Do you agree with these statements?

[tampasteve]

ADMIN HAT ON​

Several Disruptive posts have been removed. If you have a question, make a Ticket in the Support Center and ask, publicly berating forum Staff or discussing Staff Actions is disruptive.

Also, to explain the previous post: doxxing is a form of harassment and goes against the forum rules for harassment as it is giving or attempting to disseminate other member's personal information. It should go without saying that making those kinds of statements about another member's permission is harassment.

ADMIN HAT OFF​

 

[AV1611VET]

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

To get back on track, I agree will all seven of these statements, because I believe they are still zebras.

 

[SelfSim]

Fascinating thread is, in more ways than one ..

To get back on track, I agree will all seven of these statements, because I believe they are still zebras.

Do you also believe that what the word 'zebra' meant, existed before humans had the capability of speech?

If so, then what was the purpose of such words back then .. given there were no communications .. and no need for propagating the meaning of 'zebra'?

If not, then how can you say the meaning of 'zebra' doesn't change?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not all changes are due to genetics. Some are morphological.... Something even Darwin knew, modern diet in humans makes human jaws smaller and teeth crowded up, because you don't have to chew as much, which causes problems with wisdom teeth coming in.

No. Humans have evolved (i.e. genetic change) smaller jaws with crowded teeth.

People in contemporary cultures with diets requiring a lot of chewing, e.g. including a lot of raw vegetables & nuts, don't develop significantly larger jaws with less crowded teeth.

6. The most beneficial mutation to date, is sickle cell anemia...

How beneficial a mutation is depends on the circumstances. There are numerous examples of more beneficial mutations - in the appropriate circumstances - for example:

The mutation of Apolipoprotein AI, that protects agains arteriosclerosis and cardiovascular disease.

The mutation in lipoprotein receptor–related protein 5 (LRP5) that protects against osteoporosis.

The mutations that prevent altitude sickness in people living at high altitude.

The CCR5-delta32 mutation on chromosome 3 that confers immunity to HIV.

The mutation that gives many people lactose tolerance.

The mutation to red blood cells that increases resistance to malaria (not sickle-cell).

The mutations that protect against alcoholism.

The mutations that protect against dementia.

The mutation that allows consistently less than 6 hrs sleep without sleep deprivation.

The mutations that increase endurance running performance.

The mutation in the X chromosome that causes tetrachromatic vision.

Not to mention all the mutations that contributed to the evolution of the distinguishing characteristics of humans in general.

 

[Shemjaza]

No. Humans have evolved (i.e. genetic change) smaller jaws with crowded teeth.

People in contemporary cultures with diets requiring a lot of chewing, e.g. including a lot of raw vegetables & nuts, don't develop significantly larger jaws with less crowded teeth.

Back before modern dentistry a whole lot more teeth got knocked out or rotted. So the little receded jaw and crowded teeth had less opportunity to affect us.

 

[Kylie]

To get back on track, I agree will all seven of these statements, because I believe they are still zebras.

So if those changes all add up over a great long period of time so that their legs are flippers, their hair is gone, they no longer have stripes, and they swim to great depths, will you still say they are zebras, even if they are much more like a small whale, or dugong, so seal or other aquatic mammal?

 

[Kylie]

The mutation that allows consistently less than 6 hrs sleep without sleep deprivation.

Oh man, I could do with that one.

The mutation in the X chromosome that causes tetrachromatic vision.

This one sounds pretty cool too...

 

[SelfSim]

So if those changes all add up over a great long period of time ..

I think the basic concept of a 'great long period of time' might be beyond the grasp of many folk(?) Yet, its absolutely essential in this hypothetical.

Its kind of the same problem as getting across the scale of the universe.

How does one can make accessible the concept of millions, or billions of years, I wonder(?)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Oh man, I could do with that one.

Yeah, me too. It's incredibly rare.

I'm just reading 'Why We Sleep' by Matthew Walker, a sleep researcher. The effects of sleep deprivation (less than 7 hours) on the body and performance are really scary - yet many, if not most, people in industrialised nations are sleep deprived much of the time. If you haven't read it, I strongly recommend that you do - it's changed my approach to sleep for good...

