Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Oh, fiddle-faddle. You just cited for me a paper from an ID source--the Discovery Institute, no less..
Citation?
IOW, niche construction is a behavioural pattern that has a selective advantage.
Which behaviours in which creatures, for example?
Developmental plasticity only gives a limited range of adaptability; it will not always produce 'precisely what is needed' for an environment. Random mutations still occur, but they are relevant over multiple generations, whereas developmental plasticity is an individual response.
Good grief... that is 'not even wrong'. It reflects a fundamental lack of understanding or joined-up thinking about evolution.
What are the problems you see?
I think I managed to translate some of that. I think you're asking why random mutations don't produce random results... It's because the genome is somewhat modular and hierarchical, and when mutations change some small part of it, or a regulator of the expression of a gene or genes in it, there's a limited number of ways function can change, and those ways are likely to be variations on the expression of existing gene networks (or 'toolkits'); that's why it's said that evolution proceeds by modification and repurposing of existing functionality.
Gee and I were doing so well,
. I didn't realize this was an ID source. Anyway, it was still submitted for peer review which is the important thing. The point is I have tried to ensure that I am not using any ID or creationist sources and I think you will find apart from this that 99% are from mainstream sources. I have not mentioned God as the support for the EES but rather mainstream support and for this thread, I am not making out that the EES is a God of the gaps argument. My only intention is to support the EES view of evolution.
Gee and I were doing so well,
Here we go again with the semantics and picking out single words to make some strawman argument that is not there. Are you seriously saying that because I used the word 'design in that quote that this shows I am bringing religious concepts into the thread. Look at the sentence it's used in IE
You said the EES is creationist and ID C*** when it is clearly not. I think it is easy to see the point. You made an unsupported claim. This shows the extent you want to stretch and twist things to make out that what is being said is not science but religious.
No I have said your "arguments" are ID crap.
No, it wasn't submitted to peer review. It was published in BIO-Complexity, a pseudo-science magazine put out by the Discovery Institute and reprinted in Researchgate, which is basically a social media site.Gee and I were doing so well,
I don't care if you mention God or not. I think you are pushing EES because you are under the impression that SET can't work because it's "random" and needs EES because it's "non-random," which reveals an inadequate grasp of SET and puts more load on EES than even its creators intended.
In the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, and causation does not run solely in one direction from the external environment to populations and, instead of a single inheritance mechanism, several modes of transmission exist between generations.
Under the SET view the source of variation is random so natural selection is regarded as the all-important and only determining factor as to which variation are adaptive and heritable. Therefore NS is seen as the driving force of evolution. But the EES forces can produce nonrandom variations such as through development, niche construction or inheritance beyond genes where only certain variation are produced in line with an organisms needs. These variations can be adaptive and heritable before NS comes along.
That maybe the case but it implies that NS is the only force doing the selecting. This is what the EES is challenging. Niche construction is now seen as a theory itself (NCT) like natural selection which can also select adaptive conditions and traits that is heritable and therefore drives evolution.
I don't think it's hyperbole. It may only seem that way because you don't appreciate the full implications. I think overall Niche construction is a benefit to the individual and the ecosystem. Creatures are equipped to provide a safe and healthy birthing and rearing environment through niche construction. They continue to create an environment that suits them and their offspring which helps them adapt and survive.
As I have already shown in the previous post that it is an assumption to say that natural selection alone is the process that selects for relevant behaviors. Even before natural selection comes along it is the creature that is selecting the healthy and positive conditions that will enhance their fitness and provide benefits for their offspring in future generations. So long as that niche is maintained it will provide heritable benefits.
The process that establishes whether a certain pattern of behavior or environment is advantageous is the creature itself through changing its environment, its developmental responses to its environment, and the back and forth feedback between these factors as well as NS. Natural selection is not the privileged or only force at play here and that is what the EES is trying to dispel. I think I have provided ample evidence for this in the other responses. The fact that you still want to emphasize selection over everything else shows even though you claim that the SET acknowledges the EES forces they don’t really recognize them as actual causes that direct evolution like NS.
As far as niche constructions many creatures such as insects, birds, and mammals, basically most creatures that produce offspring create conditions conducive for healthy birthing and rearing through a number of behaviors. These include creating protective birthing conditions with insects such as the Dung Beetle or with birds and mammals.
Under inheritance beyond genes creatures' behaviors can be passed along and down to future generations through social and cultural practices which can be advantageous similar to niche construction in putting creatures in a better position to be fitter and adapt. These behaviors like niches can be passed on and provided the creatures maintains that behavior or niche and adjusts it accordingly when needed it will continue to provide benefits now and in the future. But behavior can also cause negative outcomes as we have seen with humans.
I am not sure it is common and the fact that this happens doesn’t negate the important role niche construction plays as a cause of evolutionary change. According to NCT creatures are not dumb passive creatures that cannot change with changing environments. They have a great capacity to adjust environments to suit. Living things seem to have a ready set of behaviors and tools available (hormonally, chemically, etc.) that help create the right environment. It seems inherent in them.
As far as I understand there is a certain scope for plasticity through development just like there is a certain scope of variation developmentally in the first place. There is good reason for this as only certain variations work in environments so saying that random mutations are going to find a better solution that doesn’t seem to be supported.
When you consider that there are only certain variations that can be produced and only a certain scope within those variations, it seems to me that initially and primarily it is the development system that is responding to environments and producing the required changes as a result. As mentioned above this seems to be the main way that development works and NS is something that may come along later and refine and fix these plastic changes in.
Why I can support everything that is said here. I think I have already covered this above. For example, how the SET treats the environment and creatures as separate entities whereas the EES sees them intertwined and therefore affecting each other is supported here
