[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

SelfSim · Aug 10, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
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.

Surely one has to recognise that organisms have environmental tolerance ranges:
- beyond which, either result in their demise (or extinction) or;
- within which, result in its thriving?
If so, then there must be sort of 'tipping points' where either environment variations exceed the organism tolerance, or vice versa?

The question then becomes where is a given organism relative to those 'tipping points'? The (evidenced) answer to that question, (within specified, constrained, timeframes), would then determine whether evolution appears as a term (input) or a resultant (output) of variation?

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
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.

FWIW; I agree .. and this view, I think, is more closely aligned with the thinking I laid out above(?)

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
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.

Yes, I think there is evidence of some kind of misconception driving the persistence and insistence on this EES, exhibited by stevevw in this thread(?)

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 11, 2020

SelfSim said:
Surely one has to recognise that organisms have environmental tolerance ranges:
- beyond which, either result in their demise (or extinction) or;
- within which, result in its thriving?
If so, then there must be sort of 'tipping points' where either environment variations exceed the organism tolerance, or vice versa?

Sure - the 'tipping point' is where natural selection punctuates an equilibrium.

The question then becomes where is a given organism relative to those 'tipping points'? The (evidenced) answer to that question, (within specified, constrained, timeframes), would then determine whether evolution appears as a term (input) or a resultant (output) of variation?

Not sure what you're asking - when you say 'organism' do you mean population or individual? Evolution is population change over time. You could call it (temporal) population variation, but variation is generally used intra-population, i.e. for differences between individuals.

stevevw · Aug 11, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Firstly, that isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's something you've made up.

Ok well now I am confused. You just said evolution is
FrumiousBandersnatch said
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.

Then I said Stevevw said
yes, that is what is called the Modern Synthesis.

Now you say FrumiousBandersnatch said
Firstly, that isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's something you've made up.

Yet as far as I understand according to most evolutionary papers what you describe is exactly the Modern Synthesis or Neo Darwinism IE
The core tenet of the Modern Synthesis is that adaptive evolution is due to natural selection acting on heritable variability that originates through accidental changes in the genetic material. Such mutations are random in the sense that they arise without reference to their advantages or disadvantages. Because this viewpoint asserts that natural selection acts to increase the frequencies of advantageous variants within populations, it is often referred to as neo-Darwinism.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2016.2864

Evolutionary genetics is the broad field of studies that resulted from the integration of genetics and Darwinian evolution, called the ‘modern synthesis’. This field attempts to account for evolution in terms of changes in gene and genotype frequencies within populations and the processes that convert the variation with populations into more or less permanent variation between species.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/evolutionary-genetics/

Secondly, you've got it backwards. Adaptive evolution is a result of variation. EES is emphasizing certain types of mechanisms for generating that variation.

That is what I said didn't I. It is the variations that prove a benefit or suitability to the environment that natural selection will preserve and thus prove adaptive.

The difference with the EES is that it can produce adaptive variations on its own. It can more or less do the job of both random mutations and NS. If a variation is produced through a process that is interacting with the environment to produce a suitable variation as a response then there is no randomness and no need for selection. It has selected itself because it's designed to produce the variation a creature may need or is an extension of what is already existing. So in that sense, it is guaranteed to be adaptive and NS's role is minimized or bypassed altogether. This is non-adaptive evolution.

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.

Ok it is good that you are acknowledging that there is a dispute about these additional processes/forces but are saying they should not be seen as evolutionary causes in their own right. But I disagree and say they are evolutionary forces and that there is a substantial amount of evidence for this now. They show some variation does not involve genetic variation or natural selection for which I have provided ample scientific evidence.

You claim all changes are the result of genetic variation and natural selection. But you have not understood the EES. For example variations such as developmental plasticity is not associated with genetics. The environment can change form before the genetic change. Remember examples such as leaf shape can change due to the soil composition. This is not adaptive evolution in the sense that randomly mutated genes were tested to make the change. The change is a direct result of feedback from the surrounding ecosystem. That is why the EES says ecosystems evolve as well.

The stickleback fish was another example IE.
Studies of fish, birds, amphibians and insects suggest that adaptations that were, initially, environmentally induced may promote colonization of new environments and facilitate speciation5, 6. Some of the best-studied examples of this are in fishes, such as sticklebacks and Arctic char. Differences in the diets and conditions of fish living at the bottom and in open water have induced distinct body forms, which seem to be evolving reproductive isolation, a stage in forming new species. The number of species in a lineage does not depend solely on how random genetic variation is winnowed through different environmental sieves. It also hangs on developmental properties that contribute to the lineage’s ‘evolvability’.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Then there is inheritance beyond genes and niche construction. These are also non-genetic in many cases such as where creatures can change environments to suit them and can adapt and survive without any change to their genes. The same with behaviour that increases adaptability such as cultural practices and parent-offspring behaviours which create more developmental and thriving situations which increase evolvability. Or epigenetics which is not linked to changes in the baseline gene itself but how genes are expressed which can change features in future generations. This is not genetic in a Darwinian sense of inheritable gene changes.

