[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

Heritable variation is not always randomly distributed in SET, either. For instance, sometimes it's a Poisson distribution. Sometimes it's just plain binary. So what?
And you go on and on and on about it but you never seem to answer the most important question: so what? You're basically making a semantic argument, quibbling about how scientists choice of phraseology indicates how much relative importance they ascribe to EES phenomena. Why is it worth so much effort to you?

Once again you still are not really appreciating the causal importance given to the EES forces. Acknowledging that some minor processes contribute to variation being non- randomly distributed but still, adhering to the mantra that the only cause of heritable variation is the same core processes of genetic mutations and natural selection is not the same as what the EES is claiming. They are giving the EES forces causal prominence on par with gene change and natural selection. They are not privileging random gene change and NS.

This is a big structural and conceptual difference and perhaps why I persist in explaining this as it seems that you are as the papers saying 'willing to admit there is some degree of other influences beyond the gene-centric and adaptive view of NS. But unwilling to give the EES forces their full recognition as the EES papers are trying to give them.

I am not bothered that you disagree with what the EES is saying but I am bothered when people misunderstand what the EES saying. Or that I am misunderstanding what they are saying.

 

[stevevw]

I've been trying to prompt him to make his own arguments so he gets to see a more integrated evolutionary picture, but all he ever does is simply assert what he can find in articles. The last post was so confused, talking to me about my post as if I was someone else entirely and repeating the errors I'd already pointed out, that there's really nothing coherent to respond to - once you've read the previously quoted articles you're done ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

As you say, so what?

That's because I thought I was responding to Speedwell which happens on these threads (no big deal). I had two posts up at once while replying and got the posters mixed up. I went out and realized later. But that doesn't really invalidate what was said.

But what I have noticed in that post is that you did not respond to what I said but rather have just put all the attention on me and my posting style.

 

[stevevw]

Oh dear, you seem to be totally confused... I hope things get better for you.

Look you know what I meant.

I am saying by you acknowledging that the authors of the EES paper were saying that natural selection was the sole creative force of evolutionary change in saying that they are making a strawman argument supports my claim that the SET, mainstream evolutionary literature, and biologists make random gene change and NS the sole cause of evolutionary change.

I pointed this out because some (perhaps not you) were saying that I was wrong about claiming this and the mainstream view wasn't saying this and I was misinterpreting the papers. It's as simple as that. Why is it so hard to acknowledge this.

 

[Speedwell]

I never said that you have vindicated the authors. I am saying that the authors claimed that mainstream evolution makes natural selection the sole creative force. .

Then they are wrong or you have failed to understand them correctly. No reasonable interpretation of SET makes natural selection the "sole creative force." Notice, please, that this is a different issue than the amount of acceptance given to EES by mainstream evolutionary biologists. It why I ask you "so what?" Why is it in your interest to systematically misrepresent SET?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Look you know what I meant.

If that was really the case, most of this thread wouldn't have been necessary.

I am saying by you acknowledging that the authors of the EES paper were saying that natural selection was the sole creative force of evolutionary change in saying that they are making a strawman argument supports my claim that the SET, mainstream evolutionary literature, and biologists make random gene change and NS the sole cause of evolutionary change.

Well no, because you've just added in 'random gene change' there, which isn't what you said previously, and as previously pointed out, 'sole creative force' is not 'sole force', and I have explained why I called it a strawman argument - it wasn't what you suggest, and - as has been repeatedly pointed out - that's not the position of mainstream evolutionary theory.

When you manage to make so many errors in one sentence, it becomes impossible to have sensible communication.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But what I have noticed in that post is that you did not respond to what I said but rather have just put all the attention on me and my posting style.

When your posting style is a series of unargued assertions based only on article quotes that you've repeatedly been told you're misinterpreting or misunderstanding, it's fair game for criticism.

An understanding of the subject is best shown by defending your assertions and making a coherent argument in your own words, not just posting articles. Nonsense like, "NS is not the only determining factor of what variations meet all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection." is just beyond the pale. Natural selection is, by definition, the determining factor of what meets the conditions for natural selection...

As for responding to what you said, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I asked in previous posts, e.g. #346, #355.

