[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

But I think I have debated things so there is obviously a difference in opinion. For example the post you used Post #20. You made a point about how I had misunderstood the paper or the whole EES and posted a snippet to support this. But ironically it was you who misunderstood it. You thought the supporters of SET had already incorporated the EES forces to show how there was no issue.

But you misunderstood the paper. It was only pointing out the position of how the SET thinks they have incorporated the EES forces and not that they really had. I was just pointing out to you this misunderstanding. I had to repeat this as you still didn't get what the paper was actually about. If anything there is probably a misunderstanding on both sides.

Your comment would make Dunning & Kruger proud. I wasn't going to say any more, but it deserves a closer look...

1. My point in #20 was that "you seem to misunderstand the difference between the EES and the SET" not that you had misunderstood the paper or the whole EES - but it's clear that you have misunderstood the paper (see 2 & 3 below).

2. I did not think "the supporters of SET had already incorporated the EES forces to show how there was no issue". The argument for EES explicitly acknowledges that the SET incorporates the same 'forces', but argues it does so "in a way that undermines their significance".

Please try to avoid telling people what they do or do not think - if you want to know, ask.

3. The paper you linked to (in #13) and that my quote (in #20) was pulled from is in two parts; one is a call for the adoption of EES by Kevin Laland and colleagues, the other is an argument that an EES is not necessary by Gregory A. Wray, Hopi E. Hoekstra and colleagues. I quoted from the latter.

It was not "only pointing out the position of how the SET thinks they have incorporated the EES forces". That you would say that suggests you have misunderstood the debate itself.

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying you said the same thing about yourself years ago?

Lol! No, I was referring to my August 2014 post that I quoted from in #107.

Spoiler

"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?

I think this is a bit of an unfair conclusion. I have posted large sections of papers and given commentary. In fact, my own personal commentary probably outnumbers the quotes from papers. So I think this shows I understand the papers pretty well.

Posting a lot of commentary doesn't show you understand the papers, it just shows you posted a lot of commentary.

I cannot see how you have really explained how I have misunderstood things.

We've explained what the debate between SET & EES is about and how that is different from what you have posted.

Yes, I agree it is more complex than perhaps trying to cover everything with a general summation. But I was only going off the papers where they were summarizing what the differences were in the intros and conclusion sections. I felt they gave a good overall outline. I guess the authors did as well otherwise why would they write that.

They did give a reasonable summary of the debate, but your condensation of it was meaningless.

To make any interesting comment about the SET & EES debate, you really need to understand the issues involved and how fit into the wider picture of evolutionary biology. It's not enough to know the names of the contested ideas and their superficial descriptions in opinion articles, you need to understand them and their place in evolution. Your comments here have shown that you seem to struggle with natural selection, let alone developmental plasticity and bias, niche construction, inclusive heredity, extra-genetic inheritance, etc.

 

[stevevw]

Nobody is denying that it exists in the mainstream view. It is part of the mainstream view

I mean they deny that adaptive evolution is the only way many see how evolution is caused in the mainstream view. I have stated this earlier many times. That is one of the points the papers make.

That is why they wrote the paper to create awareness of the EES because the forces emphasized are being minimized due to people taking an adaptive view and attributing every cause and outcome to adaptive evolution when it is the EES forces that are sometimes responsible. That is the whole point of the EES papers.

and even EES proponents accept it.

Yes and I have never denied this and have stated this in earlier posts. It is about degrees. The EES doesn't place the same amount of emphasis or interpretation on adaptive evolution as the SET. It accepts the SET core view of adaptions but includes a number of other influences which then reduce the adaptive (NS & random variations) role.

No, they don't say the opposite. They are saying that what you call "adaptive evolution" is part of SET but not the whole of it. They are saying that "adaptive evolution" is part of EES.

Yes I agree. But it is about degrees. Maybe that is the problem, one of communication. I am not good at grammar. But can you see the important differences.

When you say SET says the adaptive view is part of the evolution but not the whole the EES says the SET makes it the whole because they minimize the EES forces as causes of evolution and assume that they are caused by adaptive evolution (NS).

This is getting pretty weird. How can you read that paper--it's in plain English--and then tell me to my face it says something entirely different from what it actually says?