The EES explicitly recognizes that parent–offspring similarities result in part from parents reconstructing their own developmental environments for their offspring. ‘Extra-genetic inheritance’ includes the transmission of epigenetic marks (chemical changes that alter DNA expression but not the underlying sequence) that influence fertility, longevity and disease resistance across taxa8. In addition, extra-genetic inheritance includes socially transmitted behaviour in animals, such as nut cracking in chimpanzees or the migratory patterns of reef fishes8, 9. It also encompasses those structures and altered conditions that organisms leave to their descendants through their niche construction — from beavers’ dams to worm-processed soils7, 10. Research over the past decade has established such inheritance to be so widespread that it should be part of general theory.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

I have also provided ample scientific evidence showing how adaptive evolution is not dominant in evolution and how natural selection can be minimized or bypassed altogether. So you can dispute the science if you want but you need to show how it is wrong and not just insist that evolution is only adaptive and through natural selection, as this is an assumption, not fact. This is what the EES and others are saying that this gene-centric and adaptive view is no longer tenable and able to account for what we are seeing or the different way life can evolve.

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.

I think it is the other way around. My view is more open and holistic. It doesn't narrow things down to adaptive evolution or genes. Yet it can still include the important aspects of the SET. So compared to your view it is more inclusive and comprehensive. What I have posted is not limited to the Altenberg conference and you should not restrict it to this as this is limiting things. I have posted several additional papers which explain the EES.

The fact is many mainstream scientists have said for a long time that the SET is inadequate and does not have the explanatory power to account for what we are finding is how living things evolve. There is a recognition that adaptive evolution is too narrow a view. Just like the theory changed from Darwins original one to the Modern Synthesis a new change is needed and therefore the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is being proposed.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 11, 2020

stevevw said:
Ok well now I am confused. You just said evolution is
FrumiousBandersnatch said
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.

Then I said Stevevw said
yes, that is what is called the Modern Synthesis.

Now you say FrumiousBandersnatch said
Firstly, that isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's something you've made up.

You are confused - I wasn't responding to my post, I was responding to your post, where you said, "...EES is challenging that view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution..."

The view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's nonsense. If you weren't suggesting that is the MS view that EES is challenging, I really don't know what you were suggesting - whatever it is it's nonsense.

That is what I said didn't I. It is the variations that prove a benefit or suitability to the environment that natural selection will preserve and thus prove adaptive.

No, you said, "variation is only produced through adaptive evolution".

Ok it is good that you are acknowledging that there is a dispute about these additional processes/forces but are saying they should not be seen as evolutionary causes in their own right.

I'm not saying they should not be seen as 'evolutionary causes' in their own right. I just think that narrow causal view is a not a helpful way to think of evolution. The 'cause' of evolution is heritable variation in populations combined with natural selection.

There are various ways by which variation and its interactions with natural selection can occur, and various levels of complexity of these processes can be considered over various timescales. Consequently, there are many ways to view and categorise these processes. They're all 'causal' by the fact of participating in the causal sequences that lead to evolution, but it's not a particularly useful or constructive description.

You claim all changes are the result of genetic variation and natural selection. But you have not understood the EES. For example variations such as developmental plasticity is not associated with genetics.

Seriously? How do you think developmental plasticity arises without genetic change? What controls plasticity during development? How is it passed down the generations?

Remember examples such as leaf shape can change due to the soil composition. This is not adaptive evolution in the sense that randomly mutated genes were tested to make the change. The change is a direct result of feedback from the surrounding ecosystem. That is why the EES says ecosystems evolve as well.

Again, how do you think that plasticity arises? Of course ecosystems evolve - coevolution is how they become ecosystems. None of this is new to, or denied by, the Modern Synthesis.

Then there is inheritance beyond genes and niche construction. These are also non-genetic in many cases such as where creatures can change environments to suit them and can adapt and survive without any change to their genes.

That is niche construction, it happens everywhere in evolution, from symbiosis to nests & burrows. Niche construction is just a name bundling together the disparate ways organisms change their environment for long-term benefit. The Modern Synthesis treats them separately.

