Do you agree with these statements?

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

If only certain forms are produced through development bias if environments can dictate what forms are produced through plasticity and if creatures can have a degree of say in whether they will survive through changing their environments then it isn't a natural selection that is doing the guiding as far as what traits should be selected to survive. It is these other forces doing the selecting and guiding. They are dictating when and where selection comes into play if at all. In that sense, natural selection is being guided.

Natural selection isn't about how phenotypic changes arise, and 'dictating' whether selection comes into play isn't guiding. Guiding means assisting to reach a destination, not dictating when to travel.

If an ant, for example, builds a nest they have created their own environment that is most suitable for themselves to thrive. So they have selected their own fate. Creatures can be faced with being harmed and/or going extinct because they could not adapt to an environment. That is when natural selection does its job.

But if a creature can create its own environment that is perfect for it as it will know what exactly is needed then they will be in a position where they have selected what happens and not natural selection. If they are really good they would never be at risk of going extinct. I guess you could say humans are like this. They have already made natural selection weak or even redundant by the way they have been able to always keep humans alive no matter what environments they face.

You're misunderstanding the process. Natural selection has selected for ants that cooperate to modify their environment to their benefit. Humans are a good example - natural selection has selected us for behavioural flexibility, learning from experience and planning ahead based on that. This flexibility makes us fitter for a wider range of environments, by changing our micro and local environment, e.g. clothes and heating/air con respectively. Natural selection still applies, but the selection pressures have changed.

... that is up for dispute. It seems that all creatures follow similar body plans and those body plans came about fairly quick in evolutionary terms without any trace of gradual evolution through selection. Those basic body plans have remained the same regardless of changing environments. So there may have been some blue for life that came about very early, and relatively quick and has never really changed.

Body plans evolved fairly quickly because they are determined by basic symmetries and controlled by a small set of homeobox genes (e.g. Hox). Once an initial symmetry is established, subsequent developments are elaborations of that symmetry. A few simple symmetries, e.g. radial, bilateral, tubiform, have significant selective advantages in particular niches, so establish themselves rapidly and are likely to dominate those niches. Some, e.g. bilateral are superior platforms for elaboration, so become the basis for an extensive radiation of forms.

Environmental pressure can have various effects from causing a creature to be less viable and unable to adapt to causing form change.

Those less viable and unable to adapt will have a selective disadvantage. Those that can change form may have a selective advantage. That's how natural selection works.

The environment has an effect on cells and tissues which can cause changes that can lead to the expression of genetic info that has an effect on form.

Yes, but, apart from a limited amount of short-lived epigenetic change, these are changes to individuals, not heritable changes to populations.

So it follows that living things are not passive passengers for evolution. They are not just subject to be shaped or influenced by outside forces. They can have a say in what happens including what happens to future generations. They can put themselves in a better position to survive. The point is this was seen as a minor influence but now is seen as one of the main causes of evolution.

Yet if you ask most people they will proclaim the great creative power of natural selection. They only understand evolution as natural selection. This is what I have seen on this forum. Rarely if at all have I seen people talk about the other forces of evolution. That is to me is a misrepresentation of how evolution really works.

Again what 'most people' think isn't particularly relevant. A narrow view of natural selection is something that can be widened. You yourself have expressed a narrow view of natural selection in these posts. The 'traditional' view of the mechanisms of natural selection has been expanded and extended as we learn more about the interplay of influences involved. But it still comes down to the preferential survival of fitter forms over generations.

Yet that is the only force being presented. It is not regarded as a major evolutionary force but a minor one when it comes to the evolution of genomes. In fact, it is an undermining and harmful influence on evolving greater complexity. That is why living things have mechanisms to preserve what already is.

I can't make sense of this.

 

[Speedwell]

Yet if you ask most people they will proclaim the great creative power of natural selection. They only understand evolution as natural selection. This is what I have seen on this forum. Rarely if at all have I seen people talk about the other forces of evolution. That is to me is a misrepresentation of how evolution really works.

What you think most people think is not very important in the long run. Variation and selection remains the backbone of evolution despite second-order processes which are being discovered. The reason you see it emphasized in this forum is due to a basic misunderstanding by many creationists of how variation and selection actually work. Without that understanding the implication of related processes is impossible for them to grasp. Nobody is denying that they exist or that they are not important.

For a growing number of people, it is a reconceptualization of evolution just as the modern synthesis was.

Which has already happened several times since Darwin. Again, what is your point here?

