[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

That isn't consistent with his posts.

 

[SelfSim]

I think I may understand where stevevw might be coming from(?)
(I might still be wrong about this, of course .. )

In the past I, myself, have attempted to highlight where a particular frozen-in mindset (a particular philosophical viewpoint) has been used as the sole basis of argumentation/discussion in these forums.

It seems to me he might just be trying to say that: As knowledge on a particular topic progresses, the 'debaters' amongst us should recognise that(?)
(The evidence for this is that he's consistently presented a viewpoint coming from such an avenue of research on this topic .. but I think we all already accept the base material and are now trying to understand its relevance in the absence of a clearly articulated context?)

Sometimes its very hard to convey this perspective-broadening aspect amongst (very) debate-hardened warriors(?)

 

[inquiring mind]

That isn't consistent with his posts.

The "but by either means there’s just no verifiable trail to confirm such a thing" portion of my comment is my point, not his.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The "but by either means there’s just no verifiable trail to confirm such a thing" portion of my comment is my point, not his.

That's inconsistent with the evidence.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I think I may understand where stevevw might be coming from(?)
(I might still be wrong about this, of course .. )

In the past I, myself, have attempted to highlight where a particular frozen-in mindset (a particular philosophical viewpoint) has been used as the sole basis of argumentation/discussion in these forums.

It seems to me he might just be trying to say that: As knowledge on a particular topic progresses, the 'debaters' amongst us should recognise that(?)
(The evidence for this is that he's consistently presented a viewpoint coming from such an avenue of research on this topic .. but I think we all already accept the base material and are now trying to understand its relevance in the absence of a clearly articulated context?)

Sometimes its very hard to convey this perspective-broadening aspect amongst (very) debate-hardened warriors(?)

Problem is he gives the impression that he thinks everyone but EES advocates and him are denying the evidence, when the difference is about broad interpretation and emphasis.

 

[stevevw]

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.

Yes that is what we call the Modern Synthesis. But the EES is challenging that view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution and that's the point.

The EES is building on this because the SET cannot explain what is being found with the variation being the result of non-adaptive processes. Natural selection is not the only force that can produce heritable variations. They show that NS has been overemphasized and credited with variations that are actually the result of the EES forces. Gould and Lewontin spoke about the assumptions with the adaptive view of evolution in their paper about spandrels.

What about when the variation is not based on genetic variation and adaptive selection such as with Developmental Plasticity, Niche Construction, or Inclusive Inheritance. These additional influences also produce heritable variations, which are often already adaptive and sometimes without genetic changes, or how creatures and their future generations survive by creating environments and behaviors that make then more fit. What about when developmental processes produce well suited and adaptive variations that don't need to be selected. All these processes produce adaptive variation and NS is either minimized or bypassed in its role.

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

I don't understand what you are implying. In post 20 you posted a quote from the section of the paper that was describing the position of those who supported SET. They acknowledged that they recognized the additional influences that the EES was emphasizing But said these influences were already explained by the SET.

I said that this was the basis for the paper to give each sides position. Hense the heading for the EES section was ‘Does Evolution Need a Rethink’ and the heading for the SET was ‘Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well’ But I think you have assumed that the SET section was the deciding conclusion of the paper and that there is no issue between the two. But you are mistaken.

The paper is written by those who support the EES such as Kevin Laland, Gerd B. Müller, and Eva Jablonka some who attended the Alternbery conference.
Most of the authors are the same ones on the other papers supporting the EES I have linked including this one from the Royal Society.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

They are saying that though the SET acknowledges the EES influences they underestimate them and don't regard them as causes of evolution. But the EES says they are actual causes and drivers of evolution on the same par as NS and in fact can diminish and bypass NS. I have posted ample support for this. If you read the beginning of that paper it sets this out. In fact, the paragraph after the one I posted in post 20 clarifies this IE

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.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

As the authors state that the EES is neglected and are pointing out the two different views of evolution between the SET and EES and how supporters of the SET can react to the EES because they believe it is already accommodated. The supporters of the EES are trying to explain the EES so that this promotes discussion and debate on the topic. Seems a little similar to what I am experiencing.

The following also disputes what supporters of the SET claim that the EES makes no difference and that the influences mentioned are already part of evolution.

