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions - PMC

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[Laodicean60]

So we have established that your original assertion has been rebutted to you satisfaction?

"We have no example of single cell life developing into complex life."

No, I didn't make that statement. I was interested in sources to read for which I then asked you a question.

 

[Tinker Grey]

No, I didn't make that statement. I was interested in sources to read for which I then asked you a question.

@Larniavc, I believe it was RootedWithGod.

 

[Laodicean60]

@Larniavc, I believe it was RootedWithGod.

Are you saying I said this? I don't remember

 

[BCP1928]

You obviously don't understand the core differences between the EES and SET the standard evolutionary theory or the Modern Synthesis. Yes the EES expands evolutionary forces while continuing to support some aspects of SET which is NS, mutations, drift and population genetics.

So?

But it redefines those roles into less dominant ones where for example NS is only one of several forces and not dominant. In fact other forces like Niche Construction and developmental forces like plasticity and developmental bias actually direct what NS will follow.

In other words its not random mutations determining variation that NS acts upon but other self organising forces that come from the creature itself. NS serves to only release what has been selected by creatures activity internally and externally. NS is either dominated by other forces or completely bypassed.

The fundemental difference in core assumptions is that the SET believes life is programmed to a genetic code where agency, intention, self organisation, free will choice or development are not dominant or rather have little influence. Whereas the EES makes them central thus reducing the dominance of genetics and NS, the programmed schema.

This is summed up in a paper I already linked which are from peer reviewed scientific journals. Yet you choose to fixate on one papers source and ignore the others. Yet the content of the article you object to is backed by the other peer reviwed articles.

Overall, the EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection effects are less directional than hitherto argued. Although the EES recognizes the fundaments of the classical MS theory, it differs in its interpretation of the role of some of its elements and integrates new components, such as constructive processes of development, multiple inheritance mechanisms, niche reciprocity, as well as behavioural and cultural elements.

Which is the position of most of the people who are responding to you here. We may or may not agree with the EES approach, but no one doubts the existence of the phenomena they are attempting to explain.

It is unavoidable to notice that an integration of these concepts means not a simple add-on of a few peripheral notions to the MS model without any effects on its core logic. Rather, the EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108].

The resulting theoretical framework (the EES) differs from the latter in its core logic and predictive capacities.

The differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions. ‘EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

The same paper addresses this as well.

Even though claims have been made that classical evolutionary biology has continuously incorporated aspects from new conceptual domains [33,36], the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37]. The gene-centric position remains constitutive of the MS.

All the extensive discussions, led over decades, seem not to have altered the preponderant stance to hold on to the classical prerequisites of gradualism, adaptationism, selectionism and gene-centrism. Hence, the claim of continuous incorporation of new conceptual components by the MS theory is misleading.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/

More government maps of the Mississippi.

As mentioned above the EES is not just an addon to the current theory but rather a "comprehensive new synthesis" with different core assumptions and predictions. So how could the current theory have included what the EES is proposing if a new synthesis is required. That means the current theory has not kept up in reality and still holds on to the same core logic and assumptions of the Modern Synthesis that was developed decades ago.

Evidently you are trying to set up some kind of split between some imaginary scientists who insist that evolution is just based on RM & NS and more enlightened scientists who embrace the truth of EES. Why is that important to you?

 

[Tinker Grey]

Are you saying I said this? I don't remember

There is/was a poster named RootedWithGod. I'm saying he or she made the initial claim.

 

[Ophiolite]

Not according to those who are saying that SET or the MS if you like are not really incorporating the additional or rather highlighted forces the EES has mentioned. Primarily the SET still takes the position of the MS and though it has acknowledged some of the influences the EES makes central it relegates them to secondary influences. Such as behaviour being an exteneded phenotype rather than being an independent force that can actually overide Natural selection.

For example supporters of the EES state

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. The standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

This is true. When ever I have discussed this with supporters of the MS they are always referring things back to genes, random mutations and slight variations in genes which are then taken up by populations to bring about phenotype change. Sure other factors are given some acknowledgement but primarily its about gene to phenotpye change with blind NS doing the shifting to produce the adaptive traits that will survive.

The paper goes on to say

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

I would also point you to the other paper I linked which says more or less the same thing.

the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37]. The gene-centric position remains constitutive of the MS.

The resulting theoretical framework (the EES) differs from the latter (SET) in its core logic and predictive capacities.

The EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108].

The differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions.

EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556681

So how can the current Modern Synthesis be incorporating what the EES is mentioning if supporters of the EES are saying that the EES is a completely new synthesis in core assumptions and predictions. Thats not just some minor adjustments its a fundemental difference in what evolution is. What its core assumptions and predictions are which is basically saying it is changing the core values and thus the entire theorectical framework.

A comparison of the core assumptions of the classical MS and the EES.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions - PMC

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

All you are doing is agreeing with me. Evolution is complicated. We are progressively delineating and describing that complexity in greater detail, more precision and higher confidence.
The names we apply to particular snapshots, or perspectives are simply convenient labels. You are attaching way too much significance to them. . . . . . . Now, are some researchers also attaching too much significance to them? Of course they are. They are defending a viewpoint, promoting a hypothesis; it's how science works. Argue the matter our publicly, back up your view with more data, more evidence, Evolve a new understanding. And probably, for convenience, or because it makes marketing easier, give it a catchy label. Just don't get hung up on the label, or the advertising jargon that goes with it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

For evolution or rather for changing internal and external conditions in order to adapt and survive there are many forces that support agency. For example Niche Construction is when creatures control their own environments making them conducive of fitness and survival.

Examples are Beaver dams and ant nests to name a couple of obvious ones. But also there are many micro accommodations such as the nesting environments. Humans are the best at this as we have shown we can turn just about any environment into being conducive for survival.

The basic idea is that rather than natural selection doing the sorting by weeding out the unfit it is the creature themselves doing the selecting of their own environments or conditions or making them suitable by the inside knowledge they have about nature and the intelligent choices which are beneficial and adaptive.

Developmental Plasticity means the capacity of existing phenotypes to vary to environments due to natural developmental capacities and recipricle relationships to others and environments. Without the need for a change in core genes. The earth worm is an example of how once removed from water can metabolise the soil to create its own watery environment for survival. Plants will adjust according to the level of light.

Its only later after continued aqasition of these plastic changes that the genes will cement those changes in place. But its certainly not random but an ability to adjust to environments pre genetics through cells and tissues. Thus this supports a self organisation which puts the creature in the driver seat due to inbuilt natural abilities. Rather than being passive entities acted upon by some programmed process.

Then you have inheritence beyond genes. This includes culture, epigenetics and other influences like HGT and symbiosis which is how creatures can coevolve, gain genetic info from surrounding organisms and environments. Or parasites living on other organisms such as the fruit worm who uses fruit as its cocoon. Or the dung beetle. Thus having an ideal already created beneficial environment thanks to nature. Its the organisms ability to know this and benefit from it making them more central to directing their own fate.

But basically as with epigenetics its the conditions one generation lives under that determine expression of the genes for the nest without changing the core genes. How creatures live and especially humans is also down to their choices, their agency. You reap what you sow so to speak. Research now shows that epigenetic changes can be passed on to the next generation.

Okay.
So what counts as agency as a driving force in evolution?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Why. If epigenetics effects the expression of genes in future generations postively or negatively and some of these are passed on to the next generation then this points to lifestyle choices as a contributing factor. How your grandparents lived, the conditions they lived under can influence my generation or future generations.

This continually gets repeated and compunded and can contribute to poorer results for individuals but also populations after some time.

Because Lamarkian evolution was the notion that responses to stimuli were *permanently* incorporated in to the inheritance of creatures. (Stretching the neck from reaching high to make giraffes, etc.) That is not the same a few generations epigenetic markers from some stress reaction.

Your so fixated on ID like its an allergic reaction that you cannot see the actual point and evidence beyond the gate keeper. I dfid not know that the author had anything to do with ID. I based my determination on the content relating to linking the EES to teleology. Which has been supported independently by a number of sources which are not religious but scientific like the EES itself which is a scientific project.

But by fixating on the gatekeeping people get stuck at the gate, never knowing the content and making their determinations on the person which is a superficial way to refute an arguement. An ad hominem in fact. Your assuming the content is ID when it was about the EES which is science. This is an example of judging a book by its cover.

Its the ability to overcome this bias and chance a look at the content to understand opposing views and then make your judgements. Not make your judgements based on assumptions without knowing the content. Not a good way to research.

When you post from pseudoscience (ID)" journals", there is no point in further commentary.

 

[stevevw]

So?

Which is the position of most of the people who are responding to you here. We may or may not agree with the EES approach, but no one doubts the existence of the phenomena they are attempting to explain.