I have never said or at least intended to say that the SET doesn't see the same forces the EES is emphasizing or that the EES doesn't acknowledge adaptive evolution (natural selection). IE

Steve said at post #56
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
Steve said at post #45
Yes, both views of evolution see the EES influences as part of evolution. But the difference is the SET view regards those influences as minor players, something that may constrain natural selection but still natural selection is the only force in evolution.

It is a matter of degrees and for some, that degree can be as much as making adaptive evolution a minor player. My point is because the SET minimizes these forces the EES emphasizes as causes of evolution they then attribute all those causes and outcomes to adaptive evolution as an assumption and without evidence. The EES is saying other forces are more responsible and here is the evidence. The SET does not have the explanatory power to account for what is being found whereas the EES does.

This post probably sums up what the EES papers are saying overall.
Steve said at post #22
That article was designed to give both sides of the story. One that supports the EES and the other that claims the influences that the EES highlight are already incorporated in the SET. But that is part of the issue the EES are talking about if you read other articles I have linked. The SET view minimizes and underestimates these influences and sees them as constraints to the standard view of adaptive and selective evolution. Whereas the EES states that these are more than that and are actual causes of evolution that can explain a lot that the SET cannot do.[/quote]

 

[stevevw]

My motivations are my own.

1. Do you accept common descent?

Yes

2. What role, if any, do natural selection have?

This is more complex than a yes a or no answer. NS plays an important role but is only one of a number of forces that influence evolutionary change. In the end, as I acknowledge in my posts even though some EES influences can produce well suited and adapted variation NS will still give the rubber stamp as to whether living things will survive in their environments. But then look at humans they seem to be overcoming NS's influence. So who knows whether other living things can do that as well.

3. What role, if any, does god have in evolution?

I don't know. Certainly, as a person of faith, God has some influence. But whether it was at the very beginning of existence or at the point when life began and how that was done, I just don't know.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... the SET minimizes these forces the EES emphasizes as causes of evolution they then attribute all those causes and outcomes to adaptive evolution as an assumption and without evidence.

This is incorrect.

The SET does not have the explanatory power to account for what is being found whereas the EES does.

This is incorrect.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... look at humans they seem to be overcoming NS's influence.

This is incorrect.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes

This is more complex than a yes a or no answer. NS plays an important role but is only one of a number of forces that influence evolutionary change. In the end, as I acknowledge in my posts even though some EES influences can produce well suited and adapted variation NS will still give the rubber stamp as to whether living things will survive in their environments. But then look at humans they seem to be overcoming NS's influence. So who knows whether other living things can do that as well.

I don't know. Certainly, as a person of faith, God has some influence. But whether it was at the very beginning of existence or at the point when life began and how that was done, I just don't know.

Well, that was easy.

 

[stevevw]

This is incorrect.

According to Niche Construction theory (NCT), creatures can alter their environment so that it is more conducive to their requirements and thus increasing their fitness and that of offspring and future generation and therefore allowing them to pass on their phenotypes as well as the niche constructions. So long as that altered environment is maintained or continually changed so that it meets the creature's requirements then this will minimize natural selection influence. Because primarily the need for altered phenotypes through natural selection (NS) is bypassed.

Humans are the best at niche construction. Niche construction can include passing on behavior and knowledge through social and cultural means as well as the physical environment needs that improve adaptive ability. If you think of how humans have been able to meet the challenge of any environment thrown at them from below freezing to extremely hot climates I don't think there would be any environmental pressures we could not overcome.

The same goes for our ability to overcome diseases and we have improved our health to the point where we are minimizing the effects of diseases. That doesn't include lifestyle diseases which will actually do the opposite. In fact, humans are looking at the future in being able to relocate to other planets or build entire artificial worlds where even if the atmosphere became unsustainable we could still survive.

So in that sense, humans have overcome the influence of natural selection. They are in fact becoming the selector rather than natural selection. It is not a case of changing the creature to adapt to environments as with how adaptive evolution works. But more about changing the environment to suit the needs of the creature. The creature (humans) dictate the direction of evolution and they can bypass any of the natural environmental pressures that would have caused fitness loss or extinction by innovation.