Opposition comes in three different versions. One is the ‘absorption argument’, i.e. the standard framework is said to no longer be the MS but to have continually absorbed various conceptual advances [33]. The defenders of the EES beg to differ: as long as the major predictions that can be derived from an evolutionary framework remain exactly those of the classical MS, no change to its core assumptions has happened. Adding a chapter or two on new domains of evolutionary research, as evolution textbooks increasingly do, does not mean that these concepts have been integrated into the theoretical edifice of evolutionary biology. Rather, it has become customary to treat individual research questions independently, but to accept only the population genetic approach as explanatorily essential.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

 

[stevevw]

An non-controversial statement.

OK that's good to here. But from what I have read in the scientific material and on CF it seems there is a reaction to the EES and the suggestion of any other influence besides Neo-Darwinism. I am not sure whether you fully understand what is meant by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process. Because under the SET though the organism may be considered I don't think it credited with the same important central role as with the EES. Under the SET organisms are regarded as passive in that they are shaped by outside forces beyond them to be adapted to environments.

Whereas under the EES it is the creature's ability and efforts through changing environments and behaviours to make themselves fitter or put themselves in a better situation to survive. Or how internal mechanisms like developmental processes produce well suited and adaptive variations. I have never really read anyone on CF or rarely in mainstream articles talk about this. It is always explanations trying to come up with ways in which creatures and features can be adapted to produce new phenotypes. IE

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

The EES continues to see variation, differential reproduction, heredity, natural selection, drift, etc., as necessary components of evolution, but it differs in how these factors are conceptualized. In addition, in the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, 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.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

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.

Then why I have experienced so much resistance until I persisted and now people are engaging. Why do so many papers (not religious ones) mention how supporters of the SET react against the EES. IE

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?

Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33].
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

An intriguing proposal which, one hopes, will spur fruitful research. Science marches on.

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

My point is exactly what you say to open up debate so that the understanding of evolution is increased. Science does march on and the theory of evolution is subject to change like any theory. I guess I baulk at those who on the one hand want to object to those with belief as being dogmatic so I believe that the same scrutiny should be applied to those who may take a dogmatic view of evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes that is what we call the Modern Synthesis. But the EES is challenging that view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution and that's the point.

The EES is building on this because the SET cannot explain what is being found with the variation being the result of non-adaptive processes. Natural selection is not the only force that can produce heritable variations. They show that NS has been overemphasized and credited with variations that are actually the result of the EES forces. Gould and Lewontin spoke about the assumptions with the adaptive view of evolution in their paper about spandrels.

What about when the variation is not based on genetic variation and adaptive selection such as with Developmental Plasticity, Niche Construction, or Inclusive Inheritance. These additional influences also produce heritable variations, which are often already adaptive and sometimes without genetic changes, or how creatures and their future generations survive by creating environments and behaviors that make then more fit. What about when developmental processes produce well suited and adaptive variations that don't need to be selected. All these processes produce adaptive variation and NS is either minimized or bypassed in its role.

I don't understand what you are implying. In post 20 you posted a quote from the section of the paper that was describing the position of those who supported SET. They acknowledged that they recognized the additional influences that the EES was emphasizing But said these influences were already explained by the SET.

I said that this was the basis for the paper to give each sides position. Hense the heading for the EES section was ‘Does Evolution Need a Rethink’ and the heading for the SET was ‘Does evolutionary theory need a rethink? No, all is well’ But I think you have assumed that the SET section was the deciding conclusion of the paper and that there is no issue between the two. But you are mistaken.

The paper is written by those who support the EES such as Kevin Laland, Gerd B. Müller, and Eva Jablonka some who attended the Alternbery conference.
Most of the authors are the same ones on the other papers supporting the EES I have linked including this one from the Royal Society.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

They are saying that though the SET acknowledges the EES influences they underestimate them and don't regard them as causes of evolution. But the EES says they are actual causes and drivers of evolution on the same par as NS and in fact can diminish and bypass NS. I have posted ample support for this. If you read the beginning of that paper it sets this out. In fact, the paragraph after the one I posted in post 20 clarifies this IE

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.

Here we articulate the logic of the EES in the hope of taking some heat out of this debate and encouraging open discussion of the fundamental causes of evolutionary change.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

As the authors state that the EES is neglected and are pointing out the two different views of evolution between the SET and EES and how supporters of the SET can react to the EES because they believe it is already accommodated. The supporters of the EES are trying to explain the EES so that this promotes discussion and debate on the topic. Seems a little similar to what I am experiencing.