Its not a case of just acknowledging what is said but acknowledging that these are actual forces in evolution that can be just as dominant as NS and random mutations and evey more dominant. By acknowledging this you are actually devaluing the prominence NS and rand mutations are playing and thus undermining the MS itself.

If thats the case then thats OK and thats all I am pointing out that the MS is not as factual as many make out in its core assumptions about how creatures can change and adapt.

It also means you are supporting agency as the forces the EES mentions put the creature itself central as the selector and driver of evolution. Rather than being a passive entity being acted upon by nature like blind NS and the randomness of mutations.

More government maps of the Mississippi.

Lol gee these government maps sure cover just about everything. Seems more like a god of the gaps. So let me understand. Your saying the EES has basically mapping out the evidence for what they say but its really based on a myth, a legend and not really true. Despite being evidence that evidence has nothing to do with the reality that it undermines the Modern Synthesis core assumptions, predictions and tenents.

Evidently you are trying to set up some kind of split between some imaginary scientists

No not imaginary scientists but real scientists with real research projects in the areas they emphasize and real experiments verifying the claims with real science.

who insist that evolution is just based on RM & NS

No your making a strawman. They don't say its just based on NS & RM but that these are emphasized over other forces. They may acknowledge some of the EES but in a different way. More a secondary result of NS and RM. THe EES is a reconceptualising of the entire framework of evolution theory and not just about these additional forces. Its changing the significance and role of NS & RM.

As mentioned in the MS RM are the dominant source of variation. In the EES RM are minor and other sources such as plasticity, non random developmental capacity and change in developmental bias, Niche construction which directs the environment and hense phenotype change which is another source of selection like NS but can even over ride NS. As well as the Inheritence beyond genes such as culture and epigenetics are all sources of variation and more dominant than RM.

So its not that the traditional theorists don't acknowledge these other influences but that they deminish their role and dominance. Because if they do they would have to acknowledge that the MS assumptions are wrong and in fact NS % RM are just 2 minor players rather than dominant.

and more enlightened scientists who embrace the truth of EES. Why is that important to you?

Whats more the point is why you divert attention away from whats actually being proposed and the evidence within the EES to authors and the question why. Its like asking why does someone support physics or the BB theory.

Obviously its because the evidence points that way. But I could ask you the same, why do you believe in evolution or a particular version of evolution over others.

Sure philosophy comes in but thats an interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. The fundemental difference between say Christians and atheists is that Christians will believe that however evolution pans out it is part of Gods creation. Atheist will reduce it to naturalistic causes.

But these are metaphysical beliefs and not science and I don't think there is any way to determine that truth. You can make arguements for each position and I think the arguements for something beyond the material cause is supported in many ways whether thans fine tuning, agency, transcedental realities or consciousness. This world is not just limited to objective facts.

 

[stevevw]

All you are doing is agreeing with me. Evolution is complicated. We are progressively delineating and describing that complexity in greater detail, more precision and higher confidence.
The names we apply to particular snapshots, or perspectives are simply convenient labels. You are attaching way too much significance to them. . . . . . . Now, are some researchers also attaching too much significance to them? Of course they are. They are defending a viewpoint, promoting a hypothesis; it's how science works. Argue the matter our publicly, back up your view with more data, more evidence, Evolve a new understanding. And probably, for convenience, or because it makes marketing easier, give it a catchy label. Just don't get hung up on the label, or the advertising jargon that goes with it.

Move along, nothing to see here.

Could it be that rather than myself giving too much importance to the EES that it may be that you are giving it too little importance.

Like I said this is not some hypothesis but verified science and therefore the findings that contradict the gene and NS centric view is a completely different set of assumptions and predictions.

Sure thats how science works and to a point I am also pointing that out when I mentioned Thomas Kuhn and paradigm shifts there is resistence at first to holding onto the old paradigm until the supporters either die out or a new generation of thinking replaces the old. We see this time and time again in the history of science.

Some even still hold onto the classical schema of physics where fundemental reality is like deterministic billard ball behaviour whern we now know its more indeterministic and involves consciousness.

At this point I think many still hold onto the classic view of evolution. If I ask anyone who supports this view I will guarentee most will reduce things back to randum mutations and NS. Sure some population genetics comes into play but still ultimately its the random variations due to mutations and genetic changes which are filtered by NS. All else is secondary.

From memory I think you did the same when you first replied saying that all that I linked associated with the EES was still about RM and NS.

 

[stevevw]

Because Lamarkian evolution was the notion that responses to stimuli were *permanently* incorporated in to the inheritance of creatures. (Stretching the neck from reaching high to make giraffes, etc.) That is not the same a few generations epigenetic markers from some stress reaction.