 

[Kylie]

Yes I agree but it is not solely determined by genes. The traditional view of evolution (modern synthesis) takes a gene-centric view of evolution. A great deal of variation can come from other sources besides genes that help creatures change shape such as through developmental, or phenotypic, plasticity. And new genetic material can come through development which is not random and geared towards producing certain phenotypes and not others such as with development bias.

The story the standard theory (SET) tells is simple new variation comes from random mutations, inheritance happens through DNA and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation. In this view, the complexity of biological development — the changes that occur as an organism grows are of secondary, even minor, importance. 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?
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

True. There are many non-genetic processes that can influence how an organism develops to suit the particular pressures it will face.

But how many of those are heritable traits? For evolution to take place, the traits must be passed on to any offspring the organism produces.

The point is as far as I understand is that much of the phenotype change (the new traits) are not randomly thrown up for natural selection to determine if they are suitable for an environment. This would require pre-existing genetic structures to be subject to potentially harmful genetic changes. At a certain point, the changes need to fit in specifically with what is already there so they need to be well suited in the first place.

So through development bias, the changes thrown up are well suited and integrated, and therefore the selection as already been done. That is because living things don't live separated from environments and other living things. They are connected and share genetic info and feedback from environments acting on their bodies at the molecular level which helps them produce the required changes. They also have a suite of pre-existing genetic info that can be utilized. All living things basically use the same genetic development programs. Evolution is not as blind and random as people think.

However, you'll notice that changes are nearly always very small ones. After all, if there's something that already works and you want to change it, you don't want to change it too much. You're going to stick close to what you know already works. Evolution works the same way, as any organism that is more likely to make large changes in a single generation will have died out, since large changes are more likely to result in an unviable organism, simply because the changes took it so far from what it had that already worked.

Yes what Dawkins is talking about is similar to Niche construction where living things can change their environments to better suit their needs. The beaver building dams is an example. But though socialization is similar in that it is based on behavior rather than interactions with environments it is more about interactions between living things especially a parent to offspring but also socially as widespread practices influence individuals and future generations.

This is called Inclusive inheritance and unlike biological inheritance of DNA, this recognizes other mechanisms that can contribute to inheritance from parents that can help reconstruct development niches. This includes symbiosis, HGT, and epigenetics.

The pathways of inheritance that derive from a parental phenotype (‘parental effects’) have a number of evolutionary consequences similar to those of plasticity, cultural inheritance and niche construction [67]. For example, non-genetic inheritance can bias the expression and retention of environmentally induced phenotypes, thereby influencing the rate and direction of evolution [68]. There is also increasing evidence for more stable transgenerational epigenetic inheritance, or the transmission across generations of cellular states without modification of the DNA sequence, which demonstrates that adaptive evolution may proceed by selection on epigenetic variants as well as variation in DNA sequence [60,69,70].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

I'd say that this still counts as an interaction with the environment - after all, the other individuals that are interacted with for a part of that individual's environment, don't they?

 

[stevevw]

What you think most people think is not very important in the long run. Variation and selection remains the backbone of evolution despite second-order processes which are being discovered.

That is the point variation and natural selection are not the backbone. Selection is only one of several forces and is not dominant so therefore should not be emphasized. The other point is that variation is often proposed as random mutations. But a lot of variation can happen that is not random. It is these tow misconceptions that create the idea that somehow this can create almost anything.

What we see today is not the result of natural selection and random mutations but a number of processes and mechanisms for which some are inherent mechanisms that use existing genetic information and for others through self-organization and interactions between living organisms and the environment.

The reason you see it emphasized in this forum is due to a basic misunderstanding by many creationists of how variation and selection actually work. Without that understanding, the implication of related processes is impossible for them to grasp. Nobody is denying that they exist or that they are not important.

But explaining evolution through a misrepresented process is only going to complicate things more. In fact, when we consider the entire influences available for evolution it may well help creationists and the like understand and appreciate that in reality there are some guiding factors in evolution that seem to suggest design.

So perhaps explaining a misinformed version is why people baulk at the traditional theory as it goes against their intuition that there is more to how living things evolve than a process that really doesn’t account for what we see.

Which has already happened several times since Darwin. Again, what is your point here?

My point is it seems many haven't caught on to this. That is because the idea of NS is enticing because of its simplistic application. It is easy to make examples as with the eye example without having to account for the detail. NS is still given a powerful creative ability that is not there. This is emphasized in a number of papers

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

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.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[stevevw]

True. There are many non-genetic processes that can influence how an organism develops to suit the particular pressures it will face.

But how many of those are heritable traits? For evolution to take place, the traits must be passed on to any offspring the organism produces.

