• 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.

[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,422
54
✟258,187.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
How is this not science
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.

In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The above paper comes from the Royal Society Biological sciences so you cant get much more scientific than that. Unless you want to call them liars as well.:sigh:

Because it is not my views I am posting but scientific fact so how is it lying. To say that everything I have said and posted is all a lie is ridiculous and offensive. As I have said I am not fussed about what version evolution takes. It doesn't matter to my faith as God can use whatever he chooses.

The point is non-religious evolutionary scientists support the EES. Are you saying they are also biased and tainted with some belief. You cant keep discrediting scientific facts through ad hominem logical fallacies. you did this in another thread and you have a history of doing this to other people. If you cannot engage in the thread with constructive contributions then I suggest you desist from commenting.

Keep your suggestions for yourself.

I keep by my assesement, and you have yourself admitted in the past. Also, you really really dont understand science and the ToE or EES.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
In light of what the papers say do you think the EES forces diminish natural selections role and can bypass it altogether in producing well suited adaptive variations.
It's not clear to me what you mean by that. Explain what you mean by 'bypassing natural selection altogether', and give me some examples. Also, what are the timescales involved in that (e.g. how many generations)?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Kylie
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
... I am asking this basic question " do you think the EES is saying that there are other influences on par with natural selection that are non-adaptive and that these influences have the potential to bypass or minimize and control the influence of NS.
Your question doesn't make sense to me. Tell me, how do you think heritable changes are judged to be adaptive or non-adaptive?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
I never said natural selection produces variation. I understand perfectly well that Natural Selection (NS) acts on variation. I have said this in earlier posts. I have said that standard evolutionary synthesis (SET) views random mutation as the source of variation and that selection weeds out the variation that is unsuitable for the environment leaving those variations that can adapt to changing environments.
No, random mutation is not regarded as the only source of variation. It has been accepted for decades that variation has other causes, including genetic drift which you mention below.
I compared this against the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) by saying how can NS act on the variation from the EES when it is already well suited, integrated and adaptive. That the EES produces variations that don't need selecting in the sense that they are selected by the creatures themselves or don't contain unsuitable or non-beneficial variations thus NS has little to do but refine things and go along with what has already been presented.
So what? You still have to actually take the examination, even if somebody snuck you the answers ahead of time.
See I get two different claims here, one says its not a force and another from experts in the field that say it is. Who am I to think that the experts may know what they are talking about. So how can this be rubbish unless you want to say that the experts are talking rubbish. I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. This is from the experts.

Michael Lynch is a well known and top evolutionary scientist focusing on population genetics. He states
First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (1859b) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection
The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

Here is an article from Nature Education. That’s the well known scientific journal Nature.com and they teach evolution.
Natural selection results in organisms that are more likely to survive and reproduce. Another driving force behind evolution is genetic drift
evolution | Learn Science at Scitable
In other words another driving force besides natural selection is genetic drift.

The papers on the EES influences also refer to these as forces
The researchers also argue that natural selection isn't necessarily the primary force in evolution - the limitations of development and the environments organisms live in can also play a role.

A NCT framework recognizes that the niche-altering activities of humans, and partner species, are not simply adaptive responses to environmentally induced selective pressures, but are instead dynamic evolutionary forces (Odling-Smee et al. 2013: 17).

https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evolution-20161122

On that basis I agree with you. But my point is how the variation is produced and how it is preserved. The EES differs and disagrees with the SET in saying that random mutations and NS are the main and only way evolution happens. That gathering evidence shows that the EES influences are more prominent than thought and are also causes of evolution which can direct natural selection sometimes bypassing it altogether.

To be clear I am not saying that random mutations and NS are not at work, just the degree and role they play. Is this not the basis for what the EES is saying and if so how am I getting things wrong :scratch:.
See, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention to evolutionary biology. What's rubbish is your imaginary "them" who are unwilling to accept any cause of variation but random mutation.
 
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
7,045
2,232
✟210,136.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
This whole promotion of this EES concept just seems like woo to me.

Priorisation of one perspective being more 'impactful' over some other perspective, simply implies some kind of perceived constraint acting over the whole topic.
One can't help but wonder just what that (unstated) constraint actually is?
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
This whole promotion of this EES concept just seems like woo to me.

Priorisation of one perspective being more 'impactful' over some other perspective, simply implies some kind of perceived constraint acting over the whole topic.
One can't help but wonder just what that (unstated) constraint actually is?
Don't bother asking Steve.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
It's not clear to me what you mean by that. Explain what you mean by 'bypassing natural selection altogether', and give me some examples. Also, what are the timescales involved in that (e.g. how many generations)?
This will take a bit of explaining so pardon the text wall.

The best way I can explain this in layman terms would be if other forces of evolution besides NS presented already well adapted variation then what need would there be for NS apart from confirming what has already been presented. In the SET natural selections role is to test variation against the environment. Shift through variation to weed out the unsuitable and find the suitable to fit an environment. So the variation presented is a population can be a mixture of beneficial and non-beneficial variations that need testing.

