It maybe to you and that's probably the whole point in that people see things differently and your not including that. If you go back over my posts and search for the word ‘cause’ you will see it mentioned over and over again. That's because it is the central dispute in the debate between the SET and the EES IE ‘what causes and directs’ evolution. As mentioned many times the SET doesn’t think the EES forces are actual causes and directors of evolution whereas the EES supporters do.
Though you said the EES forces are contributors I thought that was an important distinction you were making that continued to diminish the full recognition of the EES forces as causes of evolution on par and alongside the main and often only force of SET which is NS acting on random gene change in how adaptive variation is produced. The EES makes this the central issue of difference IE
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.
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?
That's because when it comes to the outcome of evolution which at the end of the day is most important the differences in how variation is produced are important as to what role NS plays in producing that adaptive and heritable variation. This is probably the crux of the matter in the differences between the SET and the EES which the papers or emphasizing. That's why the difference between contribution and the cause is important. The EES thinks the EES forces are causes of the evolutionary outcome for adaptive and heritable variation in themselves thus biasing and directing what NS does.
As I have been pointing out this is an important distinction because if the EES forces can produce already well suited, integrative and the adaptive variation that becomes heritable and is produced already fit then this more or less does the job of NS and in some occasions gene change. So the EES forces are not just contributors to adaptive and heritable variation, they cause them.
Like I said technically NS may then rubber-stamp this but the work and credit for it happening has already been done by the EES forces. This needs to be recognized and acknowledged as it changes the structure of evolution and adds new insights and scientific hypothesis and predictions.
That's another point under the EES heritable variation can be non-gene as pointed out from the papers in calling the SET causes of variation ‘gene-centric’ and why one of the EES forces is called inheritance beyond genes. The EES includes non-gene change as adaptive and heritable variations including changes to environments that is also passed on which influences phenotypes. Such as from niche construction where environmental change can lead to adaptive fit for creatures and thus passes on change.
The same with inheritance beyond genes which I have already explained including an epigenetic change which is not a change in the underlying genes but how they are expressed. The same as the developmental processes emphasized by the EES as causes of adaptive and fit variations IE
Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
In other-words the EES says that EES forces such as through developmental processes also meet the requirements for causes of evolution in the same way that the SET uses evolutionary cause through NS.
This shows that despite you saying that you support the EES you don’t really appreciate its full ability as a cause of adaptive and fit variation that meets the criteria for evolutionary causes and drivers. That you still see NS as the sole force in evolution as the EES papers point out. NS can be biased and directed by the EES forces because they produce certain variations as opposed to random variations that need filtering. The variation produced by the EES forces doesn’t need filtering because they are already suitable, adaptive, and fit for the environment.
That is because developmental processes don’t just produce any variation but suitable and integrated variations as a response to the environment. Also, creatures are not seen as passive participants in evolutionary change but can control their own evolution by making changes to the environment and putting themselves in positions that create adaptively and fit changes for future generations (not restricted to genes). In that sense, there is no separations between creature and environment but rather a feedback loop that works to help creatures adapt to the environment.
This is all included in the papers and that is why I stated that overall the differences between the EES and the SET can be seen as the SET taking a programmed view (creatures are programmed through DNA to adapt) as opposed to a constructive and reciprocal process that includes a wide pluralistic process placing the creature itself at the center for evolutionary change IE
This interpretation is also based on a fundamentally different account of the role of genes in development and evolution. In the EES, genes are not causally privileged as programs or blueprints that control and dictate phenotypic outcomes, but are rather parts of the systemic dynamics of interactions that mobilize self-organizing processes in the evolution of development and entire life cycles. This represents a shift from a programmed to a constructive role of developmental processes in evolution.
In fact, the conceptual change associated with the EES is largely a change in the perceived relationship between genes and development: a shift from a programmed to a constructive view of development. Although genes are fundamental to development and heredity, they are not causally privileged in either of these processes [9,129,130].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