To varying lesser degrees all life has this ability. The SET sees NCT as an independent influence and the result of past evolution through NS. But the EES sees it as an evolutionary cause along with NS where niche constructed environments are also inherited with phenotypes by future generations which then act as reciprocal influences on creatures contributing to further adaptive fit and evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

According to Niche Construction theory (NCT), creatures can alter their environment so that it is more conducive to their requirements and thus increasing their fitness and that of offspring and future generation and therefore allowing them to pass on their phenotypes as well as the niche constructions. So long as that altered environment is maintained or continually changed so that it meets the creature's requirements then this will minimize natural selection influence. Because primarily the need for altered phenotypes through natural selection (NS) is bypassed.

Humans are the best at niche construction. Niche construction can include passing on behavior and knowledge through social and cultural means as well as the physical environment needs that improve adaptive ability. If you think of how humans have been able to meet the challenge of any environment thrown at them from below freezing to extremely hot climates I don't think there would be any environmental pressures we could not overcome.

The same goes for our ability to overcome diseases and we have improved our health to the point where we are minimizing the effects of diseases. That doesn't include lifestyle diseases which will actually do the opposite. In fact, humans are looking at the future in being able to relocate to other planets or build entire artificial worlds where even if the atmosphere became unsustainable we could still survive.

So in that sense, humans have overcome the influence of natural selection. They are in fact becoming the selector rather than natural selection. It is not a case of changing the creature to adapt to environments as with how adaptive evolution works. But more about changing the environment to suit the needs of the creature. The creature (humans) dictate the direction of evolution and they can bypass any of the natural environmental pressures that would have caused fitness loss or extinction by innovation.

To varying lesser degrees all life has this ability. The SET sees NCT as an independent influence and the result of past evolution through NS. But the EES sees it as an evolutionary cause along with NS where niche constructed environments are also inherited with phenotypes by future generations which then act as reciprocal influences on creatures contributing to further adaptive fit and evolution.

Is it possible to get yourself out of a hole by digging deeper?

 

[stevevw]

Is it possible to get yourself out of a hole by digging deeper?

Why is that so. I am only saying what the science says. IE

For instance, theoretical analyses by Laland et al. (2001) explored the evolutionary consequences of cultural niche construction. They revealed circumstances under which cultural transmission could overwhelm natural selection, accelerate the rate at which a favored allele spreads, initiate novel evolutionary events,
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1046/j.1420-9101.2001.00262.x

Natural selection is a key mechanism of evolution. However, its effects in shaping humans as a species may have been relaxed due to modern living conditions, and improved public health and medicine
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6051589/

There is now extensive evidence from both theoretical and empirical studies that niche construction is evolutionarily consequential. Moreover, population genetic models reveal that niche construction generates unusual evolutionary dynamics (Laland et al., 1996, 1999, 2001; Silver and Di Paolo, 2006), such as momentum effects (populations continue to evolve in the same direction after selection has stopped or reversed), inertia effects (no noticeable evolutionary response to selection for a number of generations), as well as opposite and sudden catastrophic responses to selection.

Theoretical analyses exploring the evolutionary ramifications of human cultural niche construction show it to be potent. Laland et al. (2001) found that cultural niche construction can overwhelm or reverse natural selection, accelerate the rate at which favoured genes spread, initiate novel evolutionary events and trigger hominid speciation. As cultural processes typically operate faster than natural selection, Laland and colleagues concluded that cultural niche construction is likely to have more profound consequences than gene-based niche construction.
http://www.highplainsnotill.com/docs/niche_construction_co-volution_and_biodiversity.pdf

And there is Lyches famous paper who said more or less the same thing but did not mention niche construction. But he was referring to how modern humans can alter environments through medicine and technology thuse relaxing natural selection even to the point of stopping it altogether.

What is exceptional about humans is the recent detachment from the challenges of the natural environment and the ability to modify phenotypic traits in ways that mitigate the fitness effects of mutations, e.g., precision and personalized medicine. This results in a relaxation of selection against mildly deleterious mutations, including those magnifying the mutation rate itself.

For the most extreme case of completely relaxed selection (sn = 0), beneficial alleles will ultimately be lost entirely (pˆn=1.0), with the rate of increase of deleterious alleles (with hidden effects) being entirely governed by the mutation rate to defective states.

This ∼ 1% decline applies to the extreme situation of complete relaxation of selection, which will likely be realized in only the most technologically advanced of populations.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4788123/

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Why is that so. I am only saying what the science says.