But unlike random mutations some of the forces with the EES present well suited and adaptable variation that help creatures fit into environments even before NS has a chance to test them. In that sense they bypass selections role of being the force that preserves them.

Developmental bias is one of the forces that can present well suited and adapted variation. Living organisms evolve with their environments and other living things. Development mechanisms can be activated by environments through tissue and cells which can them influence how genes are expressed and can produce these well suited and adapted variations because they are responses to the environmental pressures they live in. In other words developmental systems have an ability to be sensitive to environments and thus respond with changes to phenotype needed to fit those environments.

If you notice with developmental bias it only produces certain forms as opposed to any form. So in that sense evolution is not random in that any variation can be presented. The same certain forms are presented in all living things as a result of development processes and these are usually well suited and integrated rather than random and being any possible change and usually non-beneficial. This doesn't bypass NS but guides it, dictates what variation will be presented which is usually beneficial for NS to rubber stamp.

But as opposed to NS preserving any variation even if it may come at a cost to other functions the variations presented through development processes like bias are well integrated. So in that sense it bypasses NS because it is not a selection but a determination that happens regardless of selection role.

Another way NS can be bypassed is through niche construction. Creatures are not adapted to environments but rather creatures change environments to suit them. In that sense it is the creature doing the selecting and not NS. Variations are usually conserved under niche construction. Examples are are aquatic worms who on land create aquatic environments by treating the soil in a way that produces a moist environment. This can also happen with insects and other creatures that can build nests, dams, burrows etc.

Obviously humans are the ultimate example in that they can create any environment or finding solutions to the many diseases and ailments we face therefore diminishing natural selections ability to direct and drive evolution. You could call niche construction artificial selection or self made selection.

Developmental plasticity which is a form of developmental bias can also bypass selection. Living things can respond to their environment by changing their form not because it is adapted by NS but because of the feedback between living things and environments. Even before any gene change has occurred which is a basis for evolution by natural selection so in that sense NS is bypassed in generating new forms. For example a leaf can change shape because of the composition of soil, water and chemistry.

Then there is inclusive inheritance which works a bit like niche construction. This is where groups through culture, interactions between living things and parents and offspring can create beneficial environments that are more able to survive or thrive as opposed to become evolutionary unfit. This also includes epigenetics where the lifestyle of creatures fit or unfit can influence future generations. Examples can be how good diets will produce better offspring and how stress or poor diets can express genes in ways that make offspring even in future generations more prone to sickness or mental illness.

AS I said before you could say NS still plays a role in rubber stamping some of these variations but you can also say that some of these variations are deterministic and predictable. They are going to happen regardless of NS as they are selected by other mechanisms and are often most beneficial and suitable that there is no better alternative for NS to select. As opposed to NS increased role of testing and weeding out the environmental unfit to preserve the fit.

Examples for papers
In the EES, besides the expanded range of selection to multiple levels of organization, the generative properties of developmental systems are viewed as responsible for producing phenotypic specificity, whereas natural selection serves to release that developmental potential. (the rubber stamping, my comment)
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. (rather than through adaptive and selective evolution working on gene change development mechanisms produce certain predetermined forms, comments added by me).


Developmental bias may also contribute to the many examples of convergence across the tree of life. For example, cichlid fishes from Lakes Malawi and Tanganyika exhibit striking similarities in body shape, despite being more closely related to species from their own lake than to those from the other lake [17,33]. Such repeated parallel evolution is generally attributed to convergent selection. However, inherent features of development may have channelled morphology along specific pathways, thereby facilitating the evolution of parallel forms in the two lakes [17,33]. If so, then the diversity of organismal form is only partly a consequence of natural selection—the particular evolutionary trajectories taken also depend on features of development.

Another kind of developmental bias occurs when individuals respond to their environment by changing their form — a phenomenon called
plasticity. For instance, leaf shape changes with soil water and chemistry. SET views this plasticity as merely fine-tuning, or even noise. The EES sees it as a plausible first step in adaptive evolution. The key finding here is that plasticity not only allows organisms to cope in new environmental conditions but to generate traits that are well-suited to them. n other words, often it is the trait that comes first; genes that cement it follow, sometimes several generations later5.

Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?


 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Your question doesn't make sense to me. Tell me, how do you think heritable changes are judged to be adaptive or non-adaptive?
This is any variation that is suitable for the environment that allows a creature to survive and reproduce. So over generations these small variations that prove beneficial change phenotype in populations. The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment. The variation can be already beneficial and addable even before NS is involved.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
This whole promotion of this EES concept just seems like woo to me.