But when you consider the all the forces within the EES especially developmental plasticity and Niche Construction and inheritence beyond genes we see overall Lamackian evolution.

For example under developmental plasticity creatures have a fair degree of plasticity within their development which can respond to environments and stresses. Stress induced changes that are often well integrated and adaptive. So in that sense its not the environment dictating what survives through random mutations but the capacity of the developmental system to change with environments and then is later cemented by genes.

Niche Construction allows creatures to create adaptive and fit environments which then dictate the types of variations that are passed on to future generations. So long as that niche is mainatin or even adjusted to suit it will dictate the direction of evolution. Its a type of Lamack evolution as it is the creatures actions and choices that are dictating the type of phenotype changes.

When you post from pseudoscience (ID)" journals", there is no point in further commentary.

But see this is the point. First I did not know it was from and ID journal so your objection that this particular article negates all the other articles is unfounded. Your choosing to go down a fallacious road to avoid the actual evidence and point.

You want to use this one article as the measure of everything which in itself seems extreme and unscientific. The other articles were from legitimate peer reviwed scientific journals such as Nature, The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PNAS and The Royal Society. Why hasn't the same content in these journals been mentioned.

Why such deafening silence on them and all the protesting fixated on one article which you are not even giving any reasoned arguement for why its pseudoscience except by association which is a very poor arguement.

 

[BCP1928]

Its not a case of just acknowledging what is said but acknowledging that these are actual forces in evolution that can be just as dominant as NS and random mutations and evey more dominant. By acknowledging this you are actually devaluing the prominence NS and rand mutations are playing and thus undermining the MS itself.

If thats the case then thats OK and thats all I am pointing out that the MS is not as factual as many make out in its core assumptions about how creatures can change and adapt.

It also means you are supporting agency as the forces the EES mentions put the creature itself central as the selector and driver of evolution. Rather than being a passive entity being acted upon by nature like blind NS and the randomness of mutations.

Lol gee these government maps sure cover just about everything. Seems more like a god of the gaps. So let me understand. Your saying the EES has basically mapping out the evidence for what they say but its really based on a myth, a legend and not really true. Despite being evidence that evidence has nothing to do with the reality that it undermines the Modern Synthesis core assumptions, predictions and tenents.

No not imaginary scientists but real scientists with real research projects in the areas they emphasize and real experiments verifying the claims with real science.

No your making a strawman. They don't say its just based on NS & RM but that these are emphasized over other forces. They may acknowledge some of the EES but in a different way. More a secondary result of NS and RM. THe EES is a reconceptualising of the entire framework of evolution theory and not just about these additional forces. Its changing the significance and role of NS & RM.

As mentioned in the MS RM are the dominant source of variation. In the EES RM are minor and other sources such as plasticity, non random developmental capacity and change in developmental bias, Niche construction which directs the environment and hense phenotype change which is another source of selection like NS but can even over ride NS. As well as the Inheritence beyond genes such as culture and epigenetics are all sources of variation and more dominant than RM.

So its not that the traditional theorists don't acknowledge these other influences but that they deminish their role and dominance. Because if they do they would have to acknowledge that the MS assumptions are wrong and in fact NS % RM are just 2 minor players rather than dominant.

Whats more the point is why you divert attention away from whats actually being proposed and the evidence within the EES to authors and the question why. Its like asking why does someone support physics or the BB theory.

You are the one trying to divert attention from what is actually being proposed. EES does not replace random variation and natural selection, which is still the backbone of the process. You're back to trying to use a government map of the Mississippi to prove that Tom Sawyer was a real boy.

Obviously its because the evidence points that way. But I could ask you the same, why do you believe in evolution or a particular version of evolution over others.

I don't. I don't have to. All I have to do is take it at face value as an interesting and mostly correct explanation for the diversity of life, an explanation which changes as scientists learn more about it. Whatever internal discussions evolutionary biologists have about how it works are fine with me, as long as the theory retains its usefulness as applied science they must be doing something right. I don't need to distinguish between "versions."

Sure philosophy comes in but thats an interpretation of the evidence and not the evidence itself. The fundemental difference between say Christians and atheists is that Christians will believe that however evolution pans out it is part of Gods creation. Atheist will reduce it to naturalistic causes.

But these are metaphysical beliefs and not science and I don't think there is any way to determine that truth. You can make arguements for each position and I think the arguements for something beyond the material cause is supported in many ways whether thans fine tuning, agency, transcedental realities or consciousness. This world is not just limited to objective facts.