Yes, and there are processes that can also affect the way genes are expressed which can influence the form and also survivability. This is more about the interactions of creatures between each other and the pressures experienced from environments. This is a fairly new area but is becoming more and more prominent as a cause of evolution.

It makes sense because this reflects real-world situations and feedbacks between living things and how they experience life. There is a lot more credit given to epigenetics in recent times. I guess you could describe it as more along the lines as a form of Lamarckism.

Then you also have much more evidence for HGT, and symbiosis also seems to be a big factor in how new genetic changes can happen. The point is there is much more to evolution than just selection and random mutation for which most people only conceive evolution as. So much so that the traditional view is becoming outdated and incapable of accounting for what is happening. But we still have to determine how this exactly happens, what the role is, and degree of influence.

However, you'll notice that changes are nearly always very small ones. After all, if there's something that already works and you want to change it, you don't want to change it too much. You're going to stick close to what you know already works. Evolution works the same way, as any organism that is more likely to make large changes in a single generation will have died out since large changes are more likely to result in an unviable organism, simply because the changes took it so far from what it had that already worked.

Yes I agree and that is why these other processes make so much sense. They utilize existing genetic info, activate what is needed and vary what is already there. Environmental pressures are part of this and they can activate the process which can produce well-suited changes that are needed because living things are not a separate entity from their environment but are constantly getting feedbacks which has an influence on the way they develop and how future generations express genetic info.

Because it is more constructive and interactive living things are more self-organized and enabled to determine what happens thus guiding evolutionary changes for which natural selection will refine. But I don’t think it is a case that random mutations produce these random variations that have a 1 in a million chance of providing well-suited changes. Evolution is not so blind and random like that.

I'd say that this still counts as an interaction with the environment - after all, the other individuals that are interacted with for a part of that individual's environment, don't they?

yeah, I guess you could class it as that as just about everything a creature interacts with is their environment.

The only difference is that it is more interactive. How creatures behave and interact with each other, how they can share environments, or niche environments and form symbiotic connections that influence survivability. How parents create nurturing environments that can influence gene expression. How the environment can affect the state of a living thing (stress or calmness) or with diets.

All this can influence the expression of genes in future generations such as hair colour and height or susceptibility or resistance to disease or a creature's ability to evolve to their potential and thus is a form of non-genetic inheritance that can still influence morphology and fitness. A form of Lamarckian evolution.

Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
Today, the view that biological information is transmitted from one generation to the next by the DNA sequence alone appears untenable3,5–8. This became strikingly obvious when genome-wide association studies (GWA studies) showed that most of the high heritability’s for phenotypic traits, such as height or common human diseases, could not be explained by common genetic variants

Today, species evolution through neutral divergence or as a response to natural selection is thought to act primarily on phenotypic variation resulting from variation in the DNA sequence16. However, phenotypic variation may also result from changes in DNA expression17–19, which is determined by various epigenetic mechanisms.

Variation in DNA methylation within imprinted genes and transposable elements can be mediated by both abiotic22,29 and biotic30 environmental components. Thus, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance has a “deliciously Lamarckian flavour” (REF. 11) that contrasts strikingly with the usual vision of inheritance8,26.
https://psychology.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2016-10/champagne2.pdf

 

[Kylie]

Yes, and there are processes that can also affect the way genes are expressed which can influence the form and also survivability. This is more about the interactions of creatures between each other and the pressures experienced from environments. This is a fairly new area but is becoming more and more prominent as a cause of evolution.

It makes sense because this reflects real-world situations and feedbacks between living things and how they experience life. There is a lot more credit given to epigenetics in recent times. I guess you could describe it as more along the lines as a form of Lamarckism.

Then you also have much more evidence for HGT, and symbiosis also seems to be a big factor in how new genetic changes can happen. The point is there is much more to evolution than just selection and random mutation for which most people only conceive evolution as. So much so that the traditional view is becoming outdated and incapable of accounting for what is happening. But we still have to determine how this exactly happens, what the role is, and degree of influence.

Yes I agree and that is why these other processes make so much sense. They utilize existing genetic info, activate what is needed and vary what is already there. Environmental pressures are part of this and they can activate the process which can produce well-suited changes that are needed because living things are not a separate entity from their environment but are constantly getting feedbacks which has an influence on the way they develop and how future generations express genetic info.

Because it is more constructive and interactive living things are more self-organized and enabled to determine what happens thus guiding evolutionary changes for which natural selection will refine. But I don’t think it is a case that random mutations produce these random variations that have a 1 in a million chance of providing well-suited changes. Evolution is not so blind and random like that.

yeah, I guess you could class it as that as just about everything a creature interacts with is their environment.

