[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

OK, this is for the lurkers...

A source of natural selection that is transformed, however adaptive, is still a source of natural selection.

But you are overlooking the actual role of NS on the source. How does NS determine that something is adaptive when it is already been determined as adaptive. By not acknowledging this you are not acknowledging what force is actually doing the determining and thus driving evolutionary change.

Maybe this is part of your misunderstanding... natural selection is any natural process that has the effect of eliminating the unfit. So any natural process that, in your terms, 'does the job'* of natural selection, is, by definition, natural selection.

So why isn't the EES forces also seen as a natural process that has the effect of eliminating the unfit. Thus being just like natural selection. At this stage of research, NS is still seen as the end result natural process that eliminates the unfit. But as more research is done it may well be that the EES will also be seen as additional processes that do the same thing. Like you said it is all about context. But technically some EES forces are like natural selection.

The issue is by saying this only happens by NS as the SET does it does not acknowledge the actual process that eliminates the unfit. Under the SET NS is assumed to be the only way the unfit is eliminated. Whereas according to the EES there are other natural processes that eliminate the unfit.

*Natural selection doesn't 'have a job' - that's a teleologism.

Yes and that's why I make the point that NS is still the rubber stamper of evolutionary change. But in some ways, it does have a job or maybe a role. It is certainly referred to as a force and driver of evolution which implies it has a job. I am merely pointing out the EES forces also play the role of NS if we consider they determine the adaptiveness of variations which make creatures fit and then become the heritable changes that are passed on. This is the core of evolutionary change under the MS.

Niche construction is not itself natural selection but provides sources of environmental variation & feedback which results in natural selection. The processes are concurrent, so act synergistically.

Yes I agree they are different but also are interconnected. But what needs to be acknowledged that the SET seems to overlook is that the actual role that natural selection plays is diminished and biased. So as the EES papers say NS is not the only way evolution is driven and can happen.

Adaptive variation, heritable or otherwise, is not evolution.

But it is an important part of evolution. Even Darwin said this. NS needs variation to act on. No variation and no evolution.

As already explained, evolution is the change in gene frequencies in a population over generations - in which adaptive variation plays a role. Natural selection has a role in adaptive variation but enables evolution.

This is where the SET and the EES differ as it views evolution through non-gene ways. In fact, it criticizes the gene-centric view of the SET in making gene change the only way to view evolution. IE

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?

So I guess according to the EES authors like NS is being made the sole force in the SET view so is evolution by gene change.

 

[stevevw]

And how is it that the various niches which niche-constructing creatures construct are tested for suitability?

They are tested by the creatures themselves by the fact that they are not dumb passive players in evolution. They know what needs to be done to ensure they evolve and pass on environments that ensure their offspring survive and evolve. The changes made to environments then also create a feedback loop where this causes phenotype changes as a result. In some cases like ant nests, the environment is a closed system where NS is really not a player.

Even if some of the changes within that system may be non-adaptive according to the SET they are still passed on as they are part of that system and not seen as individual changes that need to be tested and adapted under the SET. This is where the SET takes the narrow view and the EES is more pluralistic taking a wider view which includes the constructive actions of creatures and the reciprocal (feedback) these processes have.

This also applies to inheritance beyond genes where the behaviours of creatures are taken into consideration as causes of evolution. Social and cultural influences can determine adaptive environments which creatures intuitive or instinctively know work best for their survival. As opposed to negative environments that work against adaptive evolution. Epigenetics comes under this EES force.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes that's right and how have I not said that.
I said
natural selection is said to determine.
natural selection is still the determining factor
natural selection does not determine all adaptive variations

This all means natural selection determines what variation is adaptive. Therefore it can only determine a variation adaptive that already exists. I have said many times that variation is produced by random mutations under the SET and is produced by the EES forces under the EES. So I have been consistent in pointing out that natural selection is a determining factor in what variation that already exists.

But what I find interesting is that you choose to point out a semantic issue rather than comment on the point of the content itself. That is your MO always choosing a logical fallacy and trying to undermine the source rather than address the content.

So here's the point again. As you say "NS always act on "what is there". So what if what is already is 'already adaptive'. What if the variation NS is acting on to test and determine as adaptive is already adaptive. What does that mean for NS's role in being the determining factor of what is adaptive? How can NS be the determining factor of something that has already been determined?

No, NS is a selective force that acts upon variation. Nothing is determined before, the above sounds like ID mumbo jumbo.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

No you are missing the entire role the EES forces play in what actually causes evolution. Natural selection is said to determine what variation is adaptive under the SET. That is what gives it its importance as a driver of evolution as there is no other way for evolution to happen (for adaptive evolution to happen which is one of the main tenets of the MS).