The same with behaviour that increases adaptability such as cultural practices and parent-offspring behaviours which create more developmental and thriving situations which increase evolvability. Or epigenetics which is not linked to changes in the baseline gene itself but how genes are expressed which can change features in future generations. This is not genetic in a Darwinian sense of inheritable gene changes.

Cultural transmission is not generally considered as part of biological evolution as its genetic influences are typically indirect and difficult to establish, and epigenetic changes are generally too limited and short-lived to spread through a population, but both can be seen as influences, and I'm all in favour of studying the extent of their influence. Frankly, I don't care whether the projects studying it are under the EES or the MS structure & nomenclature.

I've said what I want to say on this - maybe it will help the lurkers.

stevevw · Aug 12, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
You are confused - I wasn't responding to my post, I was responding to your post, where you said, "...EES is challenging that view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution..."

The view that variation is only produced through adaptive evolution isn't the Modern Synthesis, it's nonsense. If you weren't suggesting that is the MS view that EES is challenging, I really don't know what you were suggesting - whatever it is it's nonsense.

OK well I meant beneficial variation. Beneficial variations are said to be preserved by NS in the MS. In that sense, NS produces those particular variations as they are the ones that drive evolutionary change. Not in the original sense from where the variation is produced but in the adaptive evolutionary sense.

No, you said, "variation is only produced through adaptive evolution".

I'm not saying they should not be seen as 'evolutionary causes' in their own right. I just think that narrow causal view is a not a helpful way to think of evolution. The 'cause' of evolution is heritable variation in populations combined with natural selection.

I agree but the point of the EES is to challenge that cause of heritable variation only occurs through natural selection which is changes in genes through adaptations to environments. What they call a programmed view of evolution. The EES is saying evolution is more than this programmed view and is more of a constructive view of evolution. This brings in the non-genetic and non-adaptive aspects of evolution IE

Niche construction where environments are changed and not creatures and their genes, plasticity where form changes can happen before gene change to help creatures fit into environments (the leaf change through soil composition is an example). Plus, inheritance beyond genes such as epigenetics which is not about gene change but gene expression and is linked to the way creatures behave. These also cause evolution.

By only viewing evolution through genes you are making evolution narrow. It is the EES that expands the causes of evolution thus moving on from this narrow view. It states this in the papers IE

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

There are various ways by which variation and its interactions with natural selection can occur, and various levels of complexity of these processes can be considered over various timescales. Consequently, there are many ways to view and categorize these processes. They're all 'causal' by the fact of participating in the causal sequences that lead to evolution, but it's not a particularly useful or constructive description.

It sounds like you are trying to minimize or rationalize any extended evolutionary forces away. Why when it expands our understanding of how evolution works. Thus, this adds explanatory power and can address the issues that the SET lacks. The influences in the EES are given the same power for evolutionary causes as NS, if not more in some cases.

Seriously? How do you think developmental plasticity arises without genetic change? What controls plasticity during development? How is it passed down the generations?

Again, how do you think that plasticity arises?

Some variation within plasticity is not governed by a genetic change or genetic change in the adaptive sense such as with Neo=Darwinism. There is a degree of plasticity within body forms which can be expressed through cells and tissues. Therefore, some variation can happen as a result of lifestyle or environmental pressure during the lifetime of a creature which then allows them to fit into environments and can lead to speciation. (change in leaf shape and stickleback fish are examples).

Developmental, or phenotypic, plasticity is the capacity of an organism to change its phenotype in response to the environment. Particularly contentious is the contribution of plasticity to evolution through phenotypic and genetic accommodation [27,48,49]. Phenotypic accommodation refers to the mutual and often functional adjustment of parts of an organism during development that typically does not involve genetic mutation [27].

Sometimes the form change happens first and the genetic change happens later.
Plasticity not only allows organisms to cope in new environmental conditions but to generate traits that are well-suited to them. If selection preserves genetic variants that respond effectively when conditions change, then adaptation largely occurs by accumulation of genetic variations that stabilize a trait after its first appearance5, 6. In other words, often it is the trait that comes first; genes that cement it follow, sometimes several generations later5.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Of course ecosystems evolve - coevolution is how they become ecosystems. None of this is new to, or denied by, the Modern Synthesis.

But when you understand this form the EES perspective it makes a fundamental difference to how the MS determines ecosystem change. The MS takes a programmed view of evolution in that living things and environments are passive influences for being contributors as evolutionary causes. According to the MS they are molded by the outside force of adaptive evolution (NS). This will gradually change creatures and thus their environments. But the creatures and their environments are not seen as active/interactive causes of evolutionary change themselves.