The EES in not expanding on NS, its expanding on variation mechanisms (that are then subject to NS as is all variations).

Also, you are using old articles. Where is the science today?

And isnt it so that you belive god has a role in evolution?

 

[Speedwell]

Then why I have experienced so much resistance until I persisted and now people are engaging. Why do so many papers (not religious ones) mention how supporters of the SET react against the EES.

Because many people here don't trust you and suspect you of an IDist agenda. Your initial reliance on a hack sensationalist like Susan Mazur only made it worse.

My point is exactly what you say to open up debate so that the understanding of evolution is increased. Science does march on and the theory of evolution is subject to change like any theory. I guess I baulk at those who on the one hand want to object to those with belief as being dogmatic so I believe that the same scrutiny should be applied to those who may take a dogmatic view of evolution.

How magnanimous of you.

 

[stevevw]

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.

It is not my assertions on this but the overall message I am reading in the papers about the EES and the like. For example

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?

Sometimes these challenges are met with dogmatic hostility, decrying any criticism of the traditional theoretical edifice as fatuous [32], but more often the defenders of the traditional conception argue that ‘all is well’ with current evolutionary theory, which they see as having ‘co-evolved’ together with the methodological and empirical advances that already receive their due in current evolutionary biology [33].
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

 

[Speedwell]

y

Then why I have experienced so much resistance until I persisted and now people are engaging.

Because many people here don't trust you and suspect you of an IDist agenda. Your initial reliance on a hack sensationalist like Susan Mazur only made it worse.

Why do so many papers (not religious ones) mention how supporters of the SET react against the EES.

Not all that many, and mostly for the similar reasons. Even the Altenberg 16 understood that a negative reaction to EES was largely caused by creationists seizing on it as a major scientific break with "blind chance evolution." But you never have shown much interest in their opinion of the matter.

My point is exactly what you say to open up debate so that the understanding of evolution is increased. Science does march on and the theory of evolution is subject to change like any theory. I guess I baulk at those who on the one hand want to object to those with belief as being dogmatic so I believe that the same scrutiny should be applied to those who may take a dogmatic view of evolution.

How magnanimous of you.

 

[Speedwell]

It is not my assertions on this but the overall message I am reading in the papers about the EES and the like. For example

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?

Read your own quote.

 

[stevevw]

The EES in not expanding on NS, its expanding on variation mechanisms (that are then subject to NS as is all variations).

I understand this. But if you read what I said you will see that I specified that NS if not the only force that can produce heritable variations. I agree it doesn't produce the variation, to begin with. But it does preserve beneficial or suitable variations that have environmental fit. So in that sense, it is producing heritable variation. Also, this is how the literature describes it.

Also, you are using old articles. Where is science today?

I don't know what you mean by old. Any paper within the last 10 years is usually acceptable in University essays. So that makes the ones I linked well within that criteria. But here are some more modern ones. You can google the EES and it will come up with more modern ones especially Google Scholar.
This site has a number of articles on the EES and is continually updated
The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program
Latest news – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
The extended evolutionary synthesis and human origins: Archaeological perspectives (2019)
Error - Cookies Turned Off
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (2017)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rsfs.2017.0015
Reciprocal Causation and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (2019)
Reciprocal Causation and the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

And isn't it so that you believe god has a role in evolution?

Yes, I have said that I am probably more of a theistic evolutionist that anything else though I don't have any specific version. Theistic evolutionists hold a number of different views on what the exact role God plays in evolution. But the most common is that God was responsible for creating the first life such as the Universal common ancestor which is said to be single-celled life. But basically the theory of evolution is supported as a way God created all life after that.

 

[stevevw]

Read your own quote.

Yes so what are you implying .

 

[Speedwell]

Yes so what are you implying .

I'll repeat the salient point:

"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."

 

[stevevw]

Because many people here don't trust you and suspect you of an IDist agenda. Your initial reliance on a hack sensationalist like Susan Mazur only made it worse.

Yet isn't this an assumption and fallacy and not looking at the content first to then make an informed assessment. This is exactly what the papers are saying that when the EES is presented there can be a reaction where people claim misrepresentation because they think it is something associated with ID.

But the reactions are not just because people think it is another ID ploy. They are just as dogmatic and fixated on their assumptions and beliefs about the traditional view of evolution and are hesitant to accept and challenge to it. Just about every paper on the EES mentions this and this and none of them are religious but mainstream scientists and journals.