What those papers say is very different from what you said, "...humans have overcome the influence of natural selection."

Did you not notice that we're in the middle of a lethal global pandemic? had you not noticed the millions who live with or die every year from heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, diabetes, birth complications, cancer, HIV, malaria, cirrhosis, etc., etc. ??

Yeah, but apart from all the influences of natural selection, "we've overcome the influence of natural selection"!

 

[stevevw]

This is incorrect.

When I say minimize I mean though the SET acknowledges their presence they do not attribute them as causes of evolution on par with natural seelction. So for example any input from a creature itself such as with alterations to environments with niche contruction such as (nests, beaver dams, treatment of soil) is seen as being derived from past natural selection rather than an evolutionary cause itself that can produce adaptive fit and heritable variations. IE

From the niche-construction perspective, the current selective environment was itself brought about through earlier niche construction, which caused the bout of selection. The attribution of all causal significance to selection fails to capture the true reciprocal nature of causation in this system.

Central to these debates are different assumptions concerning the independence or interdependence of the causes of phenotypic variation, differential fitness and inheritance, which are Lewontin’s (1970) three conditions for evolution by natural selection (Walsh 2015; Uller & Helanterä 2019). Traditionally, evolutionary biologists have assumed these processes are quasi-independent, but in practice they are often causally intertwined.
Niche construction

This is the same for the other forces in the EES which as often minimized as actual causes and seen as perifical constraint and anomelies to the central force emphasizied by the SET in selection and adaptation with changes in genes to fit environments. IE

For many evolutionary biologists, the research described above is not viewed as a challenge to the traditional explanatory framework, but rather developmental bias, plasticity, non-genetic inheritance, and niche construction are considered proximate, but not evolutionary, causes [88–90]. Thus, while these phenomena demand evolutionary explanations, they do not themselves constitute valid, even partial, evolutionary explanations for organismal diversity and adaptation.

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

This is incorrect.

Like as above mentions if the EES forces are not seen as causes but are rather hinderences and constraints to adaptive and selective evolution or have been caused by past NS then the explanations are also going to be only about adaptive and selective evolution. As the papers below point out this explanation fails to capture of whta is happening and thus lacks explanatory power.

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Among other consequences, the extended framework overcomes many of the limitations of traditional gene-centric explanation and entails a revised understanding of the role of natural selection in the evolutionary process. All these features stimulate research into new areas of evolutionary biology.

As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above.

Indeed, the MS theory lacks a theory of organization that can account for the characteristic features of phenotypic evolution, such as novelty, modularity, homology, homoplasy or the origin of lineage-defining body plans. As will be shown below, evo-devo, niche construction, systems biology and other areas harbour the capacity to address at least certain aspects of these topics where the classical theory fails.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

 

[stevevw]

What those papers say is very different from what you said, "...humans have overcome the influence of natural selection."

I think you may have taken my quote out of context. I actually said, "So in that sense, humans have overcome the influence of natural selection". "So in that sense" referred to the explanation I gave which was about niche construction and humans being able to be the selector of their evolution rather than natural selection by being able to change environments to suit their needs. From my understanding that is what the papers were talking about. But either way, the point is natural selection has been diminished, relaxed, and even stopped in some cases (totally relaxed).

Did you not notice that we're in the middle of a lethal global pandemic? had you not noticed the millions who live with or die every year from heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, diabetes, birth complications, cancer, HIV, malaria, cirrhosis, etc., etc. ??

These are mostly lifestyle problems and I qualified that in my post by saying that this will actually do the opposite. They don't help humans create environments that minimize selection but rather invite diseases like viruses that are one of the most prolific organisms open to mutation and selection. Whereas I am talking about humans mostly who can have input into their environment and direct evolution.

Besides humans have overcome many of these diseases and they can create environments just like in the pandemic where they are disease-free thus controlling what happens and ensuring an environment that ensures their survival. It is a matter of willingness to adhere to the measures to ensure a disease-free environment.

Anyway, I am not saying NS is at work here and none of this takes away from the evidence that niche construction is a dominant force in evolution which can direct and even minimize NS and adaptive evolution.

Yeah, but apart from all the influences of natural selection, "we've overcome the influence of natural selection"!