The only difference is that it is more interactive. How creatures behave and interact with each other, how they can share environments, or niche environments and form symbiotic connections that influence survivability. How parents create nurturing environments that can influence gene expression. How the environment can affect the state of a living thing (stress or calmness) or with diets.

All this can influence the expression of genes in future generations such as hair colour and height or susceptibility or resistance to disease or a creature's ability to evolve to their potential and thus is a form of non-genetic inheritance that can still influence morphology and fitness. A form of Lamarckian evolution.

Beyond DNA: integrating inclusive inheritance into an extended theory of evolution
Today, the view that biological information is transmitted from one generation to the next by the DNA sequence alone appears untenable3,5–8. This became strikingly obvious when genome-wide association studies (GWA studies) showed that most of the high heritability’s for phenotypic traits, such as height or common human diseases, could not be explained by common genetic variants

Today, species evolution through neutral divergence or as a response to natural selection is thought to act primarily on phenotypic variation resulting from variation in the DNA sequence16. However, phenotypic variation may also result from changes in DNA expression17–19, which is determined by various epigenetic mechanisms.

Variation in DNA methylation within imprinted genes and transposable elements can be mediated by both abiotic22,29 and biotic30 environmental components. Thus, transgenerational epigenetic inheritance has a “deliciously Lamarckian flavour” (REF. 11) that contrasts strikingly with the usual vision of inheritance8,26.
https://psychology.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/2016-10/champagne2.pdf

You seem to be going out of your way to show that inheritable genes play an insignificant part of evolution. I don't believe that you are giving an unbiased view of the situation.

 

[Speedwell]

That is the point variation and natural selection are not the backbone. Selection is only one of several forces and is not dominant so therefore should not be emphasized.

Without selection there can be no evolution. Selection is the test which all variants have to pass or fail.

The other point is that variation is often proposed as random mutations.

Only by ignorant creationists.

But a lot of variation can happen that is not random.

I don't think you know what "random" means in this context.

It is these tow misconceptions that create the idea that somehow this can create almost anything.

Then let us try to dispel them for you.

What we see today is not the result of natural selection and random mutations

Yes, there is a reason that the name of the theory is "the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection" and not "...random mutation and natural selection."

but a number of processes and mechanisms for which some are inherent mechanisms that use existing genetic information and for others through self-organization and interactions between living organisms and the environment. But explaining evolution through a misrepresented process is only going to complicate things more. In fact, when we consider the entire influences available for evolution it may well help creationists and the like understand and appreciate that in reality there are some guiding factors in evolution that seem to suggest design.

No, there are not.

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.

The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

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.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.

Yet the mere mention of the EES often evokes an emotional, even hostile, reaction among evolutionary biologists. Too often, vital discussions descend into acrimony, with accusations of muddle or misrepresentation. Perhaps haunted by the spectre of intelligent design, evolutionary biologists wish to show a united front to those hostile to science. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Citations?

 

[stevevw]

Without selection there can be no evolution. Selection is the test which all variants have to pass or fail.

I never said there is no natural selection. I said it is only one of several forces in evolution and for some aspects of evolution it is not very dominant or even sufficient.

Only by ignorant creationists.

I think that is unfair. I think it would be the case for anyone who did not have a good understanding of evolution regardless of belief.

I don't think you know what "random" means in this context. Then let us try to dispel them for you.

As far as I understand it "random" as in random mutation is because the mutation can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral when it comes to changes in an allele. Because mutations are random they don't provide the variation that may be needed to produce the right changes at the right time that a creature may need.

So that is where the randomness comes in as far as I understand as this potentially means that random mutations will introduce potentially harmful mutations to get to any benefits which are a bit of a roundabout what to help life adapt to their environments. As there are many more deleterious mutations and beneficial ones are rare it seems a pretty risky process. Whereas these other processes mentioned in the EES bring about well-suited changes that a creature needs quickly. They can guide selection down the best paths so that creatures can make the best of changes when needed.

Yes, there is a reason that the name of the theory is "the theory of evolution by random variation and natural selection" and not "...random mutation and natural selection."

Except there is a lot of variation that is no random. The variations are well suited and integrated. This also minimizes the role of natural selection because the selection is being down by other processes.

If living this can put themselves in the best possible situation to survive be it through their own way of living or from interactions between other living things and environments that provide feedback that can influence the right type of changes that can also be passed onto generations then this helps selection as it minimizes any randomness and potential harm that needs to be weeded out by NS.