This one sounds pretty cool too...

Yes, but in this case, it's easy not to miss what one can't really imagine

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How does one can make accessible the concept of millions, or billions of years, I wonder(?)

It's extremely difficult, but scaling it to more familiar timescales can give the gist of it; for example, if we scale a year down to a second, a million would be 11 days, a billion would be 32 years, and a trillion would be 33,000 years. That gives a better idea of the differences in magnitude than the raw numbers.

 

[stevevw]

Some questions...

1. Do you agree that if you have a group of animals - say a herd of zebra - then each individual will be slightly different to the others?
2. Do you agree that some of those differences can make it easier for that individual to survive - say, better eyesight so it has a better chance of spotting an approaching predator?
3. Do you agree that these differences are due to the genes that the animals have?
   
4. Do you agree that the genes that are responsible for these differences can be passed on to the offspring when that animal reproduces?
5. Do you agree that if an animal has some genes that mean it has a difference that helps it survive, this animal is more likely to have more offspring precisely because these differences help it live longer (living longer means more chances to reproduce)?
6. Do you agree that if animals with these helpful differences produce more offspring, then the number of animals in the herd that have this helpful difference will tend to increase over the generations?
7. Do you agree that if we wait for enough generations to pass, most if not all animals in the herd will have this difference, and what was once different is now normal?

If you think it's wrong, can you tell me which one exactly do you think is incorrect?

Primarily I agree. You are basically talking about natural selection. But natural selection is only one of several forces for change and according to some only a minor one. Living things can also dictate what traits should be passed on and their own survival through how they live and change environments to suit their lifestyle rather than just be passive passengers subject to change or die out.

There is also feedbacks happening between living things and environments which provide suitable and viable phenotypes that help them fit in and survive. They don't have to always be subject to a hit and miss process in the hope of finding the right forms to fit in. Therefore ecosystems evolve and not just individuals. Through developmental evolution, phenotypes change by switching on and off pre-existing genetic variation that comes to the fore when activated by environmental pressures.

Sometimes through socialization living things can put themselves in positions where they can survive rather than being subject to blind natural selection that is always one step behind changing environments. They prepare future generations to be more able and ready for the environment thus giving them a better chance of fitting in. They are not blind to their environment but equipped with instincts and knowledge about how they can best adapt. Sometimes creatures work together in co-ops that help create an environment that is mutually supportive and conducive to survival.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Primarily I agree. You are basically talking about natural selection. But natural selection is only one of several forces for change and according to some only a minor one. Living things can also dictate what traits should be passed on and their own survival through how they live and change environments to suit their lifestyle rather than just be passive passengers subject to change or die out.

There is also feedbacks happening between living things and environments which provide suitable and viable phenotypes that help them fit in and survive. They don't have to always be subject to a hit and miss process in the hope of finding the right forms to fit in. Therefore ecosystems evolve and not just individuals. Through developmental evolution, phenotypes change by switching on and off pre-existing genetic variation that comes to the fore when activated by environmental pressures.

Sometimes through socialization living things can put themselves in positions where they can survive rather than being subject to blind natural selection that is always one step behind changing environments. They prepare future generations to be more able and ready for the environment thus giving them a better chance of fitting in. They are not blind to their environment but equipped with instincts and knowledge about how they can best adapt. Sometimes creatures work together in co-ops that help create an environment that is mutually supportive and conducive to survival.

That's all part of the ToE. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, including behavioural traits.

 

[stevevw]

That's all part of the ToE. Natural selection is the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, including behavioural traits.

Yes, but there is an important distinction. Most people only conceive evolution as natural section and random mutations. The perception is somehow a blind force in natural selection that can add direction alone weeding out dysfunctional and unsuitable traits and create what we see. Whereas when these other forces are included we find that evolution is not so blind and suitable traits are not somehow shifted through many unsuitable ones to adapt.

Natural selection can be guided along certain paths and sometimes bypassed altogether to produce well suited and integrated phenotypes. If pre-existing mechanisms such as development can produce what is needed to fit into an environment then there is no or little need to select it in the first place. If environments can shape creatures then the selection is being bypassed as those phenotypes are not associated with survival but rather feedback that influences their shape. If living things can put themselves in a better position to survive by changing environments or socialization then they have selected their fate and not natural selection.