Under the EES they are seen as constructive influences where living things can determine their own evolutionary survival and trajectories and the environment can be changed by a creature as a benefit and therefore causing an evolutionary change that contributes to adaption and survival. If anything, the MS may acknowledge these influences but sees them as consequences of adaptive evolution (NS). But under the EES these are evolutionary causes with the same power for change and adaptation as NS. 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?

That is niche construction, it happens everywhere in evolution, from symbiosis to nests & burrows. Niche construction is just a name bundling together the disparate ways organisms change their environment for long-term benefit. The Modern Synthesis treats them separately.

Yes and that is the difference and contention with the EES. The EES treats niche construction as a cause of evolution on the same par as natural selection.

Cultural transmission is not generally considered as part of biological evolution as its genetic influences are typically indirect and difficult to establish, and epigenetic changes are generally too limited and short-lived to spread through a population, but both can be seen as influences, and I'm all in favour of studying the extent of their influence. Frankly, I don't care whether the projects studying it are under the EES or the MS structure & nomenclature.

But we know evolution is not just about biology. Once again this is highlighting the differences between the MS or SET and the EES. The MS is relegating this influence to a minimal role and not a cause of evolution in its own right. Whereas the EES is making cultural transmissions and other influences of behavior as a cause of evolution on par with natural selection.

Part of the contention is separating the other influences of evolutionary change from the biological influences. Just like life nothing is seen in separation. For every biological change, there is an associated and interconnected psychological, social (behavioral) influence. They cannot be separated. The problem with the SET in trying to deny and separate these aspects are that you cannot and therefore it leaves a lot unanswered gaps that the SET cannot address.

Therefore, the SET will try to explain these non-biological influences in an evolutionary adaptive way which doesn’t fit well and that is why more and more question marks are being raised with the MS in its explanatory power and why many are calling for other areas like developmental biology, but also genomics, epigenetics, ecology and social science1, 2. They contend that evolutionary biology needs revision if it is to benefit fully from these other disciplines. The data supporting our position gets stronger every day.

I've said what I want to say on this - maybe it will help the lurkers.

Fair enough, good debating with you.

stevevw · Aug 13, 2020

SelfSim said:
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(?)

The EES is not a particularly philosophical view. It is based on scientific evidence that has been discovered and recognized. This has been an evolving synthesis pardon the pun in which a better understanding has been made as time goes by. The SET regards those forces such as niche construction, developmental bias, plasticity, and inheritance beyond genes as refinements or constraints to the SET. But now scientists are beginning to recognize they are more than this. They are separate evolutionary causes in their own right besides random mutational variation and on par with natural selection sometimes minimizing or bypassing its role.

There is a debate going on as to whether this is the case so this is where you will read some who say the EES is not anything new and already accommodated by the SET. But there is a distinct difference in how these additional forces are seen and included in evolution. The main difference is the SET sees these additional forces are minor and the EES sees them as actual causes of evolution.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 13, 2020

stevevw said:
...the point of the EES is to challenge that cause of heritable variation only occurs through natural selection which is changes in genes through adaptations to environments.

Not even wrong.

By only viewing evolution through genes you are making evolution narrow.

Straw man.

It sounds like you are trying to minimize or rationalize any extended evolutionary forces away.

Wrong.

Sometimes the form change happens first and the genetic change happens later.

I told you I agreed with this years ago (Aug 14, 2016): Where did the laws of nature come from? #1657:

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Steve, have you considered whether long rambling stream-of-consciousness screeds strewn with semantic quibbles are really the best way to get your point across?

Why not organize your thoughts and put a decent argument together?
...
BTW, ... Developmental plasticity clearly does guide the appearance of adaptive traits that precede evolution; developmental bias does narrow the field of adaptive variation; and environmental interactions do feedback into developmental plasticity. These things have been individually known for some time, but there's inertia in the system; expansions, extensions, and new syntheses must go through their internship before consensus acceptance - and rightly so.

But for all the non-adaptive genomic variation and its effects on adaptive traits, natural selection remains the means by which adaptive traits are established in the population genome. I don't really understand your problem with it.

stevevw · Aug 13, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
Not even wrong.

How

Straw man.

How

Wrong.

How

I told you I agreed with this years ago (Aug 14, 2016): Where did the laws of nature come from? #1657:

Ok that helps in giving more understanding to where you are coming from. In that case, I agree with you. I agree that the science is an ongoing thing and as time goes on we will understand better how these additional forces cause evolution as well. I guess I have taken a defensive position in this as I find that whenever these ideas are mentioned there is an attack that tries to dismiss any alternative view to the SET.