That is how life is designed, they are not passive in their own evolution that they need to be purely subject to some outside force that will somehow find the right variation for them. They can more often than not find it themselves. Most of the time it is preserving what already exists as it does not need to be varied.

No, there are not.

Well as far as I understand things the basic body plans we see today came about pretty well all of a sudden in evolutionary terms and very early in the process. They have basically stayed the same and there are inherent mechanisms that basically vary existing genetics with pre-existing info to form new variation. Today biologists recognize this through processes like developmental biology and more specifically developmental bias where evolution doesn't go along any pathways throwing up random variations for selection to weed out. But rather produce a consistent and universal variation that is directed along specific pathways.

Evo-devo provides a causal-mechanistic understanding of evolution by using comparative and experimental biology to identify the developmental principles that underlie phenotypic differences within and between populations, species, and higher taxa. Among the key empirical insights are that phenotypic variation often involves changes in the gene regulatory machinery that alters the timing, location, amount, or type of gene product.

This modification of pre-existing developmental processes can bring about coordinated changes in suites of characters, effectively enabling diversification through the differential coupling and decoupling of phenotypic modules [16–19]. As a consequence, developmental properties can affect the rates and patterns of phenotypic evolution [20,21] and contribute to evolvability, the potential of biological lineages for adaptive evolution [19,22–24].

Of particular interest is the observation that phenotypic variation can be biased by the processes of development, with some forms more probable than others [12,17,25–28]. Bias is manifest, for example, in the non-random numbers of limbs, digits, segments and vertebrae across a variety of taxa [25,26,29,30], correlated responses to artificial selection resulting from shared developmental regulation [31], and in the repeated, differential re-use of developmental modules, which enables novel phenotypes to arise by developmental rearrangements of ancestral elements, as in the parallel evolution of animal eyes [32].

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations. This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Citations?

Are you asking for citations to the papers I linked as they are citations in themselves?

 

[stevevw]

You seem to be going out of your way to show that inheritable genes play an insignificant part of evolution. I don't believe that you are giving an unbiased view of the situation.

No, I was only trying to explain to the best of my ability that particular process which contributes to evolution. That is only one and there are several others that need to be considered such as developmental bias and plasticity and niche construction. It is these influence together that create a significant reconceptualisation of the traditional understanding of evolution. But basically I have no issues with the traditional theory and its implications for creationism. I just want to point out that there is more to evolution than what many often understand and present.

I find it very interesting and it gives good insights into how living things work and change. It sort of relates to my speciality of study which is more along the lines of evolutionary psychology which will consider the environmental effects on creatures, especially with epigenetics. It brings adds to the study of human behaviour and the origins of behavioural problems the inherited aspect such as is there some genetic influence for why people behave the way they do. Is there a psychopath or anger gene.

This seems to be a more common possibility with epigenetics in research within behavioural sciences, especially how a mothers lifestyle can influence the development of the fetus and a child's early years and how this can affect future generations. How even cultures can be affected such as indigenous people where there is a transgenerational effect for the culture and not just individuals.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said there is no natural selection. I said it is only one of several forces in evolution and for some aspects of evolution it is not very dominant or even sufficient. I think that is unfair. I think it would be the case for anyone who did not have a good understanding of evolution regardless of belief. As far as I understand it "random" as in random mutation is because the mutation can be beneficial, harmful, or neutral when it comes to changes in an allele. Because mutations are random they don't provide the variation that may be needed to produce the right changes at the right time that a creature may need.

So that is where the randomness comes in as far as I understand as this potentially means that random mutations will introduce potentially harmful mutations to get to any benefits which are a bit of a roundabout what to help life adapt to their environments. As there are many more deleterious mutations and beneficial ones are rare it seems a pretty risky process. Whereas these other processes mentioned in the EES bring about well-suited changes that a creature needs quickly. They can guide selection down the best paths so that creatures can make the best of changes when needed.

Except there is a lot of variation that is no random. The variations are well suited and integrated. This also minimizes the role of natural selection because the selection is being down by other processes.

If living this can put themselves in the best possible situation to survive be it through their own way of living or from interactions between other living things and environments that provide feedback that can influence the right type of changes that can also be passed onto generations then this helps selection as it minimizes any randomness and potential harm that needs to be weeded out by NS.

That is how life is designed, they are not passive in their own evolution that they need to be purely subject to some outside force that will somehow find the right variation for them. They can more often than not find it themselves. Most of the time it is preserving what already exists as it does not need to be varied.