 

[VirOptimus]

When your posting style is a series of unargued assertions based only on article quotes that you've repeatedly been told you're misinterpreting or misunderstanding, it's fair game for criticism.

An understanding of the subject is best shown by defending your assertions and making a coherent argument in your own words, not just posting articles. Nonsense like, "NS is not the only determining factor of what variations meet all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection." is just beyond the pale. Natural selection is, by definition, the determining factor of what meets the conditions for natural selection...

As for responding to what you said, I'm still waiting for your answers to the questions I asked in previous posts, e.g. #346, #355.

He simply dont understand accademic rigour.

 

[stevevw]

Then they are wrong or you have failed to understand them correctly. No reasonable interpretation of SET makes natural selection the "sole creative force." Notice, please, that this is a different issue than the amount of acceptance given to EES by mainstream evolutionary biologists. It why I ask you "so what?" Why is it in your interest to systematically misrepresent SET?

Well I cannot have misunderstood the papers as I just posted evidence for it from the papers which clearly states this. So if you are saying the authors are wrong you need to present some evidence showing how they are wrong.

As far as I can see whenever I have read many posts on this thread for example the explanation for everything from why humans have morals to the evolution of the flagella or eye has been explained in adaptive terms by random gene change and natural selection. This is the go-to explanation and no other contributing causes are ever mentioned. It is fine to claim that mainstream evolution includes other causes of evolution that are on par with gene change and NS but in reality, when investigated we find most people take this narrow view.

 

[Speedwell]

Well I cannot have misunderstood the papers as I just posted evidence for it from the papers which clearly states this. So if you are saying the authors are wrong you need to present some evidence showing how they are wrong.

Of course, I don't really think the authors were wrong. But suppose you are right, and SET claims that natural selection is the "sole creative force," how do you account for evolutionary
mechanisms such as epigenetics or endosymbiosis, which have been an accepted part of SET for decades?

As far as I can see whenever I have read many posts on this thread for example the explanation for everything from why humans have morals to the evolution of the flagella or eye has been explained in adaptive terms by random gene change and natural selection. This is the go-to explanation and no other contributing causes are ever mentioned.

False. I've been hanging around boards like this for years and know that for a fib.

It is fine to claim that mainstream evolution includes other causes of evolution that are on par with gene change and NS but in reality, when investigated we find most people take this narrow view.

LOL! It must be so because some guys in a chatroom said so. QED. But in fact whatever you think of EES, random variation and selection remain the backbone of the evolutionary process and must be understood before an explanation of additional mechanisms can be grasped. Creationists rarely understand how variation and selection works--I would have to say that from your posts you, yourself, have only a muddled understanding of it at best. One must walk before one can run. Keep in mind also that at this point EES remains an hypothesis. It looks promising and is getting research money, as you point out, and may well be the next big thing. The research could determine whether any of the EES processes really did play a role in the evolution of the eye or the flagellum. In the meantime, variation and selection remains an entirely adequate explanation for these structures and no additional evolutionary mechanisms appear to be necessary to account for them.

 

[stevevw]

If that was really the case, most of this thread wouldn't have been necessary.

Sometimes it takes time and persistence for people to acknowledge things.

Well no, because you've just added in 'random gene change' there, which isn't what you said previously,

I just added that because it was part of my original claim about what the papers were saying. But regardless you acknowledged that the authors were saying that the SET makes NS is the sole creative force.

I was and as previously pointed out, 'sole creative force' is not 'sole force', and I have explained why I called it a strawman argument - it wasn't what you suggest, and - as has been repeatedly pointed out - that's not the position of mainstream evolutionary theory.

OK, I can see why things have become confused. I don’t make any distinction between ‘sole force’ and ‘sole creative force’ and as far as I can see neither does mainstream evolution. I also explained this in my previous posts. If NS is not made the creative force then it loses its prominence in evolution. It is because the mainstream evolutionary view uses NS in a way that gives it creativity in the way it gradually builds more complex features and creatures out of the tiny variations it is presented with that were not there previously. This is supported by prominent evolutionary biologists like Dawkins and Gould.