There is a good amount of science supporting the EES but perhaps this will never be enough to put any opposition to rest. Maybe there will never be enough evidence as it is also about what forces constitute causes of evolution and some will never accept areas such as evo-devo, epigenetics, and social sciences as part of evolution.

Speedwell · Aug 13, 2020

stevevw said:
I guess I have taken a defensive position in this as I find that whenever these ideas are mentioned there is an attack that tries to dismiss any alternative view to the SET.

No, you just need to pay more attention to your rhetorical style. Consider this:

1. You led off with a sensationalist and inaccurate account of the Altenberg Conference by Susan Mazur.
2. You, yourself appear to have taken something of the same extremist view of the difference between what you call "SET" and EES. I don't know if you meant to do this or not, but by inaccurately painting SET as the reactionary stance that evolution is only random mutation and selection you certainly give that impression.
3. All of that comes straight out of the IDist playbook, whether you know it or not: making "SET" into a straw man.

You should not be surprised at the reaction you got.

There is a good amount of science supporting the EES but perhaps this will never be enough to put any opposition to rest.

There is no opposition to the science supporting EES.

Maybe there will never be enough evidence as it is also about what forces constitute causes of evolution and some will never accept areas such as evo-devo, epigenetics,

Long since accepted as part of mainstream evolutionary theory. Who are these "some" you are talking about?

and social sciences as part of evolution.

The implications of which are well known to evolutionary biologists even though not formally part of the discipline.

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 13, 2020

stevevw said:
How
How
How

Already explained.

stevevw · Aug 14, 2020

Speedwell said:
No, you just need to pay more attention to your rhetorical style. Consider this:

1. You led off with a sensationalist and inaccurate account of the Altenberg Conference by Susan Mazur.

No, I led off with the OP asking for everyone's views on the EES. I did not make any comment regarding the EE but posted a paper explaining it. Then I alluded to some points made by another article from another poster on the EES regarding the differences highlighting how natural was said to be one of several forces. So I had already given ample feedback without any sensationalist or inaccurate claims. Then my sources were attacked with a logical fallacy that this was some religious ploy. So that set the debate on the wrong foot.

I then posted quotes from the Altenberg 16 meeting which happened to be from Susan Mazur who was the only commentator. But this was just one of many supports I posted and was certainly not intended to push some IDist agenda. I saw those particular quotes as concise and to the point, I was trying to make and not as extreme. They supported what most other papers on the EES say. The fact that the author happens to be the subject of some criticism does not diminish the quotes I posted. IE

Numerous authors have challenged the pervasiveness of natural selection as a unique ‘force’ of evolution, whereas others have questioned whether the individual is the sole and appropriate ‘target’ of selection or whether other levels of selection at supra- and infra-individual levels also need to be included in selectionist scenarios [42–44]. Again we are confronted with a classical criticism that stood at the centre of multiple debates in the past [42], but the issue is as unresolved as ever.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary.

In the following paper from the Royal Society states that the most contentious difference between the SET and the EES is the significance of NS. Why would they say it is the most controversial issue that causes arguments if this is not the case. Are they also sensationalizing things? This view is repeated throughout different papers.

The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution. 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.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019#ref-116

2. You, yourself appear to have taken something of the same extremist view of the difference between what you call "SET" and EES. I don't know if you meant to do this or not, but by inaccurately painting SET as the reactionary stance that evolution is only random mutation and selection you certainly give that impression.

Well I didn't intend to make it extreme but point out the facts of what the papers have stated as above. As I said just about every paper on the topic had highlighted that the SET and EES had opposing views and that there were some conflicts and reactions going on about natural selection being the only force.

But it seems ironic that you only see extreme and sensationalist posts from me and not from those attacking the EES in this thread. As I was attacked before any mention of Mazur so there was no impression created and yet people reacted for just mentioning the EES. Have you ever considered that as the papers have stated that there is also an over-reaction from those who support the SET and they take things to the extreme? IE

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]. But the repeatedly emphasized fact that innovative evolutionary mechanisms 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. To the contrary, the discrepancies between the current usage of evolutionary concepts and the predictions derived from the classical model have grown.

Here the paper even recognizes how mainstream supporters of the SET accuse anyone who suggests the EES as being ID creationists even if they are non-religious scientists. So it seems there is a controversy and it does have extreme reactions from both sides. Perhaps this is to be expected considering what is at stake.