That is basically all nonsense. Each new generation of a species presents a range of variants to the environment for selection. The variations are randomly distributed. That is, they form a bell curve--which is where the "random" in random variation and selection comes from. That is what Darwin observed. He didn't know about mutations or genetics, all he knew was what he observed: the random distribution of variation. Variation has a number of causes. Mutations are one cause, and there are others which are known of and even more which are being explored by the EES people you seem so fond of. But all variants must face the test of natural selection

Well as far as I understand things the basic body plans we see today came about pretty well all of a sudden in evolutionary terms and very early in the process. They have basically stayed the same and there are inherent mechanisms that basically vary existing genetics with pre-existing info to form new variation. Today biologists recognize this through processes like developmental biology and more specifically developmental bias where evolution doesn't go along any pathways throwing up random variations for selection to weed out. But rather produce a consistent and universal variation that is directed along specific pathways.

Yes. And...?

Evo-devo provides a causal-mechanistic understanding of evolution by using comparative and experimental biology to identify the developmental principles that underlie phenotypic differences within and between populations, species, and higher taxa. Among the key empirical insights are that phenotypic variation often involves changes in the gene regulatory machinery that alters the timing, location, amount, or type of gene product.

This modification of pre-existing developmental processes can bring about coordinated changes in suites of characters, effectively enabling diversification through the differential coupling and decoupling of phenotypic modules [16–19]. As a consequence, developmental properties can affect the rates and patterns of phenotypic evolution [20,21] and contribute to evolvability, the potential of biological lineages for adaptive evolution [19,22–24].

Of particular interest is the observation that phenotypic variation can be biased by the processes of development, with some forms more probable than others [12,17,25–28]. Bias is manifest, for example, in the non-random numbers of limbs, digits, segments and vertebrae across a variety of taxa [25,26,29,30], correlated responses to artificial selection resulting from shared developmental regulation [31], and in the repeated, differential re-use of developmental modules, which enables novel phenotypes to arise by developmental rearrangements of ancestral elements, as in the parallel evolution of animal eyes [32].

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channelled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28]. The rationale is that development relies on highly robust ‘core processes’, from microtubule formation and signal transduction pathways to organogenesis, which at the same time exhibit ‘exploratory behaviour’ [28], allowing them to stabilize and select certain states over others. Exploratory behaviour followed by somatic selection enables core processes to be responsive to changes in genetic and environmental input, while their robustness and conservation maintain their ability to generate functional (i.e. well integrated) outcomes in the face of perturbations. This phenomenon, known as facilitated variation [28,34], provides a mechanistic explanation for how small, genetic changes can sometimes elicit substantial, non-random, well-integrated and apparently adaptive innovations in the phenotype.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Are you asking for citations to the papers I linked as they are citations in themselves?

Yes, you didn't exclude the source in the previous posting. But you aren't the first to be bamboozled into thinking that EES represents a "window" for divine intervention into evolution. It isn't; EES is still a fully naturalistic process.

 

[Kylie]

No, I was only trying to explain to the best of my ability that particular process which contributes to evolution. That is only one and there are several others that need to be considered such as developmental bias and plasticity and niche construction. It is these influence together that create a significant reconceptualisation of the traditional understanding of evolution. But basically I have no issues with the traditional theory and its implications for creationism. I just want to point out that there is more to evolution than what many often understand and present.

I find it very interesting and it gives good insights into how living things work and change. It sort of relates to my speciality of study which is more along the lines of evolutionary psychology which will consider the environmental effects on creatures, especially with epigenetics. It brings adds to the study of human behaviour and the origins of behavioural problems the inherited aspect such as is there some genetic influence for why people behave the way they do. Is there a psychopath or anger gene.

This seems to be a more common possibility with epigenetics in research within behavioural sciences, especially how a mothers lifestyle can influence the development of the fetus and a child's early years and how this can affect future generations. How even cultures can be affected such as indigenous people where there is a transgenerational effect for the culture and not just individuals.

"Developmental bias," "plasticity," "niche construction," "reconceptualisation," and so on...

A lot of technical sounding words, but little evidence that you understand what they mean. It seems to me like it's just an attempt to muddy the waters with technobabble and divert the topic of the discussion away from my explanation of how natural selection of inheritable traits can lead to large changes over many generations, and how this process of change is evolution.

So please don't try to change the subject away from that, okay? I aimed my opening post at those who have very little to no understanding of evolution, so please don't try to confuse the issue with other more complex ideas that beginners in evolutionary theory would have no hope of understanding, okay?