Priorisation of one perspective being more 'impactful' over some other perspective, simply implies some kind of perceived constraint acting over the whole topic.
One can't help but wonder just what that (unstated) constraint actually is?
Actually I thank you as at least you are acknowledging what the EES presents and that it presents some challenges and then are being skeptical of them. many people don't even get that far. By doing this at least people can engage in debate on the details.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
The best way I can explain this in layman terms would be if other forces of evolution besides NS presented already well adapted variation then what need would there be for NS apart from confirming what has already been presented. In the SET natural selections role is to test variation against the environment. Shift through variation to weed out the unsuitable and find the suitable to fit an environment. So the variation presented is a population can be a mixture of beneficial and non-beneficial variations that need testing.

But unlike random mutations some of the forces with the EES present well suited and adaptable variation that help creatures fit into environments even before NS has a chance to test them. In that sense they bypass selections role of being the force that preserves them.
OK, suppose a single mutation results in a well-adapted variation - has that bypassed natural selection altogether? What is the process that determines whether it is well-adapted or not?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
This is any variation that is suitable for the environment that allows a creature to survive and reproduce. So over generations these small variations that prove beneficial change phenotype in populations.
What do we call the process by which genetic changes that provide a preferential reproductive advantage spread through and change the population phenotype?

The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment.
Nope - the same processes for generating variation appear in both formulations - I told you this a while ago.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
OK, suppose a single mutation results in a well-adapted variation - has that bypassed natural selection altogether? What is the process that determines whether it is well-adapted or not?
Now you are engaging. That would depend on whether that mutation presented enough of a change that would present a variation that NS could pick up. If it did then 1) who says this was the result of a random mutation 2) if it was it would be more luck that anything else. It just happened to be one of those times when the variation was beneficial. But that is going to be unlikely considering that the majority of mutations are deleterious and neutral and rarely beneficial.

But under the EES there are processes where it is more assured that well suited and adaptive variation is produced. So the question is establishing what force caused this variation. That is why the EES proposes a challenge to the SET because what has been regarded as variations under Neo-Darwinism has been assumed and often doesn't explain what is happening. Evidence points to a more complex process that may be from EES influences. This is along the lines of what Gould and Lewetin were on about with their Spandels paper about the over emphasis of adaptions in evolution.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
What do we call the process by which genetic changes that provide a preferential reproductive advantage spread through and change the population phenotype?
Evolution I would imagine. I know it may be referred to as evolution by natural selection.

Nope - the same processes for generating variation appear in both formulations - I told you this a while ago.
Can you elaborate.
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
Actually I thank you as at least you are acknowledging what the EES presents and that it presents some challenges and then are being skeptical of them. many people don't even get that far. By doing this at least people can engage in debate on the details.
What we are skeptical about is your assertion that EES proponents are struggling against a determined effort to defend random mutation as the only source of variation. It isn't true and engenders distrust.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Now you are engaging. That would depend on whether that mutation presented enough of a change that would present a variation that NS could pick up. If it did then 1) who says this was the result of a random mutation 2) if it was it would be more luck that anything else. It just happened to be one of those times when the variation was beneficial. But that is going to be unlikely considering that the majority of mutations are deleterious and neutral and rarely beneficial.
Just answer the questions as posed:

If a single mutation results in a well-adapted variation - has that bypassed natural selection altogether?

What is the process that determines whether it is well-adapted or not?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,405
8,143
✟349,282.00
Faith
Atheist
Evolution I would imagine. I know it may be referred to as evolution by natural selection.
Exactly. It is natural selection that establishes whether some genetic variation is adaptive or not; where 'adaptive' means having a reproductive advantage that enables the genes for that variation to propagate through the population, i.e. evolutionary fitness.

Can you elaborate.
Your claim that, "The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment" misrepresents both SET and EES.

You yourself linked to an article that contradicts it - see my #20
...
you seem to misunderstand the difference between the EES and the SET, which is summed up by an SET 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.<my bolding>
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
15,847
1,701
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟318,593.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Keep your suggestions for yourself.

I keep by my assesement, and you have yourself admitted in the past. Also, you really really dont understand science and the ToE or EES.
OK then help me out. You still didn't respond to whether this is science and what is your view on it. Educate me.

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.

In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
 
Upvote 0

Speedwell

Well-Known Member
May 11, 2016
23,928
17,626
82
St Charles, IL
✟347,280.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
Married
OK then help me out. You still didn't respond to whether this is science and what is your view on it. Educate me.

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
An non-controversial statement.

In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
There is some difference of opinion about the relative importance of these processes, but nothing really divisive, and on the whole this statement is relatively non-controversial as well.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
An intriguing proposal which, one hopes, will spur fruitful research. Science marches on.

But you still haven't told us what your point is.
 
Upvote 0

inquiring mind

and a discerning heart
Site Supporter
Dec 31, 2016
7,221
3,311
U.S.
✟697,694.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
An intriguing proposal which, one hopes, will spur fruitful research. Science marches on.

But you still haven't told us what your point is.
I think he’s making the same point traditional evolutionists do… that being we supposedly macro evolved someway, but by either means there’s just no verifiable trail to confirm such a thing.
 
Upvote 0