At one extreme of a broad and complex spectrum of positions are perhaps authors such as Michael Lynch. Lynch and other population geneticists (most prominently, Jerry Coyne, who is interviewed in almost every example of press coverage of the controversy; e.g., Whitfield 2008) think that the MS provides all the theoretical framework that evolutionary biologists need, despite mounting empirical discoveries of new phenomena (e.g., epigenetic inheritance) and the elaboration of entirely new concepts (e.g., evolvability; Pigliucci 2008) during the past several decades. Indeed, Lynch (2007) went so far as charging his scientific opponents of engaging in little more than uninformed musings comparable to those of intelligent-design creationists.

At the opposite extreme are some prominent proponents of the ES, such as Eva Jablonka (Jablonka and Raz 2009), who—on the basis of the very same empirical discoveries and conceptual advancements just mentioned—claim that the new biology has dealt an essentially fatal blow to the orthodox Darwinian, gene-centric worldview of the MS (see also Newman and Linde-Medina 2013). The ES would, therefore, constitute something akin to what philosopher and historian of science Thomas Kuhn (1962) called a “paradigm shift.”

The sort of vigorous debate briefly sketched above is, we suggest, both typical of many areas of biology (including discussions on species concepts and on a number of ecological theories) and an excellent example of a dialogue at the interface of empirical biology, theoretical biology, and philosophy of biology.

The reason for this is that some of the crucial issues are conceptual (i.e., philosophical) in nature and hinge on not just matters of definition (what, exactly, counts as a paradigm?) but also on the entire framework that biologists use to understand what it is that they are doing (e.g., what is the relationship between systems of inheritance and natural selection, or, in multilevel selection theory, what counts as a level and why?).
Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy

So it seems this debate is going on despite claims it is not and that what is experienced here is similar to what is happening in mainstream evolution debates on the topic.

3. All of that comes straight out of the IDist playbook, whether you know it or not: making "SET" into a straw man.

Well according to the above articles you only have to suggest the EES and you are accused of being an ID and creationist. But that is not the problem of those presenting the EES bit of those who want to make out that the EES associated with religious belief.

You should not be surprised at the reaction you got.

Like I said perhaps some of that reaction is the result of those who support the SET having their own fixed beliefs about what evolution is as well. It is more likely a bit from both sides.

There is no opposition to the science supporting EES. Long since accepted as part of mainstream evolutionary theory.

I find this completely unreal considering the above articles that represent mainstream opinion.

Who are these "some" you are talking about?

Those would be the ones the papers are mentioning. I guess those who are more forthright in their position that there is no need for the EES and it's all nonsense and that its already accommodated in the SET (Lynch and Coyne are two examples).

The implications of which are well known to evolutionary biologists even though not formally part of the discipline.

And that is the difference. You say already well known but only seen as a side issue whereas the EES sees this as a cause of evolution itself along with NS.

Speedwell · Aug 14, 2020

stevevw said:
No, I led off with the OP asking for everyone's views on the EES. I did not make any comment regarding the EE but posted a paper explaining it. Then I alluded to some points made by another article from another poster on the EES regarding the differences highlighting how natural was said to be one of several forces. So I had already given ample feedback without any sensationalist or inaccurate claims. Then my sources were attacked with a logical fallacy that this was some religious ploy. So that set the debate on the wrong foot.

Maybe so, but I've never seen you without a religious agenda.

Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy

So it seems this debate is going on despite claims it is not and that what is experienced here is similar to what is happening in mainstream evolution debates on the topic.

Of course there is a debate going on. I read that paper and agree with everything in it, but I still don't agree with you. Why do you suppose that is?

Well according to the above articles you only have to suggest the EES and you are accused of being an ID and creationist. But that is not the problem of those presenting the EES bit of those who want to make out that the EES associated with religious belief.

It depends on who is doing the suggesting.

Like I said perhaps some of that reaction is the result of those who support the SET having their own fixed beliefs about what evolution is as well. It is more likely a bit from both sides.

I'm talking about our reaction here to you.

I find this completely unreal considering the above articles that represent mainstream opinion.

No, there is no controversy about the science itself. the science s the same for both sides in this discussion.

Those would be the ones the papers are mentioning. I guess those who are more forthright in their position that there is no need for the EES and it's all nonsense and that its already accommodated in the SET (Lynch and Coyne are two examples). And that is the difference. You say already well known but only seen as a side issue whereas the EES sees this as a cause of evolution itself along with NS.

So where do you draw the line between a "side issue" and a "cause?"