 

[stevevw]

That is basically all nonsense. Each new generation of a species presents a range of variants to the environment for selection. The variations are randomly distributed. That is, they form a bell curve--which is where the "random" in random variation and selection comes from. That is what Darwin observed. He didn't know about mutations or genetics, all he knew was what he observed: the random distribution of variation. Variation has a number of causes. Mutations are one cause, and there are others which are known of and even more which are being explored by the EES people you seem so fond of. But all variants must face the test of natural selection

I cannot see how it is all nonsense when I am referring to scientific support for what I say. For example, I was referring to this

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected. Major contributions of horizontal gene transfer and diverse selfish genetic elements to genome evolution undermine the Tree of Life concept. An adequate depiction of evolution requires the more complex concept of a network or 'forest' of life. There is no consistent tendency of evolution towards increased genomic complexity, and when complexity increases, this appears to be a non-adaptive consequence of evolution under weak purifying selection rather than an adaptation.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics - PubMed

So, it seems that there are other non-adaptive forces that are more prominent in evolving the complexity of genomes other than natural selection. In other words, adaptations such as those in which natural selection plays a role are not the only way living things can gain new variations. The way selection works are that it chops off the bad to get the benefit.

Whereas these other forces produce the benefit, the well suited and integrated changes in the first place so the selection is not as required. That is how life is designed so that it ensures changes are precise and fit in to allow creatures to survive. So though natural selection still plays a role, its role is more to do with survival and not the arrival of creatures.

Yes. And...?

Well it brings up some important fundamental questions and points to some implications. Like the basic blueprint for life was around very early and was basically the same as what we see today. That would imply that since then evolution has used pre-existing information. The acquisition of existing genetic info being utilized means there that much of the new genetic info that selection weeds out is more to do with harm than life producing. It means that living things are equipped with pre-existing genetic info to share and use to adapt to planet earth.

Stuart Newman's now got a seductive theory about the origin of form of all 35 or so animal phyla--"it happened abruptly" not gradually, roughly 600 million years ago via a "pattern language"--which serves as the centerpiece of the "Extended Synthesis."

We know that no new genes arose in conjunction with the vertebrate limb. Pre-existing genes were used in a new context. The limb bud is an out pocketing of the body wall. It came into existence as a result of slight changes in the surface of the embryo. This provided (by the action of some of the DPMs) a new "morphogenetic field," the limb bud, which served as the medium for a whole new set of self-organizing dynamics.

In modern-day organisms, there is significant plasticity. You don't have to go back 600 million years to see that. If you take a plant and put it in different soil or a different environment, it can look entirely different.
The Origin of Form Was Abrupt Not Gradual - Archaeology Magazine Archive

In other words, according to the above, the acquisition of new variations and complexity, such as limbs, for example, was the result of existing genetics and the ability of the living cell to self organize following existing patterns for generating new forms in what is called "dynamical patterning modules," or DPMs. We can then understand how from simple celled life more variation and complexity could evolve to what we see today.

Yes, you didn't exclude the source in the previous posting. But you aren't the first to be bamboozled into thinking that EES represents a "window" for divine intervention into evolution. It isn't; EES is still a fully naturalistic process.

Of course, I am not the first. I think the majority of those who hold faith in God or a god support evolution. I said that if anything my views of evolution are more along the lines of theistic evolution which basically supports the theory but also claims that at some point be it at the beginning, at certain points or through naturalistic processes allow for divine intervention.

The point is processes like the EES and the like point to a more organized and directed evolution regardless of any association with divine intervention. That can be supported on their own through science. In some ways, the evidence has done a full circle. It began as God's creation, was challenged by Darwin’s theory which some said was creation without God.

Now a more refined understanding is showing evolution is not so blind as in the variety and complexity we see are only the result of adaptations for survival and random as in mutations popping up any variation including harmful and lethal ones that are supposed to produce something more akin to fit. It is showing us that there is more self-organization, construction and direction to how life evolves with underlying mechanisms designed to produce well suited and integrated changes that are not blind and random.

 

[stevevw]

"Developmental bias," "plasticity," "niche construction," "reconceptualisation," and so on...

A lot of technical sounding words, but little evidence that you understand what they mean. It seems to me like it's just an attempt to muddy the waters with technobabble and divert the topic of the discussion away from my explanation of how natural selection of inheritable traits can lead to large changes over many generations, and how this process of change is evolution.

So please don't try to change the subject away from that, okay? I aimed my opening post at those who have very little to no understanding of evolution, so please don't try to confuse the issue with other more complex ideas that beginners in evolutionary theory would have no hope of understanding, okay?

