[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

In debating evolution in other threads I have been mentioning the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and what role it plays in evolution. I wanted to get people's thoughts on this. In case you are unfamiliar here is an article of it.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

 

[Kylie]

For those that would like more of a basic overview and how it fits in with the rest of evolutionary thinking, check out the Wikipedia article. Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

 

[Speedwell]

In debating evolution in other threads I have been mentioning the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis and what role it plays in evolution. I wanted to get people's thoughts on this. In case you are unfamiliar here is an article of it.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

First, it occurs to me that you ought to explain why it's important to you to argue that EES is an alternative to the theory of evolution rather than an extension of it--even though its originators don't agree with you. Otherwise your position will seem to be just more IDist chicanery,

 

[VirOptimus]

First, it occurs to me that you ought to explain why it's important to you to argue that EES is an alternative to the theory of evolution rather than an extension of it--even though its originators don't agree with you. Otherwise your position will seem to be just more IDist chicanery,

His position is just creationism and religion.

He has repeated the same useless arguments for years with misunderstanding of the science and using the same articles without ever learning.

 

[stevevw]

His position is just creationism and religion.

He has repeated the same useless arguments for years with misunderstanding of the science and using the same articles without ever learning.

Ah hello, VirOptimus. Thank you for confirming that my position is not just an overnight assumption and that I have spent years on the subject as I was also accused of only quoting creationist articles when I am actually referring to original sources from mainstream scientists. The problem with your assertion is I don't reject evolution as creationists do.

 

[stevevw]

For those that would like more of a basic overview and how it fits in with the rest of evolutionary thinking, check out the Wikipedia article. Extended evolutionary synthesis - Wikipedia

Thankyou Kylie. This is a pretty good explanation of the EES. Just to point out a couple of things mentioned. Under predictions
Prediction 1. Change in phenotype can precede a change in genotype[4]. So evolution can be non-gene based as with the traditional theory.
Prediction 2. Changes in phenotype are predominantly positive, rather than neutral (or negative my emphasis).

As phenotype change can be the result of self-organization where living things have a say in what happens to them and the result of feedback from other living things and the environment acting through development processes changes to phenotypes are often well suited to environments and integrated into existing genetic networks. This is opposed to the adaptive view under the traditional theory where mutations are random and creatures have to be passively adapted to environments through selection.

Prediction 6. adaptation can be caused by natural selection, environmental induction, non-genetic inheritance, learning, and cultural transmission.

This is supported by what is mentioned in prediction 2. Natural selection is only one of a number of evolutionary influences and not any more dominant than the others especially when it involves complex genetic networks whose structure and integrity need to remain the same and avoid random mutations that can undermine those structures.

Prediction 9. Heritable variation is directed towards variants that are adaptive and integrated with phenotype[4

It seems to me that rather than any variation being thrown up for natural selection as with random mutations variations seem to be very suitable not only to the environment but integrated into the creatures system in the first place without going through a filtering process of finding the beneficial changes among many other alternatives.

Unlike the so-called beneficial mutations which are really not a complete benefit as they often have a trade-off in knocking out some function, the adaptive and integrated changes through these other processes seem to be a perfect fit. This makes it much easier for selection and in fact is more or less doing selections work.

Prediction 10. niche construction is biased towards environmental changes that suit the constructor's phenotype, or that of its descendants, and enhance their fitness[2]

As with the above, these changes can be very well suited and bypass the need for selecting out dysfunction and weak as living things are able to have some control over their environments. Another process overlooked where natural selection can be given credit whereas other forces are at play.

 

[stevevw]

First, it occurs to me that you ought to explain why it's important to you to argue that EES is an alternative to the theory of evolution rather than an extension of it--even though its originators don't agree with you. Otherwise, your position will seem to be just more IDist chicanery

Actually some of those who came up with the EES do say that we need an alternative conception of evolution. Some say a paradigm shift and reconceptualization. Still, other scientists' non-creationists say the same. It is just what the evidence demands. These are some of the comments and observations from scientists at the Altenberg meeting who formulated the EES as written by Susan Azur who is not a creationist.