Not all that many, and mostly for the similar reasons. Even the Altenberg 16 understood that a negative reaction to EES was largely caused by creationists seizing on it as a major scientific break with "blind chance evolution." But you never have shown much interest in their opinion of the matter.

I understand and agree on how creationists can pick up on this and use it. But you have to understand that they are coming from a position of disputing evolution and I am not. Big difference.

I disagree that only a few papers mention the contentions between supporters of the EE and the SET. It seems just about every 2nd paper mentions this in varying degrees. There is definitely some difference of opinion going and some resistance to the EES by traditionalists. Even the main website for the EES recognizes this so it must be something that is commonly known.
Why do EES critics, and advocates alike, complain that their opponents have an agenda?
Why is the EES contentious? – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Some of the papers even mention that there has been a controversy between different positions on natural selection for many years as to its role in evolution. As mentioned when Gould and Lewontin criticized the overuse of the adaptive view there was a lot of reaction and resistance by traditionalists. I would say the EES is doing a similar thing.
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" (1979), by Stephen J. Gould and Richard C. Lewontin | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

 

[stevevw]

I'll repeat the salient point:

"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."

Yes, the authors of that paper are pointing out that when someone mentions the EES those who support the Standard theory react thinking it is about ID when it's not IE they claim misrepresentation and discussions become acrimonious and muddled. Not actually about IDism but (haunted by the specter of IDist). In other words, the authors are trying to reason why the discussions break down and why they object to the EES. They say perhaps it is the specter of IDist as a possible reason. But they also give other reasons.

The authors are trying to point out how traditionalists overreact just at the mention of the EES and claim any opposition to it is not science as a way to defend their own position when there should be nothing to react about if they are open to the evidence and expanding our understanding as science is supposed to be done.

That's why I said I think you are misunderstanding what the paper is saying.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, the authors of that paper are pointing out that when someone mentions the EES those who support the Standard theory react thinking it is about ID when it's not IE they claim misrepresentation and discussions become acrimonious and muddled. Not actually about IDism but (haunted by the specter of IDist). In other words, the authors are trying to reason why the discussions break down and why they object to the EES. They say perhaps it is the specter of IDist as a possible reason. But they also give other reasons.

The authors are trying to point out how traditionalists overreact just at the mention of the EES and claim any opposition to it is not science as a way to defend their own position when there should be nothing to react about if they are open to the evidence and expanding our understanding as science is supposed to be done.

That's why I said I think you are misunderstanding what the paper is saying.

Then why did you start off with Susan Mazur?

 

[stevevw]

Then why did you start off with Susan Mazur?

I didn't start out with Susan Mazur. I started out with the Altenberg 16. Susan Mazur just happened to be the only person who attended the conference and then to write about it. So obviously she is the author of the article. The quotes I posted from what some of the attendees had said were the actual quotes they said and Mazur did not make them up. My point was that supporters of the EES were questioning the SET. It got turned onto Mazur because people began to attack people (the author) rather than discuss the content.

The whole debate was turned into exactly what the paper I quoted in post 20 was saying. People began to protest and bring up specters about belief, creationism, and religious misrepresentation rather than debate the science. I didn't mention anything about religion, ID, creationism. If you go back through the early posts I was asking why are people attacking the people including myself and the sources rather than the content. It has taken 80 plus posts to finally have some engagement on the actual content of the papers on the EES.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes that is what we call the Modern Synthesis. But the EES is challenging that view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution and that's the point.

Firstly, that isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's something you've made up. Secondly, you've got it backwards. Adaptive evolution is a result of variation. EES is emphasising certain types of mechanisms for generating that variation.

What about when the variation is not based on genetic variation and adaptive selection such as with Developmental Plasticity, Niche Construction, or Inclusive Inheritance.

All are the result of genetic variation and natural selection, and their generational outputs are all subject to natural selection. EES proponents have grouped related evolutionary topics together, given them new names, and suggested that they're now sufficiently complex to be treated as topics in their own right. I have some sympathy with that view, but it's a debate about the structuring of the theory that I'm happy to see play out.

I don't understand what you are implying.

I know, but I can't make it any clearer than I already have. You seem to have a rigid view of the way science in general and evolutionary biology in particular work and are interpreting everything through the distorting lens of that view. I suspect it's not helped by the misinformation published about the Altenberg conference.