I never said we have overcome all the influences of NS. I am not saying that. Rather I am pointing out the powerful evolutionary cause of other forces besides NS that can influence NS role and ability. At the end of the day, NS is still a central force in evolution.

 

[stevevw]

Additional information for those interested in learning more about the EES. The John Templeton Foundation made a grant available for further research into the forces highlighted by the EES. This is being done through 22 projects involving many scientists within the specialized fields. This site includes information on those projects.
Summary of our research – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[Hans Blaster]

Additional information for those interested in learning more about the EES. The John Templeton Foundation made a grant available for further research into the forces highlighted by the EES. This is being done through 22 projects involving many scientists within the specialized fields. This site includes information on those projects.
Summary of our research – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Thanks for that info. I hadn't been following the details of this discussion as EES seemed like just a small expansion of the broad modern synthesis. I wasn't quite sure what the scientific debate was about. (I.e., why anyone was getting hot and bothered about it.)

Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation. Templeton keeps trying to confuse the line between religion and science and I am weary of anything they touch.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation. Templeton keeps trying to confuse the line between religion and science and I am weary of anything they touch.

Yes, scientists and philosophers are questioning the foundation's place in those fields, how it goes about its work, and how closely it adheres to its apparently non-religious mission statement: Philosophers Raise Concerns, Questioning the Integrity of the Templeton Foundation, etc.

 

[stevevw]

Thanks for that info. I hadn't been following the details of this discussion as EES seemed like just a small expansion of the broad modern synthesis. I wasn't quite sure what the scientific debate was about. (I.e., why anyone was getting hot and bothered about it.)

Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation. Templeton keeps trying to confuse the line between religion and science and I am wary of anything they touch.

I think you are jumping the gun here. The EES has been around for over 12 years now and the EES project is based on evidence that has been around for decades. The EES is just a more concerted effort to focus on certain evolutionary forces that contribute to evolution. There is a vast amount of empirical scientific data on the EES now.

The involvement of the John Templeton Foundation is only a recent event. But that has little to do with the science being done. All the papers associated are peer-reviewed and prominent mainstream scientists like Kevin Laland, Gerd Muller, Günter Wagner, Massimo Pigliucci, Marcus Feldman, Patrick Bateson, and John Endler to name a few. I think it is a logical fallacy to say that the scientific research is invalid because of its funding.
People – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... I think it is a logical fallacy to say that the scientific research is invalid because of its funding.

Did someone say it was?

However, it's been known for years that published scientific research funded by a vested interest group is susceptible to bias favouring the vested interest, however honest the intentions. That is why the methodologies and ethical rules have been tightened in recent years, requiring disclosure of funding & potential conflicts of interest - one area the Templeton Foundation has been... let's say, 'backward' in.

 

[stevevw]

Stevevw said "I think it is a logical fallacy to say that the scientific research is invalid because of its funding".
Did someone say it was?

I was referring to Hans Blaster when they said "Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation".

That is more or less saying I discredit the research and its findings because of its association with the Templeton society. That because a simple reading of the EES in the link shows it was established with empirical science before any connection with the Templeton Society and the same link has links to all the empirical evidence. That means no effort was made to find this out or read this and the conclusion was reached from the time it was discovered that the Templeton Society was involved. That is dismissive and a logical fallacy.

However, it's been known for years that published scientific research funded by a vested interest group is susceptible to bias favoring the vested interest, however honest the intentions. That is why the methodologies and ethical rules have been tightened in recent years, requiring disclosure of funding & potential conflicts of interest - one area the Templeton Foundation has been... let's say, 'backward' in.

What you fail to see is that the EES and its empirical support was established well before the Templeton society came along and that the research is also being funded and done by Universities who I would think will demand the highest rigor. At the end of the day, the research findings are presented in peer review where it can be scrutinized.

I am astounded at the level of resistance and logical fallacy that has gone into trying to discredit the EES since the early part of this thread. The EES project site addresses the criticism of the Templeton societies association and mentions that many other scientific projects have been funded by them with this sort of criticism where scientists gladly take the support. As a result, have helped scientific research in other fields.