The metaphysical arguments for something beyond a material cause have been well established for over 2000 years and a basic part of Traditional Christian theology for most of that time. That's why Traditional Christians have no teleological objections to the theory of evolution.

 

[BCP1928]

At this point I think many still hold onto the classic view of evolution. If I ask anyone who supports this view I will guarentee most will reduce things back to randum mutations and NS. Sure some population genetics comes into play but still ultimately its the random variations due to mutations and genetic changes which are filtered by NS. All else is secondary.

Why don't you go talk to some of those people, then?

From memory I think you did the same when you first replied saying that all that I linked associated with the EES was still about RM and NS.

Yes, because you gave evidence at the time of not understanding how random mutations and natural selection works, which causes you to misinterpret the speculations of EES and fall for Discovery Institute propaganda. You have to understand the classical theory before you can appreciate modern developments, just as beginning physics students still have to study and understand Newton as a basis for further study.

 

[Hans Blaster]

But when you consider the all the forces within the EES especially developmental plasticity and Niche Construction and inheritence beyond genes we see overall Lamackian evolution.

For example under developmental plasticity creatures have a fair degree of plasticity within their development which can respond to environments and stresses. Stress induced changes that are often well integrated and adaptive. So in that sense its not the environment dictating what survives through random mutations but the capacity of the developmental system to change with environments and then is later cemented by genes.

Niche Construction allows creatures to create adaptive and fit environments which then dictate the types of variations that are passed on to future generations. So long as that niche is mainatin or even adjusted to suit it will dictate the direction of evolution. Its a type of Lamack evolution as it is the creatures actions and choices that are dictating the type of phenotype changes.

Do actual evolutionary biologists refer to EES as a kind of "Lamarkian evolution"? I doubt it. Lamarkian evolution is discredited and discarded 150 years ago, it would be odd to refer to a modern theory with the name of an old one.

Perhaps more importantly what about EES is evidence against evolution? (The thread topic in case you have forgotten.)

But see this is the point. First I did not know it was from and ID journal so your objection that this particular article negates all the other articles is unfounded. Your choosing to go down a fallacious road to avoid the actual evidence and point.

Know what you are posting. I can't be blamed for the garbage you post.

Here were the red flags:

1. The author was at an unknown institute in a suburb of Tulsa. A sub-institute of the University of Tulsa would indicate that (X institute, U of Tulsa, Tulsa, OK). Who created an apparently independent research organization there?

2. How did it come to be in my attention? Was it presented to me by someone attacking a science?

3. It was a bit "odd". I can't articulate it, but something about the way it was written.

So I searched the institute, the journal. Just a listing of the editorial board was enough to realize it was an ID journal. A whole lot of "famous" ID names are all over it, not to mention addresses at "Biola" and "Biologic Institute" and "Discovery Institute". At this point all credibility for "BIO-complexity" is lost.

But I wasn't done. I found the "institute" and it was mostly a hollow shell occupied by the author of that article. The ID smell on it was thick.

It is ID turtles all the way down, therefore I don't care at all what Mr. Bartlett has to say.

You want to use this one article as the measure of everything which in itself seems extreme and unscientific.

It's the old principle GIGO. There is no reason to put any authority behind this "Bio-Complexity" essay. If you want to stop these kinds of reactions, vet your sources before you use them.

The other articles were from legitimate peer reviwed scientific journals such as Nature, The National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI), PNAS and The Royal Society. Why hasn't the same content in these journals been mentioned.

I don't know what these other articles are, but you aren't identifying the journals correctly. Of your list, only PNAS and Nature are actual journals. "The Royal Society" is some sort of society, not a journal, and NCBI is obviously an institution. What has you apparently confused is that NCBI has a database of published articles. They do not do the vetting or review of the articles in the journals that they index as they are not the publisher. Every article you find that is linked to NCBI is published by some journal and that info is plainly stated on the first page of every article. Use it.

Why such deafening silence on them and all the protesting fixated on one article which you are not even giving any reasoned arguement for why its pseudoscience except by association which is a very poor arguement.

Red flags. We need to deal with the non-scientific material before we could move on.

 

[BCP1928]

Not according to those who are saying that SET or the MS if you like are not really incorporating the additional or rather highlighted forces the EES has mentioned. Primarily the SET still takes the position of the MS and though it has acknowledged some of the influences the EES makes central it relegates them to secondary influences. Such as behaviour being an exteneded phenotype rather than being an independent force that can actually overide Natural selection.