OK, so to clarify when you say that this is not the position of mainstream evolutionary theory are you talking about NS as the 'sole force or 'sole creative force' now that you have added this distinction.

As you have previously said "that is not the SET position" in response to my claim that the papers have said "that mainstream evolution makes natural selection the 'only or sole force'.

Is this what you are referring to now. Because IMO whether it is ‘sole force’ or ‘sole creative force’ the authors are still claiming that the SET makes natural selection the only cause of evolutionary change. Do you agree or not.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Sometimes it takes time and persistence for people to acknowledge things.
I just added that because it was part of my original claim about what the papers were saying. But regardless you acknowledged that the authors were saying that the SET makes NS is the sole creative force.
OK, I can see why things have become confused. I don’t make any distinction between ‘sole force’ and ‘sole creative force’ and as far as I can see neither does mainstream evolution. I also explained this in my previous posts. If NS is not made the creative force then it loses its prominence in evolution. It is because the mainstream evolutionary view uses NS in a way that gives it creativity in the way it gradually builds more complex features and creatures out of the tiny variations it is presented with that were not there previously. This is supported by prominent evolutionary biologists like Dawkins and Gould.

OK, so to clarify when you say that this is not the position of mainstream evolutionary theory are you talking about NS as the 'sole force or 'sole creative force' now that you have added this distinction.

As you have previously said "that is not the SET position" in response to my claim that the papers have said "that mainstream evolution makes natural selection the 'only or sole force'.

Is this what you are referring to now. Because IMO whether it is ‘sole force’ or ‘sole creative force’ the authors are still claiming that the SET makes natural selection the only cause of evolutionary change. Do you agree or not.

Frankly, I don't care what the authors of some article have or have not said; I've already explained why natural selection can't be the sole creative force of evolution - it's a nonsense - it wasn't the case when I studied mainstream evolutionary theory at university and it isn't the case now.

 

[stevevw]

Of course, I don't really think the authors were wrong.

Not sure if your joking or not. When I have quoted their paper you have said they were wrong. Especially when the EES authors claim that the SET makes gene change and natural selection (NS) the sole cause. Or in their claims that the EES forces are validated evolutionary causes on par with natural selection.

But suppose you are right and SET claims that natural selection is the "sole creative force," how do you account for evolutionary mechanisms such as epigenetics or endosymbiosis, which have been an accepted part of SET for decades?

The papers and I have not said that SET doesn’t recognize these processes. Though I would say epigenetics is a contentious topic as it promotes a sort of Lamarckian view which the SET oppose. I think endosymbiosis is also a contentious topic for the SET despite recognizing it. I recall Lynn Margulis one of the greatest proponents of it was attacked by traditionalists for daring to promote endosymbiosis to account for an evolutionary change instead of NS.

The point is the SET might recognize these influences but they don’t accept them as an evolutionary cause but rather influences that may explain the absence or constraint of adaptive evolution through Natural selection.

But you have to understand that under the EES view influences like epigenetics and endosymbiosis and many others like co-evolution as smaller influences that make up the EES forces such as niche construction, inheritance beyond genes, developmental bias, and plasticity. The EES claims these forces are evolutionary causes themselves on par with random gene change and NS.

For example, epigenetics is part of the EES force of inheritance beyond genes which also includes other influences like culture, parental influences on offspring and social sciences. So these influences like epigenetics is recognized but are not seen as evolutionary causes or contributors to evolutionary change in the Neo-Darwinian adaptive sense by the SET.

False. I've been hanging around boards like this for years and know that for a fib.LOL!

That seems unusual. How does someone even explain evolutionary cause besides random gene change and NS? What other actual causes do posters use? Do they refer to the EES forces as causes? Do a search for the EES or any of its forces like niche construction or inheritance beyond genes and on this entire forum and you get hardly anything out of thousands of posts?

It must be so because some guys in a chatroom said so. QED.

Then why would the EES papers support my claim where the authors mention this.

But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms (EES forces my emphasis) have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. On the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
In other words, the authors are claiming that rather than the SET (classical) view accommodating and recognizing the new discoveries emphasized by the EES the discrepancies (lack of recognition) and has grown between the two concepts.

But in fact whatever you think of EES, random variation and selection remain the backbone of the evolutionary process and must be understood before an explanation of additional mechanisms can be grasped.

Well the EES authors and papers disagree and in fact in some cases claim it’s the other way around. Before we can attach the adaptive view of NS acting on random gene change to produce adaptive and heritable variations we need to consider the role EES forces play as some variation is non-gene based and because the EES forces produce already adaptive variation this affects the role of natural selection by biasing it and directing what it does.

In other words, the EES forces can sometimes do the job of NS in the sense that they produce already adaptive and fit variation before NS even comes along.
So if we don’t take into consideration the EES forces first then we can make the mistake of assuming the adaptive and heritable variation is the result of NS alone when it is primarily the result of the EES forces or the EES forces have a big influence on the cause of evolutionary change.

Creationists rarely understand how variation and selection work--I would have to say that from your posts you, yourself, have only a muddled understanding of it at best. One must walk before one can run.

Actually I think I understand how variation and NS work pretty well. But I also have the added advantage of understanding how other forces besides NS and random gene change like the EES also can cause evolutionary change. So that gives me an expanded view which can always offer a more comprehensive explanation for evolution.

Keep in mind also that at this point EES remains a hypothesis. It looks promising and is getting research money, as you point out, and may well be the next big thing. The research could determine whether any of the EES processes really did play a role in the evolution of the eye or the flagellum.

Actually the EES has already been scientifically verified through empirical evidence. Like any scientific theory more research and support can add to it just like the SET. In fact, according to the EES authors, the SET has become inadequate for explaining and accounting for the new data we have been discovering through genomics, developmental biology, epigenetics, and social sciences. The EES offers a better expansive explanation that can accommodate these new findings and that’s why it is gaining support.

In the meantime, variation and selection remain an entirely adequate explanation for these structures and no additional evolutionary mechanisms appear to be necessary to account for them.

What about non-gene and non-random variation that causes evolution. What about how niche construction and developmental mechanisms like bias and plasticity can produce adaptive and fit variation. These EES forces determine adaptive variation before NS even comes along. These have been scientifically verified. This in itself invalidates your claim that no additional mechanisms are necessary.[/quote][/quote]

 

[stevevw]

Frankly, I don't care what the authors of some article have or have not said; I've already explained why natural selection can't be the sole creative force of evolution - it's a nonsense - it wasn't the case when I studied mainstream evolutionary theory at university and it isn't the case now.

Fair enough

 

[FreeinChrist]

ADVISOR HAT


A clean up was done off off topic posts.

​

 

[Speedwell]

Not sure if your joking or not. When I have quoted their paper you have said they were wrong. Especially when the EES authors claim that the SET makes gene change and natural selection (NS) the sole cause. Or in their claims that the EES forces are validated evolutionary causes on par with natural selection. The papers and I have not said that SET doesn’t recognize these processes. Though I would say epigenetics is a contentious topic as it promotes a sort of Lamarckian view which the SET oppose. I think endosymbiosis is also a contentious topic for the SET despite recognizing it. I recall Lynn Margulis one of the greatest proponents of it was attacked by traditionalists for daring to promote endosymbiosis to account for an evolutionary change instead of NS.

The point is the SET might recognize these influences but they don’t accept them as an evolutionary cause but rather influences that may explain the absence or constraint of adaptive evolution through Natural selection.

But you have to understand that under the EES view influences like epigenetics and endosymbiosis and many others like co-evolution as smaller influences that make up the EES forces such as niche construction, inheritance beyond genes, developmental bias, and plasticity. The EES claims these forces are evolutionary causes themselves on par with random gene change and NS.

For example, epigenetics is part of the EES force of inheritance beyond genes which also includes other influences like culture, parental influences on offspring and social sciences. So these influences like epigenetics is recognized but are not seen as evolutionary causes or contributors to evolutionary change in the Neo-Darwinian adaptive sense by the SET.

That seems unusual. How does someone even explain evolutionary cause besides random gene change and NS? What other actual causes do posters use? Do they refer to the EES forces as causes? Do a search for the EES or any of its forces like niche construction or inheritance beyond genes and on this entire forum and you get hardly anything out of thousands of posts? Then why would the EES papers support my claim where the authors mention this.