But under the EES there are other forces that can determine what variation is adaptive therefore are also drivers of evolution just like NS. You could technically say that it is the EES forces that make evolution if they work like NS. NS only confirms (rubberstamps) what is already done. NS is really superfluous in these situations so its just symbolic. It's only important when variation is random and needs testing against environments.

As I said, adaptive variation is not itself evolution.

Natural selection cannot be 'superfluous' or 'symbolic' - it acts at all times; in the absence of natural selection, all variations would have the same fitness, the population gene pool would accumulate all the mutations that occurred, they would be neither advantageous nor disadvantageous, and consequently evolution would be the increasing randomness of the gene pool; nothing ordered or structured, including the development and influence of what you call EES 'forces', would occur or be possible. Clearly, this is impossible unless there are no mutations at all, in which case there would be no evolution.

That you could suggest such absurdity is clear evidence that you simply don't understand the fundamentals of evolution - including natural selection itself!

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How does NS determine that something is adaptive when it is already been determined as adaptive.

You've got yourself thoroughly confused. Something is adaptive if it provides a selective advantage.

So why isn't the EES forces also seen as a natural process that has the effect of eliminating the unfit. Thus being just like natural selection.

Eliminating the unfit IS natural selection. As I said ages ago, the EES processes are the product of natural selection and result in natural selection. Forget what you think the articles have said and just think it through for yourself.

You need to go back to evolutionary first principles, understand the basics, then see how the more complex processes with environmental feedbacks have developed from those fundamentals. Once you've thought it through for yourself, you may be able to understand where the EES proponents are coming from and why the mainstream is sceptical that its a paradigmatic change. And you'd be better not thinking in terms of 'forces' - these are descriptions of processes involving complex interactions; the language of 'drivers', 'forces', etc., is a kind of jargon.

 

[stevevw]

No, NS is a selective force that acts upon variation. Nothing is determined before, the above sounds like ID mumbo jumbo.

I never said natural selection determines anything before 'whatever that means. I said natural seelction is the 'determining factor'. It determines what variation is adaptive by testing it against the environment.

How is what I said ID mumbo jumbo when it comes right out of the EES papers.

 

[VirOptimus]

I never said natural selection determines anything before 'whatever that means. I said natural seelction is the 'determining factor'. It determines what variation is adaptive by testing it against the environment.

How is what I said ID mumbo jumbo when it comes right out of the EES papers.

It really doesnt, you misunderstand the basics, nevermind the specifics.

 

[stevevw]

It really doesn't, you misunderstand the basics, nevermind the specifics.

You missed what I was trying to point out. When you said
"NS is a selective force that acts upon variation. Nothing is determined before". Do you think it makes a difference if the variation that natural selection acts upon is already made adaptive by another process besides NS? What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system. Who or what is then responsible for determining that the variation is adaptive then.

 

[VirOptimus]

You missed what I was trying to point out. When you said
"NS is a selective force that acts upon variation. Nothing is determined before". Do you think it makes a difference if the variation that natural selection acts upon is already made adaptive by another process besides NS? What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system. Who or what is then responsible for determining that the variation is adaptive then.

NS doesnt ”make” anything adaptive. It filters variation.

”Who” is responsible? What a weird question, are you suggesting god?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

You missed what I was trying to point out. When you said
"NS is a selective force that acts upon variation. Nothing is determined before". Do you think it makes a difference if the variation that natural selection acts upon is already made adaptive by another process besides NS? What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system. Who or what is then responsible for determining that the variation is adaptive then.

I think there may be a semantic problem here, perhaps an equivocation of 'adaptive'.

Define what you mean by 'adaptive' here, and how you can tell that a trait is adaptive.

 

[Speedwell]

Nothing is determined before".

Except the central tendency and standard deviation of the random distribution of variants.

 

[stevevw]

NS doesnt ”make” anything adaptive. It filters variation.

”Who” is responsible? What a weird question, are you suggesting god?

You have missed the point again. It seems you are only willing to see things as a God v evolution argument. The hint as to 'who' was given when I said
"What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system".

So the 'who' is the creature or organism itself that can make adaptive changes or give itself a selective advantage. Thus natural selection's role is biased and diminished in terms of the prominence given by the SET because the creature's actions or developmental processes are directing the path of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Except the central tendency and standard deviation of the random distribution of variants.

And what do you think the non-random EES forces will do to that tendency.

 

[Speedwell]

And what do you think the non-random EES forces will do to that tendency.