For example supporters of the EES state

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies. The standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows and ages — are of secondary, even minor, importance.

This is true. When ever I have discussed this with supporters of the MS they are always referring things back to genes, random mutations and slight variations in genes which are then taken up by populations to bring about phenotype change. Sure other factors are given some acknowledgement but primarily its about gene to phenotpye change with blind NS doing the shifting to produce the adaptive traits that will survive.

The paper goes on to say

In our view, this ‘gene-centric’ focus fails to capture the full gamut of processes that direct evolution. Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? - Nature

Researchers are divided over what processes should be considered fundamental.

www.nature.com

I would also point you to the other paper I linked which says more or less the same thing.

the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37]. The gene-centric position remains constitutive of the MS.

The resulting theoretical framework (the EES) differs from the latter (SET) in its core logic and predictive capacities.

The EES establishes a new structure of the theoretical evolutionary framework that goes beyond the reductionist and gene-centred perspective of the past. It represents a different way of thinking about evolution, historically rooted in the organicist tradition [108].

The differences in structure and consequences are substantial enough to require a new designation, because to continue using ‘MS’ evokes a wholly different set of assumptions and predictions.

EES’ used here and elsewhere [4,5,9,14,15,27,28,49] is not meant as a simple extension of the MS, as sometimes wrongly implied, but to indicate a comprehensive new synthesis.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC556681

So how can the current Modern Synthesis be incorporating what the EES is mentioning if supporters of the EES are saying that the EES is a completely new synthesis in core assumptions and predictions. Thats not just some minor adjustments its a fundemental difference in what evolution is. What its core assumptions and predictions are which is basically saying it is changing the core values and thus the entire theorectical framework.

A comparison of the core assumptions of the classical MS and the EES.

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions - PMC

Scientific activities take place within the structured sets of ideas and assumptions that define a field and its practices. The conceptual framework of evolutionary biology emerged with the Modern Synthesis in the early twentieth century and has ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Can you explain that in your own words? Never mind, you won't find Telos in it anywhere

 

[stevevw]

Can you explain that in your own words? Never mind, you won't find Telos in it anywhere

I thought I had already done that several times. Basically the EES is placing the creature central to directing evolution and not the blind NS or random mutations. In doing so its putting creatures in control and not passive players who are acted up by outside forces to evolve.

A general practical example would be that rather than NS filtering out random mutations in populations in a hap hazard way in the EES the creatures developmental capacity and its ability to change themselves brings about the evolution of fit and adpative changes rather than random mutations and NS.

So basically its a change from a programmed view of evolution to the constructive view where creatures and nature construct, determine and direct their own evolution.

But it gets a bit frustrating that I put links up so you can understand and you don't read them. The above quotes stating that the EES is fundementally different in its theorectical framework means something. It should make you want to find out at least the core differences in assumptions and predictions.

Then I would not need to keep explaining. I am obviously not as good as the source in explaining this. So its best to spend sometime researching. Its not as if this is going to prove God or supernaturalism because its pure science. Its just a different way to see evolution and ourselves really as beings that can make intentional changes to reality.

Look I will link the EE research projects home page as all the research and scientific evidence is there to discover.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

 

[BCP1928]

I thought I had already done that several times. Basically the EES is placing the creature central to directing evolution and not the blind NS or random mutations. In doing so its putting creatures in control and not passive players who are acted up by outside forces to evolve.

A general practical example would be that rather than NS filtering out random mutations in populations in a hap hazard way in the EES the creatures developmental capacity and its ability to change themselves brings about the evolution of fit and adpative changes rather than random mutations and NS.

So basically its a change from a programmed view of evolution to the constructive view where creatures and nature construct, determine and direct their own evolution.

But it gets a bit frustrating that I put links up so you can understand and you don't read them. The above quotes stating that the EES is fundementally different in its theorectical framework means something. It should make you want to find out at least the core differences in assumptions and predictions.

Then I would not need to keep explaining. I am obviously not as good as the source in explaining this. So its best to spend sometime researching. Its not as if this is going to prove God or supernaturalism because its pure science. Its just a different way to see evolution and ourselves really as beings that can make intentional changes to reality.

Yes, I've read those articles. It's not breaking news, Steve.

Look I will link the EE research projects home page as all the research and scientific evidence is there to discover.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

I read down to here and then figured I wouldn't need to read any more:

"EES does not replace traditional thinking, but rather can be deployed alongside it to stimulate research in evolutionary biology."