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 14, 2020

stevevw said:
... it seems ironic that you only see extreme and sensationalist posts from me and not from those attacking the EES in this thread.

For example? Please point us to extreme and sensationalist posts attacking the EES in this thread.

So it seems this debate is going on despite claims it is not...

Who has claimed that this debate is not going on?

stevevw · Aug 14, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
For example? Please point us to extreme and sensationalist posts attacking the EES in this thread.

The 4th post in before the thread even really began any debate. Content dismissed as religious belief without content even being discussed. That set the thread on the wrong footing. Post 3 seemed a logical fallacy and overreaction considering the large amount of information posted on the EES before that. Then post 16 was more concerned about attacking the credibility of a source rather than the content. I would have thought any reasonable person would have at least looked at the content in post 1 and 2 first to determine its credibility.

Then there were other posts continually attacking the poster and not once discussing the content and overreacting at post 8, 10, 18, 29, 34 plus others. There was another attack on the source a second time still refusing to discuss the content at post 16 and then began to question my beliefs and motives at 17 by asking whether I was an IDist or creationist.

Attacks on Muzar were still happening at post 51 and even post 99 where Mazur was used as a way to avoid acknowledging the content. It seems this one post had become the main focus rather than the vast content posted which is logical fallacy. There were others that I don't want to go in to. If that is not extreme over-reaction I don't know what is.

Who has claimed that this debate is not going on?

Post #74 is one example. Then at post #79, #92. Even though there has been some acknowledgment from you I feel others have fobbed this off. It is like what the articles I posted have said. There is some acknowledgment but it is limited to the EES forces being minor influences and no real acknowledgment that they are actual forces on par with NS.

TexFire316 · Aug 14, 2020

In the beginning God ...
First there is God
In the beginning God created ... everything
Just like He said.
If we insist on laying with the dogs, we shouldn't be surprised when we act like them.

stevevw · Aug 15, 2020

Speedwell said:
Maybe so, but I've never seen you without a religious agenda.

But this is still a logical fallacy. You have to engage in the content first before deciding if there is an agenda. Otherwise, you are making assumptions.

Of course, there is a debate going on. I read that paper and agree with everything in it, but I still don't agree with you. Why do you suppose that is?

I don't know why is that. If I am saying the same thing as the papers then I fail to see why.

It depends on who is doing the suggesting.

But there are no suggestions. Only scientific facts. The only suggestions if you want to call it that are coming from the papers. I have linked their content on many occasions throughout the post.

I'm talking about our reaction here to you.

That has nothing to do with facts on the content. If the science was determined by reactions of individual personal opinion on persons rather than content then we would be in trouble as there would be no science. This is a big logical fallacy.

No, there is no controversy about the science itself. the science s the same for both sides in this discussion.

I don't know what you mean by this. The SET diminishes the value of the forces the EES proposes. Are you saying this is just based on personal views and not science?

So where do you draw the line between a "side issue" and a "cause?"

The best way to answer this is to give some examples from the papers.

For example, developmental bias is generally understood as imposing constraints on adaptive evolution (table 2), such as the limit on the absolute size of terrestrial arthropods imposed by breathing via a tracheal system. Constraints, so conceived, are causes of the absence of evolution; they might explain why adaptation has not occurred in a given circumstance, or why phenotypes are not globally optimal, but it is selection that gives directionality in evolution and explains adaptation.
So developmental bias is seen as a constraint on what adaptive evolution can do rather than being seen as a cause of evolution and variation itself.

Similarly, the standard view is that phenotypic plasticity and inclusive inheritance are either inconsequential, proximate, causes of variation or outcomes of selection (i.e. adaptations; table 2). Plasticity is typically considered to be a genetically specified, and hence evolvable, trait that allows individuals to match phenotypes to local conditions [91,92], and the same logic is used to accommodate non-genetic inheritance and niche construction in evolutionary theory (e.g. [88,93]).

Here plasticity, niche construction, and inclusive inheritance are seen as inconsequential, and outcomes of NS and genetics (phenotype variations are the result of adaptations by NS testing random mutations to find environmental fit. Whereas plasticity, niche construction, and inclusive inheritance are dominant forces as evolutionary causes generating phenotypic variations that are well suited and have adaptive fit including those stemming from nongenetic sources that are inheritable (already explained).

For biologists schooled in population genetic or quantitative genetic thinking, the starting point for evolutionary analyses is the selection pressures [94]. Leaving aside cases where the source of selection is another organism, environmental change has been treated as a ‘background condition’ (e.g. [88]; table 2). On this perspective, termites evolve to become adapted to the mounds they construct in a manner no different from how organisms adapt to frequent volcanic eruptions. Because niche-constructing activities are seen as proximate sources of variation, they are typically treated as ‘extended phenotypes' [87] that evolve because they enhance inclusive fitness.