What I am trying to point out is the underlying assumption and belief that people give natural selection as a creative force that somehow is responsible for everything we see. This is a form of godlike creative power given to a naturalistic force that people are attributing to account for the incredible complexity and variation we see. When there are other mechanisms already inherent in all living things that help them adapt by producing well suited and integrated changes. This is the basis for the EES which questions and challenges the traditional idea of evolution.

 

[Kylie]

Primarily I agree. You are basically talking about natural selection. But natural selection is only one of several forces for change and according to some only a minor one. Living things can also dictate what traits should be passed on and their own survival through how they live and change environments to suit their lifestyle rather than just be passive passengers subject to change or die out.

But wouldn't you also agree that how they live and survive in a particular environment is determined by the traits their genes produce?

There is also feedbacks happening between living things and environments which provide suitable and viable phenotypes that help them fit in and survive. They don't have to always be subject to a hit and miss process in the hope of finding the right forms to fit in. Therefore ecosystems evolve and not just individuals. Through developmental evolution, phenotypes change by switching on and off pre-existing genetic variation that comes to the fore when activated by environmental pressures.

I would think this falls into natural selection - if some trait that is turned off during embryonic development causes a benefit to the individual by having it turned off, then the offspring of that individual are more likely to go through the same thing.

Sometimes through socialization living things can put themselves in positions where they can survive rather than being subject to blind natural selection that is always one step behind changing environments. They prepare future generations to be more able and ready for the environment thus giving them a better chance of fitting in. They are not blind to their environment but equipped with instincts and knowledge about how they can best adapt. Sometimes creatures work together in co-ops that help create an environment that is mutually supportive and conducive to survival.

Socialisation is a behaviour, and there's a lot of very good evidence that behaviour is just another phenotype that an animal can have. See Richard Dawkins' "The Extended Phenotype."

 

[stevevw]

But wouldn't you also agree that how they live and survive in a particular environment is determined by the traits their genes produce?

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

I would think this falls into natural selection - if some trait that is turned off during embryonic development causes a benefit to the individual by having it turned off, then the offspring of that individual are more likely to go through the same thing.

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.

Socialisation is a behaviour, and there's a lot of very good evidence that behaviour is just another phenotype that an animal can have. See Richard Dawkins' "The Extended Phenotype."

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

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, but there is an important distinction. Most people only conceive evolution as natural section and random mutations. The perception is somehow a blind force in natural selection that can add direction alone weeding out dysfunctional and unsuitable traits and create what we see. Whereas when these other forces are included we find that evolution is not so blind and suitable traits are not somehow shifted through many unsuitable ones to adapt.

What poorly informed people think evolution is not really relevant - education is the answer.

Natural selection can be guided along certain paths and sometimes bypassed altogether to produce well suited and integrated phenotypes.

What do you mean by "Natural selection can be guided"?

What examples can you give of natural selection being "bypassed altogether"?

If pre-existing mechanisms such as development can produce what is needed to fit into an environment then there is no or little need to select it in the first place.

An organism's development is a result of ancestral natural selection.

If environments can shape creatures then the selection is being bypassed as those phenotypes are not associated with survival but rather feedback that influences their shape.

I can't make much sense of that - but in what ways can environments 'shape creatures' (i.e. change populations) that don't involve natural selection?

If living things can put themselves in a better position to survive by changing environments or socialization then they have selected their fate and not natural selection.

The evolutionary environment includes other individuals of the same species, and as previously mentioned, phenotype includes behaviour. So that's all part of natural selection as previously defined (the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, including behavioural traits).

What I am trying to point out is the underlying assumption and belief that people give natural selection as a creative force that somehow is responsible for everything we see.

THat's too vague to comment - clearly not everything we see is a product of natural selection.

This is a form of godlike creative power given to a naturalistic force that people are attributing to account for the incredible complexity and variation we see. When there are other mechanisms already inherent in all living things that help them adapt by producing well suited and integrated changes. This is the basis for the EES which questions and challenges the traditional idea of evolution.