Why is the EES contentious?
(i) The EES research program involves no research into religion. This research program is comprised solely of research into evolutionary biology, evolutionary ecology, developmental biology, theoretical biology, philosophy of science and history of science. Neither the research proposal for the grant, nor any of the 22 individual research projects, mentions religion, God, or theology. Summaries of the 22 research topics can be found on the Research projects page.

The EES research proposal was subject to expert peer review. The research proposal Putting the extended evolutionary synthesis to the test was subject to vigorous and extensive peer review, with the JTF deploying procedures largely identical to research councils such as the ERC (European Research Council), RCUK (Research Councils, UK), and NIH (National Institutes of Health, USA). Feedback from the (clearly expert) referees’ reports included the standard scientific suggestions, queries and constructive criticisms regarding experimental/theoretical details, to which the project leaders responded with a revised proposal that was eventually funded.[/I]
Why is the EES contentious? – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Anyone would think that the EES project is some religious organization. Funny how any talk of an alternative to the SET is seen as religious even when it has nothing to do with it. This seems to support exactly what the papers I linked earlier were saying. 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?

 

[VirOptimus]

I was referring to Hans Blaster when they said "Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation".

That is more or less saying I discredit the research and its findings because of its association with the Templeton society. That because a simple reading of the EES in the link shows it was established with empirical science before any connection with the Templeton Society and the same link has links to all the empirical evidence. That means no effort was made to find this out or read this and the conclusion was reached from the time it was discovered that the Templeton Society was involved. That is dismissive and a logical fallacy.
What you fail to see is that the EES and its empirical support was established well before the Templeton society came along and that the research is also being funded and done by Universities who I would think will demand the highest rigor. At the end of the day, the research findings are presented in peer review where it can be scrutinized.

I am astounded at the level of resistance and logical fallacy that has gone into trying to discredit the EES since the early part of this thread. The EES project site addresses the criticism of the Templeton societies association and mentions that many other scientific projects have been funded by them with this sort of criticism where scientists gladly take the support. As a result, have helped scientific research in other fields.

Why is the EES contentious?
(i) The EES research program involves no research into religion. This research program is comprised solely of research into evolutionary biology, evolutionary ecology, developmental biology, theoretical biology, philosophy of science and history of science. Neither the research proposal for the grant, nor any of the 22 individual research projects, mentions religion, God, or theology. Summaries of the 22 research topics can be found on the Research projects page.

The EES research proposal was subject to expert peer review. The research proposal Putting the extended evolutionary synthesis to the test was subject to vigorous and extensive peer review, with the JTF deploying procedures largely identical to research councils such as the ERC (European Research Council), RCUK (Research Councils, UK), and NIH (National Institutes of Health, USA). Feedback from the (clearly expert) referees’ reports included the standard scientific suggestions, queries and constructive criticisms regarding experimental/theoretical details, to which the project leaders responded with a revised proposal that was eventually funded.[/I]
Why is the EES contentious? – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Anyone would think that the EES project is some religious organization. Funny how any talk of an alternative to the SET is seen as religious even when it has nothing to do with it. This seems to support exactly what the papers I linked earlier were saying. 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?

"Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." - Is really really not helping your "its only the science" schtick.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I was referring to Hans Blaster when they said "Now I know (thanks) that the main funder of this is Templeton, I am much more skeptical of the "project" to make a new interpretation".

That is more or less saying I discredit the research and its findings because of its association with the Templeton society.

Perhaps you should ask him before making that assumption.

What you fail to see is that the EES and its empirical support was established well before the Templeton society came along and that the research is also being funded and done by Universities who I would think will demand the highest rigor. At the end of the day, the research findings are presented in peer review where it can be scrutinized.

I'm well aware of that - I've been following it since the 80's. Perhaps you should ask before you make false assumptions.

I am astounded at the level of resistance and logical fallacy that has gone into trying to discredit the EES since the early part of this thread.

Where are the posts that try to discredit the EES?

As I recall, the majority of criticism was of your interpretation of the EES position papers.

Anyone would think that the EES project is some religious organization. Funny how any talk of an alternative to the SET is seen as religious even when it has nothing to do with it. This seems to support exactly what the papers I linked earlier were saying.

Again you jump to unfounded conclusions - no-one has said the EES has anything to do with religion. I can't speak for Hans Blaster, but the perceived problem with the Templeton Foundation in general is not so much the funding of individual projects but their wider strategy.