OK, maybe it is the wrong thread to be speaking of these things. But it seems you are wanting to block out any challenges to the traditional understanding of evolution in your thread which is being challenged in the real world.

 

[Jok]

Hey now! Since when does the atheist get upset over technical clarity at the expense of confusing the layperson!?
I would say that a happy middle ground would be that if someone is going to throw out confusing jargon that they should just follow it up with a decent explanation in layman’s terms for everyone.

 

[Kylie]

OK, maybe it is the wrong thread to be speaking of these things. But it seems you are wanting to block out any challenges to the traditional understanding of evolution in your thread which is being challenged in the real world.

No, I'm just trying to keep the subject of this thread to the idea I posted in the OP: namely, that genes can determine that traits an individual has, there is variation of traits among a population of the same species, some of the individuals will have an easier time surviving because the traits they have convey benefits, those individuals will be more likely to pass on the genes for those traits to their offspring, and this process over many generations will result in a gradual change of the typical individual in what we call evolution.

It's an "evolution for beginners" class. I freely agree that there are other processes which influence how evolution happens, but those things aren't, in my opinion, suitable for a thread at the beginner evolution level.

 

[Kylie]

Hey now! Since when does the atheist get upset over technical clarity at the expense of confusing the layperson!?
I would say that a happy middle ground would be that if someone is going to throw out confusing jargon that they should just follow it up with a decent explanation in layman’s terms for everyone.

Because, as I said to Steve, I don't want people who don't understand evolution that well to have a whole bunch of concepts thrown at them at once, because they will get confused.

If I was teaching you music and you were a beginner, I would start with the note values (minims, crotchets, quavers, etc), what the time signature is, what a bar is and how to find which note on the stave is which key on the piano. For a beginner, I wouldn't even cover sharps or flats, or any time signature other than 4/4. Let them learn that stuff first before introducing them to things like 3/4 or sharps and flats, that way they can understand it by basing it off the fundamental concepts they've already learned.

I'm just trying to do the same thing here.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm just trying to keep the subject of this thread to the idea I posted in the OP: namely, that genes can determine that traits an individual has, there is variation of traits among a population of the same species, some of the individuals will have an easier time surviving because the traits they have convey benefits, those individuals will be more likely to pass on the genes for those traits to their offspring, and this process over many generations will result in a gradual change of the typical individual in what we call evolution.

It's an "evolution for beginners" class. I freely agree that there are other processes which influence how evolution happens, but those things aren't, in my opinion, suitable for a thread at the beginner evolution level.

fair enough

 

[Speedwell]

It began as God's creation, was challenged by Darwin’s theory which some said was creation without God.

But those with more understanding of theology than a mushroom don't say that--it's still God's creation and Darwin's theory..

Now a more refined understanding is showing evolution is not so blind as in the variety and complexity we see are only the result of adaptations for survival and random as in mutations popping up any variation including harmful and lethal ones that are supposed to produce something more akin to fit. It is showing us that there is more self-organization, construction and direction to how life evolves with underlying mechanisms designed to produce well suited and integrated changes that are not blind and random.

I'd bet the ranch that you are not mining all of those quotes by your own independent research, but I am not going to challenge you on it.

Just answer this question: do you believe that a process consisting solely of random variation and natural selection can be the instrument of divine providence? Yes or no?

 

[stevevw]

But those with more understanding of theology than a mushroom don't say that--it's still God's creation and Darwin's theory..

I'd bet the ranch that you are not mining all of those quotes by your own independent research, but I am not going to challenge you on it.

Well I hope you have a ranch. They are sections of the original papers which I have often read. You can go back to my history and find different sections linked going back years. I have a lot of papers along these lines. As I said the EES is associated with my line of study and work in human behavior especially mental health. It is important to understand all the influences for behavior including cognitive, psychological, and genetic, especially epigenetics. It is important to understand if there is a genetic basis for behavioral problems as opposed to learned or conditioned.

Just answer this question: do you believe that a process consisting solely of random variation and natural selection can be the instrument of divine providence? Yes or no?

I guess so as theistic evolution can be based on this. If evolution came down to these forces alone I have no problem accepting that. God can use whatever means to help life to adapt to the earth. I don't think he would leave creatures unable to change as environments also change.

 

[Speedwell]

I guess so as theistic evolution can be based on this. If evolution came down to these forces alone I have no problem accepting that. God can use whatever means to help life to adapt to the earth. I don't think he would leave creatures unable to change as environments also change.

Yet you characterize such a process as "blind and random."