You say its really not but I question if you have even read about what the EES is saying. If you say its just an extention of the status quo then why do the authors of the EES actually say its not just an extension or add on but a completely new synthesis with different theorectical framework, assumptions and predictions.
That is not an extension of the sdame but a reconceptualisation of the theory itself along the lines of a different paradigm in thinking.
What is broader characteristics.
Some of the changes in what produces variation and evolutionary change are not even to do with genes, with the gene basis for change. Which shows how steeped in the gene centric view evolution is that it cannot even conceptualise evolution with genes. Or evolution without genes being the dominant source of driving change.
Yes and its not just a consideration as additional influences within the gene centric and NS view. But that these other forces are just as powerful if not more than genes and natural selection. They dictate what variation is available which is often adaptive and fit thus more directed towards benefits rather than blind or random. So fundementally a change in assumption that evolution change is less programmed and more constructive. Less determined and more directed to an end.
Why its exactly what the EES claims if you read it.
Only in the context of population genetics. A fitness landscape is basically a mathmatical measure of the genotypes to phenotype adaptability to environments for fitness. This still reduces things back to the programmed view which makes creatures passive entities acted upon by random mutations and NS.
Behaviour of the creature is seen as an extended phenotype which is programmed by the genotype and not an independent force that can direct evolution itself. Genotype to phenotype mapping only. So everything is the result or done to enhance the fitness to landscape mapping through genetics within populations.
For biologists schooled in population genetic or quantitative genetic thinking, the starting point for evolutionary analyses is the selection pressures [94]. Environmental change has been treated as a ‘background condition'. On this perspective, termites evolve to become adapted to the mounds they construct in a manner no different from how organisms adapt to frequent volcanic eruptions. Because niche-constructing activities are seen as proximate sources of variation, they are typically treated as ‘extended phenotypes' [87] that evolve because they enhance inclusive fitness.
We suggest that structuring evolutionary explanations around processes that directly change genotype frequencies is responsible for these interpretations. 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. Phenomena such as developmental bias or niche construction do not directly change gene frequencies, and hence are not viewed as causes of evolutionary processes.
Contemporary evolutionary biology textbooks support this interpretation (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). 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]. What coverage does occur is typically given the traditional interpretation outlined above.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
The why does it point out that the population genetic based view is what it is disagreeing with as the source of evolution or rather the only sauce. ie as above and as follows
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].
Current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, (the EES my emphasis) we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above. (in other words the EES is excluded as causes).
Whereas the MS theory and its various amendments concentrate on genetic and adaptive variation in populations, the extended framework emphasizes the role of constructive processes, ecological interactions and systems dynamics in the evolution of organismal complexity as well as its social and cultural conditions. Single-level and unilinear causation is replaced by multilevel and reciprocal causation.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5566817/
Am I really or is it that your reading toi less into the EES. I suggest you read the links carefully and take in what they are actually saying. As noted by the authors
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
extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com