“A wave of scientists now questions natural selection’s role, though fewer will publicly admit it” (p. 20).

“Oh sure natural selection’s been demonstrated … the interesting point, however, is that it has rarely if ever been demonstrated to have anything to do with evolution in the sense of long-term changes in populations Stanley Salthe, p. 21

“Do I think natural selection should be relegated to a less import role in the discussion of evolution? Yes, I do” (Scott Gilbert, p. 221).

“She [Lynn Margulis] sees natural selection as ‘neither the source of heritable novelty nor the entire evolutionary process’ and has pronounced neo-Darwinism ‘dead’, since there’s no adequate evidence in the literature that random mutations result in new species” (Mazur, p. 257).

“The point is, however, that an organism can be modified and refined by natural selection, but that is not the way new species and new classes and new phyla originated” (Massimo Piattelli-Palmarini, p. 314).
Suzan Mazur » Altenberg 16: An Exposé Of The Evolution Industry

In saying it is an alternative this is not to reject the standard evolutionary theory (SET) altogether. Only to provide additional influences to evolutionary change and alternative ways in which change happens beside NS. It is regarded as an alternative by some for some aspects because what is being credited with natural selection is actually the result of the EES processes. Some of the explanations with the SET lack explanation power and the EES provides much better accounts.

Those who support the SET assume it is the only way change happens and that the forces included in EES are minor and of no consequence and only restraints on the SET. That for years the SET has been inadequate in explaining what we see in evolution and therefore as with any scientific theory needs revision. This is mentioned by several mainstream scientists even those who created the EES and I tend to agree with this.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?
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.

In essence, this synthesis maintains that important drivers of evolution, ones that cannot be reduced to genes, must be woven into the very fabric of evolutionary theory.

We believe that the EES will shed new light on how evolution works. We hold that organisms are constructed in development, not simply ‘programmed’ to develop by genes. Living things do not evolve to fit into pre-existing environments, but co-construct and coevolve with their environments, in the process changing the structure of ecosystems.

The number of biologists calling for change in how evolution is conceptualized is growing rapidly. Strong support comes from allied disciplines, particularly developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. We contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

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.

However, another factor is more important: many conventional evolutionary biologists study the processes that we claim are neglected, but they comprehend them very differently (see ‘No, all is well’). This is no storm in an academic tearoom, it is a struggle for the very soul of the discipline.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ah hello, VirOptimus. Thank you for confirming that my position is not just an overnight assumption and that I have spent years on the subject as I was also accused of only quoting creationist articles when I am actually referring to original sources from mainstream scientists. The problem with your assertion is I don't reject evolution as creationists do.

You have yourself confessed that the only reason you have your position is religion.

That alone makes your ”arguments” useless in science.

 

[stevevw]

You have yourself confessed that the only reason you have your position is religion.

That alone makes your ”arguments” useless in science.

You will have to show where I have said this. This is either untrue or misquoted and out of context. I may have said something along the lines of everyone is influenced by their worldview and so people will come to this debate from different positions. But that should not obstruct the facts or truth. That was a frank admission to show that I am aware of how belief can influence people's views.

But that is like saying the great scientists who were Christians only said what they said because of their religious belief. Or that those with a religious belief can never comment on anything scientific as they are biased. The point you are missing is I am not proclaiming a God of the gaps. There is ample evidence which I have linked and I understand the topic enough to know how to articulate that evidence. As I said I have researched it for years as part of my studies and work.

 

[VirOptimus]

You will have to show where I have said this. This is either untrue or misquoted and out of context. I may have said something along the lines of everyone is influenced by their worldview and so people will come to this debate from different positions. But that should not obstruct the facts or truth. That was a frank admission to show that I am aware of how belief can influence people's views.

But that is like saying the great scientists who were Christians only said what they said because of their religious belief. Or that those with a religious belief can never comment on anything scientific as they are biased. The point you are missing is I am not proclaiming a God of the gaps. There is ample evidence which I have linked and I understand the topic enough to know how to articulate that evidence. As I said I have researched it for years as part of my studies and work.

I dont care enough to search for it now, but no, you said explicity that the only reason you question the science is because of your religious belief.