But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms (EES forces my emphasis) have been mentioned in certain earlier or more recent writings does not mean that the formal structure of evolutionary theory has been adjusted to them. On the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary
In other words, the authors are claiming that rather than the SET (classical) view accommodating and recognizing the new discoveries emphasized by the EES the discrepancies (lack of recognition) and has grown between the two concepts.
Well the EES authors and papers disagree and in fact in some cases claim it’s the other way around. Before we can attach the adaptive view of NS acting on random gene change to produce adaptive and heritable variations we need to consider the role EES forces play as some variation is non-gene based and because the EES forces produce already adaptive variation this affects the role of natural selection by biasing it and directing what it does.

In other words, the EES forces can sometimes do the job of NS in the sense that they produce already adaptive and fit variation before NS even comes along.
So if we don’t take into consideration the EES forces first then we can make the mistake of assuming the adaptive and heritable variation is the result of NS alone when it is primarily the result of the EES forces or the EES forces have a big influence on the cause of evolutionary change.

Actually I think I understand how variation and NS work pretty well. But I also have the added advantage of understanding how other forces besides NS and random gene change like the EES also can cause evolutionary change. So that gives me an expanded view which can always offer a more comprehensive explanation for evolution. Actually the EES has already been scientifically verified through empirical evidence. Like any scientific theory more research and support can add to it just like the SET. In fact, according to the EES authors, the SET has become inadequate for explaining and accounting for the new data we have been discovering through genomics, developmental biology, epigenetics, and social sciences. The EES offers a better expansive explanation that can accommodate these new findings and that’s why it is gaining support. What about non-gene and non-random variation that causes evolution. What about how niche construction and developmental mechanisms like bias and plasticity can produce adaptive and fit variation. These EES forces determine adaptive variation before NS even comes along. These have been scientifically verified. This in itself invalidates your claim that no additional mechanisms are necessary.

OK, you win. You have proven conclusively that SET proponents are clinging desperately to the discredited dogma that natural selection is the only cause involved in evolution while trying to deny the heroic efforts of EES proponents to lead them to the truth that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution after all because all the clever little evolving creature have already figured out what they need to do in order to better adapt to their environments. I certainly am glad you brought this to our attention because without your cogent reasoning and carefully selected quotations we would never have known about it. In our ignorance we would have assumed that the phenomena described by EES already had been or would soon be absorbed into mainstream evolutionary theory. Are we done yet?

 

[VirOptimus]

OK, you win. You have proven conclusively that SET proponents are clinging desperately to the discredited dogma that natural selection is the only cause involved in evolution while trying to deny the heroic efforts of EES proponents to lead them to the truth that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution after all because all the clever little evolving creature have already figured out what they need to do in order to better adapt to their environments. I certainly am glad you brought this to our attention because without your cogent reasoning and carefully selected quotations we would never have known about it. In our ignorance we would have assumed that the phenomena described by EES already had been or would soon be absorbed into mainstream evolutionary theory. Are we done yet?

I bet he still will repeat the same posts again.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

OK, you win. You have proven conclusively that SET proponents are clinging desperately to the discredited dogma that natural selection is the only cause involved in evolution while trying to deny the heroic efforts of EES proponents to lead them to the truth that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution after all because all the clever little evolving creature have already figured out what they need to do in order to better adapt to their environments. I certainly am glad you brought this to our attention because without your cogent reasoning and carefully selected quotations we would never have known about it. In our ignorance we would have assumed that the phenomena described by EES already had been or would soon be absorbed into mainstream evolutionary theory. Are we done yet?

Sarcasm apart, the post you were responding to pretty well summarises all the misrepresentations and misunderstandings of current mainstream evolutionary theory so far in the thread, including treating the ESS as a different theory...

 

[stevevw]

OK, you win. You have proven conclusively that SET proponents are clinging desperately to the discredited dogma that natural selection is the only cause involved in evolution while trying to deny the heroic efforts of EES proponents to lead them to the truth that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution after all because all the clever little evolving creature have already figured out what they need to do in order to better adapt to their environments. I certainly am glad you brought this to our attention because without your cogent reasoning and carefully selected quotations we would never have known about it. In our ignorance, we would have assumed that the phenomena described by EES already had been or would soon be absorbed into mainstream evolutionary theory. Are we done yet?