I've not heard anyone suggest or imply that natural selection is 'godlike'; it is a major evolutionary force - organisms that cannot adapt to an environment will not survive. That doesn't mean it's the only evolutionary influence.

EES can be seen either as emphasising alternatives to the traditional concept of natural selection or extending the traditional concept of natural selection to encompass additional mechanisms. It's a semantic argument that's not particularly interesting; what is interesting is investigating the variety of mechanisms EES has proposed and discovering the extent of their influence.

 

[AV1611VET]

What examples can you give of natural selection being "bypassed altogether"?

Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Genesis 30:37 And Jacob took him rods of green poplar, and of the hazel and chesnut tree; and pilled white strakes in them, and made the white appear which was in the rods.
38 And he set the rods which he had pilled before the flocks in the gutters in the watering troughs when the flocks came to drink, that they should conceive when they came to drink.
39 And the flocks conceived before the rods, and brought forth cattle ringstraked, speckled, and spotted.
40 And Jacob did separate the lambs, and set the faces of the flocks toward the ringstraked, and all the brown in the flock of Laban; and he put his own flocks by themselves, and put them not unto Laban's cattle.
41 And it came to pass, whensoever the stronger cattle did conceive, that Jacob laid the rods before the eyes of the cattle in the gutters, that they might conceive among the rods.
42 But when the cattle were feeble, he put them not in: so the feebler were Laban's, and the stronger Jacob's.
43 And the man increased exceedingly, and had much cattle, and maidservants, and menservants, and camels, and asses.

I appreciate the effort, but I'm after verified/verifiable scientific observations rather than unverifiable ancient stories.

 

[Speedwell]

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

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.

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'm not sure what your point is, besides that some people have a weak understanding of what evolution actually is--and we hang around with creationists enough not to need reminding of it..

 

[stevevw]

What poorly informed people think evolution is not really relevant - education is the answer.

I agree but this can happen to anyone. In fact, it is usually the most staunch supporters who have this misinformed idea of evolution.

What do you mean by "Natural selection can be guided"?

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.

The Standard Evolutionary Theory (SET) explains such parallels as convergent evolution: similar environmental conditions select for random genetic variation with equivalent results. This account requires extraordinary coincidence to explain the multiple parallel forms that evolved independently in each lake. A more succinct hypothesis is that developmental bias and natural selection work together4, 5. Rather than selection being free to traverse across any physical possibility, it is guided along specific routes opened up by the processes of development5, 6.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

What examples can you give of natural selection being "bypassed altogether"?

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.

Particular forms of phenotypic change are taken as the result of internal generative conditions rather than external pruning. Thus, a significant amount of explanatory weight is shifted from external conditions to the internal properties of evolving populations. In addition, natural selection may be ‘bypassed’ by environmental induction, causing potentially adaptive developmental variation in many individuals of a population at once and long before natural selection may become effective.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

An organism's development is a result of ancestral natural selection.

Maybe but 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.

All that has happened since is variations within those body plans where pre-existing genetic info is being switched on or off. In fact, there is a mechanism that preserves what is already existing and so any random mutations are usually a threat and not a source of new viable variation.

I can't make much sense of that - but in what ways can environments 'shape creatures' (i.e. change populations) that don't involve natural selection?

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

The evolutionary environment includes other individuals of the same species, and as previously mentioned, phenotype includes behavior. So that's all part of natural selection as previously defined (the differential survival and reproduction of individuals due to differences in phenotype, including behavioral traits).

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.

THat's too vague to comment - clearly not everything we see is a product of natural selection.

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.

I've not heard anyone suggest or imply that natural selection is 'godlike'; it is a major evolutionary force - organisms that cannot adapt to an environment will not survive. That doesn't mean it's the only evolutionary influence.

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.

EES can be seen either as emphasizing alternatives to the traditional concept of natural selection or extending the traditional concept of natural selection to encompass additional mechanisms. It's a semantic argument that's not particularly interesting; what is interesting is investigating the variety of mechanisms EES has proposed and discovering the extent of their influence.

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