Your posting history show that you are incredibly ignorant about science and misunderstand and misquote constantly.

You are only here to preach and dont post in good faith.

 

[essentialsaltes]

I would be surprised if anything Massimo Pigliucci supports would provide any comfort to your typical anti-evolution creationist.

 

[stevevw]

I dont care enough to search for it now, but no, you said explicity that the only reason you question the science is because of your religious belief.

Your posting history show that you are incredibly ignorant about science and misunderstand and misquote constantly.

You are only here to preach and don't post in good faith.

Ok so you have no comment on the content of this thread. You just want to troll. How about giving your view on the EES and what role it plays.

 

[stevevw]

How come there is a sudden attack on people and no engagement in content. Whenever that happens apart from being an ad hominem logical fallacy it usually means that the content has provoked it and people are unable to deal with it.

This is exactly what the articles mention that any talk against the traditionalist view is met with reactions and claims of misrepresentations. I have merely mentioned the EES which questions some of the core tenets of the standard theory and already it has provoked misrepresentations and reactions. It makes me wonder who is really trying to defend their beliefs dogmatically.

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[stevevw]

I would be surprised if anything Massimo Pigliucci supports would provide any comfort to your typical anti-evolution creationist.

Why attack Pigliucci. He is a professor of ecology and evolution, he is an atheist and a critic of pseudoscience and creationism just in case you think he doesn't know what he is talking about and is biased in his views. Here's a list of his papers
Biology Papers

This is not about anti-evolution or creationism for which I am neither. This is purely about the evidence. Perhaps you should first read up on the subject.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Why attack Pigliucci.

I think you are confused about what I'm saying. I am not attacking Massimo. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I don't know enough about biology to really even understand the differences being discussed. I understand what kin selection is, and I was under the impression that it can be comfortably accommodated in the existing framework. So my reaction to the OP is that, from my perspective, whether one side or the other wins, the differences are so subtle that I probably won't be able to even tell the difference.

 

[Speedwell]

How come there is a sudden attack on people and no engagement in content. Whenever that happens apart from being an ad hominem logical fallacy it usually means that the content has provoked it and people are unable to deal with it.

This is exactly what the articles mention that any talk against the traditionalist view is met with reactions and claims of misrepresentations. I have merely mentioned the EES which questions some of the core tenets of the standard theory and already it has provoked misrepresentations and reactions. It makes me wonder who is really trying to defend their beliefs dogmatically.

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Do you think that the complains about Mazur misrepresenting the Altenberg conference made by the attendees constitute ad hominems?

 

[Speedwell]

This is not about anti-evolution or creationism for which I am neither. This is purely about the evidence. Perhaps you should first read up on the subject.

So what are you? Presumably as a Christian you must be some kind of a creationist--if not a biblical creationist. Your hero Susan Mazur is an apologist for ID; is that what you are? An IDist?

 

[VirOptimus]

Ok so you have no comment on the content of this thread. You just want to troll. How about giving your view on the EES and what role it plays.

Pointing out dishonesty is not trolling.

I did so once, your answers did not impress and you learnt nothing, just kept (as now) use the same old links (that does not say what you think they do).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You have yourself confessed that the only reason you have your position is religion.

That alone makes your ”arguments” useless in science.

Quite. It's a position that makes confirmation bias unavoidable.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How come there is a sudden attack on people and no engagement in content. Whenever that happens apart from being an ad hominem logical fallacy it usually means that the content has provoked it and people are unable to deal with it.

This is exactly what the articles mention that any talk against the traditionalist view is met with reactions and claims of misrepresentations. I have merely mentioned the EES which questions some of the core tenets of the standard theory and already it has provoked misrepresentations and reactions. It makes me wonder who is really trying to defend their beliefs dogmatically.

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I suspect it's because you seem to misunderstand the difference between the EES and the SET, which is summed up in the article you quote:

"... they <EES proponents> contend that four phenomena are important evolutionary processes: phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, inclusive inheritance and developmental bias. We could not agree more. We study them ourselves.

But we do not think that these processes deserve such special attention as to merit a new name such as ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’." <my bolding>​