Yes this is funny and it's good to inject some humor into things. But you need to remember it isn't me who is proven anything but the EES authors according to their research and I am only repeating this to you.

However, it isn't about winners and losers as this creates opposing camps in an all or nothing battle. What concerns me is how you are going to the extreme in using language such as desperate and clinging to the SET dogma of Natural selection and random gene change. Or how you claim I have said that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution.

I have never said that and in fact, have repeatedly pointed out that the EES forces are seen as additional ones to Natural selection and are on par with NS and gene change. That points to an expanded view which still includes NS and gene change. It is not about completely rejecting the SET but about conceptual and structural changes. This is pointed out in the EES papers

In addition to accepted evolutionary processes that directly change gene frequencies, the EES recognizes processes that bias the outcome of natural selection, specifically developmental bias and niche construction. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity and some forms of inclusive inheritance, are potential sources of bias. A broadened conception of inheritance encompasses genetic, epigenetic, and ecological (including cultural) inheritance.

The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry, and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

It seems if anyone questions evolution some take the extreme position that they are rejecting it completely or make extreme claims polarizing the debate. While I acknowledge that the EES is saying that the mainstream view according to their research still views things in adaptive terms they or myself are not making any extreme claims like you make out. If anyone is making a misrepresentation of things it is you with the type of language like the above being used.

If you have an issue it is with the authors. You need to dispute their claims and provide evidence that they are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Sarcasm apart, the post you were responding to pretty well summarises all the misrepresentations and misunderstandings of current mainstream evolutionary theory so far in the thread, including treating the ESS as a different theory...

I used the word theory and realized later it wasn't the right word. But apart from this, I cannot see any misrepresentations or misunderstandings. The fact is the EES authors and not I have said this. I have reposted their exact words in plain English. There are no hidden or double meanings to what they say. You even acknowledged that their use of natural selection being a creative force was a straw man.

The fact is they have also said that according to their research mainstream literature and biologists refer to evolution narrowly based on an adaptive view of random gene change producing variations and natural selection being the sole source of adaptive variation.

So this may be a misrepresentation to you of how you see mainstream evolution but it is not how the EES author's view mainstream evolutions point of view according to their research. The EES author's view is what I based what I said on. So what you are actually saying is that you think the EES authors are misrepresenting mainstream evolution and misunderstanding things and not me because I have posted exactly what they said word for word.

 

[VirOptimus]

I bet he still will repeat the same posts again.

Yes this is funny and it's good to inject some humor into things. But you need to remember it isn't me who is proven anything but the EES authors according to their research and I am only repeating this to you.

However, it isn't about winners and losers as this creates opposing camps in an all or nothing battle. What concerns me is how you are going to the extreme in using language such as desperate and clinging to the SET dogma of Natural selection and random gene change. Or how you claim I have said that natural selection has little or no effect on evolution.

I have never said that and in fact, have repeatedly pointed out that the EES forces are seen as additional ones to Natural selection and are on par with NS and gene change. That points to an expanded view which still includes NS and gene change. It is not about completely rejecting the SET but about conceptual and structural changes. This is pointed out in the EES papers

In addition to accepted evolutionary processes that directly change gene frequencies, the EES recognizes processes that bias the outcome of natural selection, specifically developmental bias and niche construction. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity and some forms of inclusive inheritance, are potential sources of bias. A broadened conception of inheritance encompasses genetic, epigenetic, and ecological (including cultural) inheritance.

The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry, and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

It seems if anyone questions evolution some take the extreme position that they are rejecting it completely or make extreme claims polarizing the debate. While I acknowledge that the EES is saying that the mainstream view according to their research still views things in adaptive terms they or myself are not making any extreme claims like you make out. If anyone is making a misrepresentation of things it is you with the type of language like the above being used.

If you have an issue it is with the authors. You need to dispute their claims and provide evidence that they are wrong.

Heh.