They will change it in diverse ways, much as the other forces which act on it. It will still be a random (bell curve) distribution because that is largely the product of recombination, which takes place after genetic changes.

 

[Speedwell]

You have missed the point again. It seems you are only willing to see things as a God v evolution argument. The hint as to 'who' was given when I said
"What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system".

So the 'who' is the creature or organism itself that can make adaptive changes or give itself a selective advantage. Thus natural selection's role is biased and diminished in terms of the prominence given by the SET because the creature's actions or developmental processes are directing the path of evolution.

Just a thought: might you be to some extent conflating the popular definition of "random" (without purpose) with the scientific meaning (unpredictable)?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So the 'who' is the creature or organism itself that can make adaptive changes or give itself a selective advantage. Thus natural selection's role is biased and diminished in terms of the prominence given by the SET because the creature's actions or developmental processes are directing the path of evolution.

No; as has already been explained, there are many sources of variation that provide a selective advantage, from foundational mutations to the complex interacting processes that it enables (the EES forces you're so fond of). But they're only adaptive, i.e. have a selective advantage, to the extent that they preferentially survive natural selection. That's what 'selective advantage' means.

 

[VirOptimus]

You have missed the point again. It seems you are only willing to see things as a God v evolution argument. The hint as to 'who' was given when I said
"What if the creature itself can make variation adaptive through non-random ways before natural selection comes along by its own actions or its developmental system".

So the 'who' is the creature or organism itself that can make adaptive changes or give itself a selective advantage. Thus natural selection's role is biased and diminished in terms of the prominence given by the SET because the creature's actions or developmental processes are directing the path of evolution.

See post 456.

Not that I think that you will do anything but post the same points over and over again.

 

[stevevw]

They will change it in diverse ways, much as the other forces which act on it. It will still be a random (bell curve) distribution because that is largely the product of recombination, which takes place after genetic changes.

I disagree. If the variations are non-random then there will be a higher proportion of specific variations within certain parameters rather than if the variation were all random as per % of the source for that variation. This is the important distinction that differs from the variation produced from the EES forces as opposed to the way the SET views things.

 

[stevevw]

No; as has already been explained, there are many sources of variation that provide a selective advantage, from foundational mutations to the complex interacting processes that it enables (the EES forces you're so fond of). But they're only adaptive, i.e. have a selective advantage, to the extent that they preferentially survive natural selection. That's what 'selective advantage' means.

The point I am making is that the EES forces don't just happen to produce variations that just happen to be adaptive. They are produced as a result of the creature/organism having made changes to the environment because they are in tune with the environment and nature so, therefore, know what is required to ensure they survive regardless of NS. If a mother creates a healthy environment for birthing and growth that produces fitness or cultures have practices that work with nature to produce an environment that gives a selective advantage then it's not as if NS can come along and do anything but go along with that.

What is being overlooked here is the ability of living things to be able to act in ways that can determine what is required for adapting and having a selective advantage. That the developmental processes only produce certain variations that are adaptive and give a selective advantage. That they are not random for a reason. They have already been determined as adaptive and having a selective advantage.

And it's not just because of past NS. Living things are not dumb passive creatures that are subject to some outside force of NS that limits their evolvability and survivability down to being changed to fit environments. They are interactive entities with their environments where they can anticipate changes and adjust accordingly and where developmental processes can be triggered by environments to produce non-random changes that are designed to help them adapt and survive. These are in tune with nature and thus produce what is needed to survive which is NS anyway. This is the fundamental difference between the EES and the SET.

 

[VirOptimus]

See post 456.

Not that I think that you will do anything but post the same points over and over again.

The point I am making is that the EES forces don't just happen to produce variations that just happen to be adaptive. They are produced as a result of the creature/organism having made changes to the environment because they are in tune with the environment and nature so, therefore, know what is required to ensure they survive regardless of NS. If a mother creatures a healthy environment for birthing and growth that produces fitness or culture has behaved in a way that works with nature to produce an environment that gives a selective advantage then it's not as if NS can come along and do anything but go along with that.

What is being overlooked here is the ability of living things to be able to act in ways that can determine what is required for adapting and having a selective advantage. That the developmental processes only produce certain variations that are adaptive and give a selective advantage. That they are not random for a reason. They have already been determined as adaptive and having a selective advantage.

And it's not just because of past NS. Living things are not dumb passive creatures that are subject to some outside force of NS that limits their evolvability and survivability down to being changed to fit environments. They are interactive entities with their environments where they can anticipate changes and adjust accordingly and where developmental processes can be triggered by environments to produce non-random changes that are designed to help them adapt and survive. This is the fundamental difference between the EES and the SET in that the SET.

Heh.