We suggest that structuring evolutionary explanations around processes that directly change genotype frequencies is responsible for these interpretations. A widely accepted definition of evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, which, to many evolutionary biologists, restrict evolutionary processes to those that directly change gene frequencies—natural selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation. Phenomena such as developmental bias or niche construction do not directly change gene frequencies, and hence are not viewed as causes of evolutionary processes.

Contemporary evolutionary biology textbooks support this interpretation (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). Only selection, drift, gene flow and mutation are consistently described as evolutionary processes and coverage of developmental bias, plasticity, inclusive inheritance and niche construction is at best modest (e.g. [95]) and, more commonly, absent [96,97]. What coverage does occur is typically given the traditional interpretation outlined above.

4. The extended evolutionary synthesis perspective
The incorporation of new data into the existing conceptual framework of evolutionary biology may explain why calls for an EES are often met with skepticism; even if the topics discussed above were historically neglected, there is now a substantial amount of research dedicated to them. However, for a second group of evolutionary researchers, the interpretation given in the preceding section underestimates the evolutionary implications of these phenomena (table 2). From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes [90]. Hence, the EES entails not only new research directions but also new ways to think about, and interpret, new and familiar problems in evolutionary biology.

In this section, we endeavor to draw out the defining themes and structure of the EES. We show how, while the lines of research discussed above arose largely independently, there is considerable coherence across topics. Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].

We see two key unifying themes to these interpretations—constructive development and reciprocal causation.

The table below will help show the differences between each force being either already accounted for and a noncause ion the SET or regarded as a cause of evolution in the EES.
Table 2.Two alternative interpretations of developmental bias, developmental plasticity, inclusive inheritance, and niche construction.

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/full/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019##

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 15, 2020

stevevw said:
The 4th post in before the thread even really began any debate. Content dismissed as religious belief without content even being discussed. That set the thread on the wrong footing. Post 3 seemed a logical fallacy and overreaction considering the large amount of information posted on the EES before that. Then post 16 was more concerned about attacking the credibility of a source rather than the content. I would have thought any reasonable person would have at least looked at the content in post 1 and 2 first to determine its credibility.

Then there were other posts continually attacking the poster and not once discussing the content and overreacting at post 8, 10, 18, 29, 34 plus others. There was another attack on the source a second time still refusing to discuss the content at post 16 and then began to question my beliefs and motives at 17 by asking whether I was an IDist or creationist.

Attacks on Muzar were still happening at post 51 and even post 99 where Mazur was used as a way to avoid acknowledging the content. It seems this one post had become the main focus rather than the vast content posted which is logical fallacy. There were others that I don't want to go in to. If that is not extreme over-reaction I don't know what is.

None of them support your claim of posts, "attacking the EES in this thread"; none were extreme or sensationalist. Most were from a single individual questioning or criticising your interpretation or motives.

Post #74 is one example. Then at post #79, #92.

None of those posts deny there is a debate about SET and EES - in fact the member who made those posts explicitly says so:

Speedwell said:
Of course there is a debate going on.

Is it really a surprise that people question your interpretation, understanding, and motives?

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch · Aug 15, 2020

stevevw said:
Speedwell said:

I read that paper and agree with everything in it, but I still don't agree with you. Why do you suppose that is?

Click to expand...

I don't know why is that. If I am saying the same thing as the papers then I fail to see why.

It's because you're not saying the same thing as the papers.

stevevw · Aug 15, 2020

FrumiousBandersnatch said:
None of them support your claim of posts, "attacking the EES in this thread"; none were extreme or sensationalist. Most were from a single individual questioning or criticising your interpretation or motives.

None of those posts deny there is a debate about SET and EES - in fact the member who made those posts explicitly says so:

Is it really a surprise that people question your interpretation, understanding, and motives?

I'm not going to go over this again. All I can say is that if this was a formal debate much of the attacks would have been censored. They prevented proper debate and sidetracked things. That to me is an unbalanced response and unjustified considering it began almost immediately before I had said much at all. Almost like it was pre-determined which makes me think when you mentioned confirmation bias who really had the bias. Like I said the EES is rarely acknowledged on this Forum which is telling itself. Despite you claiming all is well, just like the papers say I suspect there is some resistance to the EES.

[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

A non "-ist"

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Come as a child, with no agenda

inquisitive

Attachments

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

inquisitive

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency