[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

In order to save both of us some time your answer to these questions would be helpful.

• Are you arguing that Kaufman's approach subsumes natural selection, acts in parallel to it, is subsumed by it, or others?
• Other than Kaufman's self-organization are there any other major concepts you think I/we are ignoring?

I suggest you read up on the EES. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program
and here explains its structure. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
Self-organization is just one aspect of many within the EES and is related to developmental processes which the EES emphasizes as actual causes of evolution such as developmental plasticity where and not just constraints to the standard view of adaptive evolution.

The four main forces of the EES include niche construction theory, developmental bias, inclusive inheritance, and developmental plasticity.
This link may also prove helpful in showing the differences between the EES and the SET
How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[Speedwell]

How have I misunderstood the fundamentals of the theory rather than you being the one who misunderstood things. Give me an example of where I have misunderstood the basics.

You seemed to be unclear about random variation and to have confused it with random mutation.
You seem over-anxious to demonstrate that Modern Synthesis regards natural selection as the only force which influences evolutionary change and that MS proponents are doggedly clinging to this view despite evidence to the contrary.
You seem to be unsatisfied with MS because it is "random" and prefer EES because it is "directed" You seem to believe that EES forces are active in all evolutionary change.

Mind you, those are only my impressions and may be wrong. Your posting style is difficult to fathom and relies on walls of cut-and-paste text which doesn't always support the point you are trying to make--which is itself often unclear. The ongoing discourse between SET and EES is an interesting one which promises to improve our understanding of evolution--we all agree about that. But you seem to think it "proves" something and for the life of me I can't see what it might be.

Perhaps it would be better if you started over, and with a clear thesis statement this time.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

How have I misunderstood the fundamentals of the theory rather than you being the one who misunderstood things. Give me an example of where I have misunderstood the basics.

I've been explaining this to you, with examples, all the way through the thread. I recently had to explain natural selection to you... It doesn't get more basic than that

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In order to save both of us some time your answer to these questions would be helpful.

• Are you arguing that Kaufman's approach subsumes natural selection, acts in parallel to it, is subsumbed by it, or other?
• Other than Kaufman's self organisation are there any other major concepts you think I/we are ignoring?

I suggest you read up on the EES. Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program
and here explains its structure. https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019
Self-organization is just one aspect of many within the EES and is related to developmental processes which the EES emphasizes as actual causes of evolution such as developmental plasticity where and not just constraints to the standard view of adaptive evolution.

The four main forces of the EES include niche construction theory, developmental bias, inclusive inheritance, and developmental plasticity.
This link may also prove helpful in showing the differences between the EES and the SET
How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Can you not just answer the question? It would at least show that you understand something.

 

[ewq1938]

 

[stevevw]

I've been explaining this to you, with examples, all the way through the thread. I recently had to explain natural selection to you... It doesn't get more basic than that

This is all about semantics. Calling natural selection adaptive is the same as saying it has a selective advantage. I understood perfectly well what the role of natural selection is. The fact is mainstream evolution uses the same language as I am using. My point was that mainstream evolution solely used the adaptive view in determining the cause of evolutionary change. Evolutionary change cannot happen unless there is a selective advantage. We are speaking about the same thing just in different ways.

 

[stevevw]

You seemed to be unclear about random variation and to have confused it with random mutation.

As far as the source of evolution is concerned and that is what we are talking out I cannot understand why you are only focusing on random variation when according to the theory random mutations is the main source of variation. Why make the distinction.

You seem over-anxious to demonstrate that Modern Synthesis regards natural selection as the only force which influences evolutionary change

not overly anxious, just pointing out that this is probably one of the main differences between the EES and the SET. It probably seems like it's being overly emphasized because it is the main issue to highlight and there has been some dispute about it which has prolonged focus on it. But not by me I might add. I made the claim and then it took some time to work t6hrough the objections.

and that MS proponents are doggedly clinging to this view despite evidence to the contrary.

The EES papers say this not me. I am only relaying the info. There seems to be some resistance but I would say it was doggedly and it depends what you mean by despite the evidence. The evidence can be seen differently so it's not as if people are seeing the same thing as far as whether the EES forces are just contributing factors or actual causes of evolution and that's the issue here which perhaps causes the resistance.

You seem to be unsatisfied with MS because it is "random" and prefer EES because it is "directed" You seem to believe that EES forces are active in all evolutionary change.

Yes the evidence shows they are active in all evolutionary change. But like I said it's a combination of processes and those processes feedback on each other. It isn't one process versus another IE NS or plasticity etc. It is about an NS degree of influence. Whereas the SET makes NS the main and sole cause the EES says there are pluralistic causes that all affect each other and none can be discounted. I am not fussed about one view against another.

I am not fussed if the SET is the correct view or the EES. Just what the evidence says. What I am most against is that like some say that religion can bias people's views on evolution is that taking a narrow view of evolution from a non-religious position can be just as bias and that the adaptive/selective view is a biased view at the expense of the EES forces. So perhaps I am approaching this similar to someone who wants to expose a religious person for being bias with belief but instead am trying to expose the myth of bias with supporters of the SET.

Mind you, those are only my impressions and may be wrong. Your posting style is difficult to fathom and relies on walls of cut-and-paste text which doesn't always support the point you are trying to make--which is itself often unclear. The ongoing discourse between SET and EES is an interesting one which promises to improve our understanding of evolution--we all agree about that. But you seem to think it "proves" something and for the life of me, I can't see what it might be.

Perhaps it would be better if you started over and with a clear thesis statement this time.

As I have pointed out several times you and others seem to say that you all agree with the EES but then revert back to explain all evolutionary change in adaptive and selective terms. I see it on this forum all the time and that is my main contention that does not reflect what is really happening. That despite saying you agree when it comes to applyng this it is not really happening.[/quote]

 

[Ophiolite]

Evolutionary change cannot happen unless there is a selective advantage.

Nonsense. I'll give you an opportunity to correct yourself, so that your post here is seen as a slip of the typing finger, not a genuinely held view.

In regard to our own discussion, you chose not to answer one of my questions and only partially answered the second. I warned you that would cost us both time. I'm preparing a response. Try not to die in the meantime. I hate it when people use that as a way of avoiding an argument.

 

[Speedwell]

As I have pointed out several times you and others seem to say that you all agree with the EES but then revert back to explain all evolutionary change in adaptive and selective terms.

Not all. That is a gross misrepresentation of our comments. We have tried to correct you on this so often that it is rapidly becoming a bald-faced lie.

I see it on this forum all the time and that is my main contention that does not reflect what is really happening. That despite saying you agree when it comes to applyng this it is not really happening.

The reason for that has also been explained to you. Randomly distributed variation and natural selection remains an important force in evolution, even EES proponents agree. It was the original theory of Darwin and had predictive value on its own, which accounts for the acceptance of the theory, long before the causes of random variation were known. It must be understood order to fully grasp the implications of EES, much as Newtonian mechanics must be understood in order to understand the implications of relativity theory. You obviously do not understand it, as revealed in the very first paragraph in your response to my post. Very few creationists understand it either, which is why we attempt to explain it so frequently in this forum. Because you don't understand SET, your opinion on the role of EES is entirely without value.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This is all about semantics. Calling natural selection adaptive is the same as saying it has a selective advantage.

That's incoherent semantic nonsense. Natural selection is the process that establishes which phenotypes have a selective advantage. The clue is in the name.

My point was that mainstream evolution solely used the adaptive view in determining the cause of evolutionary change. Evolutionary change cannot happen unless there is a selective advantage.

That is simply incorrect. In mainstream evolutionary theory any process that changes gene frequencies in a population causes evolutionary change, by definition; genetic drift, for example.

We are speaking about the same thing just in different ways.

Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.

But it could charitably be parsed as correct - if we're both speaking about evolution (the same thing), and I am giving a simplified version of the consensus academic mainstream view of it (one way), and you are giving a mistaken view of it (a different way) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[VirOptimus]

That's incoherent semantic nonsense. Natural selection is the process that establishes which phenotypes have a selective advantage. The clue is in the name.

That is simply incorrect. In mainstream evolutionary theory any process that changes gene frequencies in a population causes evolutionary change, by definition; genetic drift, for example.

Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.

But it could charitably be parsed as correct - if we're both speaking about evolution (the same thing), and I am giving a simplified version of the consensus academic mainstream view of it (one way), and you are giving a mistaken view of it (a different way) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

He will just make the same assertions on how he is correct again (like the last bazillion times anyone corrected him).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

He will just make the same assertions on how he is correct again (like the last bazillion times anyone corrected him).

Yes, I know... it's just extraordinary that he keeps getting the fundamentals so wrong!

Whatever his agenda, I don't see how it helps at all.

 

[stevevw]

Nonsense. I'll give you an opportunity to correct yourself, so that your post here is seen as a slip of the typing finger, not a genuinely held view.

In regard to our own discussion, you chose not to answer one of my questions and only partially answered the second. I warned you that would cost us both time. I'm preparing a response. Try not to die in the meantime. I hate it when people use that as a way of avoiding an argument.

Hi Ophiolite, I haven't died lol. I have just been busy with study and starting a new job as well as some personal/family issues that needed attention. I have also been doing a bit of research into your questions so I am up with what you are talking about. Will be able to respond over the weekend.

Regarding the above reply to my post saying that Evolutionary change cannot happen unless there is a selective advantage. From what I understand in the literature this statement is supported. For example
Adaptation is changes in behavior or physiology of a creature to become more suited to the environment. Becoming more suited to the environment a creature is more likely to survive and pass on their genes. Therefore the adaptative changes that help a creature survive are a selective advantage. Unless the changes a creature has allow them to adapt to an environment the change will not be able to provide a selective advantage in the first place.

Definitions of Evolutionary Terms
Adaptation:
The adjustment or changes in behavior, physiology, and structure of an organism to become more suited to an environment. According to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection, organisms that possess heritable traits that enable them to better adapt to their environment compared with other members of their species will be more likely to survive, reproduce, and pass more of their genes on to the next generation.
Selective-advantage
(biology) The characteristic of an organism that enables it to survive and reproduce better than other organisms in a population in a given environment; the basis for evolution by natural selection.

My understanding is derived from the panselectionists view which seems to be the dominant view.

In what follows, empirical adaptationism will be taken to require only that the operation of natural selection is paramount and constitutes a sufficient explanation of a trait, that is, it will correspond to what Lewens ([2009]) called pan-selectionism. This choice is standard in recent discussions of evolution at the genomic level (for example, Barrett and Hoekstra [2011]);
Genomic Challenge to Adaptationism

 

[stevevw]

That's incoherent semantic nonsense. Natural selection is the process that establishes which phenotypes have a selective advantage. The clue is in the name.

you even agreed with me when you said
Something is adaptive if it provides a selective advantage.

Isn’t that exactly what I said unless a change helps the creature adapt there is no selective advantage. IE selective advantage is adaptive evolution. The point is unless a creature adapts to their environment they don’t survive. So the adaptive change is what is selected because of provides the survival advantage. Because it provides that survival advantage it is a selective advantage because it is around to be selected and has been able to adapt more than other creatures.

That is simply incorrect. In mainstream evolutionary theory any process that changes gene frequencies in a population causes evolutionary change, by definition; genetic drift, for example.

But genetic drift is not associated with fitness and therefore adaptive evolution and evolutionary cause. The point is mainstream evolution single out the adaptive view which is about fitness and the process we are talking about when it comes to adaptation and selective advantage.

Linking this back to the OP it is mainstream evolution that for example takes an exclusive gene-centric view and excludes the EES force of inheritance beyond genes which is seen as an evolutionary cause in that it can provide adaptive and heritable change without a change in gene frequencies. So despite people saying that the mainstream view has acknowledged and included the EES forces, this doesn’t seem to be the case when they exclude these non-genetic causes of evolution.

Strictly speaking, that is incorrect.

But it could charitably be parsed as correct - if we're both speaking about evolution (the same thing), and I am giving a simplified version of the consensus academic mainstream view of it (one way), and you are giving a mistaken view of it (a different way) ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Actually I think that it is because I am taking this more pluralistic view of evolution that we may be seeing things from different perspectives. When mainstream evolution talks about evolution in adaptive and selective terms it is all about NS, variations from gene change that adapt creatures to environments and give a selective advantage.

Whereas I am not only speaking about this but also the many ways creatures can provide variations such as through nonrandom developmental change, niche changes as well as changes beyond genes created by creatures themselves that provide heritable change. This doesn’t restrict things to creatures being morphed to environments by some outside force of adaptive evolution in an adapt or die situation. But includes constructive and reciprocal change made by creatures changing environments or changing their physical and behavioral traits providing an adaptive and selective advantage besides NS.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

you even agreed with me when you said
Something is adaptive if it provides a selective advantage.

Isn’t that exactly what I said unless a change helps the creature adapt there is no selective advantage. IE selective advantage is adaptive evolution. The point is unless a creature adapts to their environment they don’t survive. So the adaptive change is what is selected because of provides the survival advantage. Because it provides that survival advantage it is a selective advantage because it is around to be selected and has been able to adapt more than other creatures.

What you said was, "Calling natural selection adaptive is the same as saying it has a selective advantage." That is simply incorrect, for the reason I gave; i.e. natural selection is selective, it is the phenotype that is adaptive or has a selective advantage.

... genetic drift is not associated with fitness and therefore adaptive evolution and evolutionary cause. The point is mainstream evolution single out the adaptive view which is about fitness and the process we are talking about when it comes to adaptation and selective advantage.

Genetic drift is an 'evolutionary cause' by definition - it changes gene frequencies in a population. It has been part of evolutionary theory since the 1930's. Sewall Wright introduced in to the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as a driver of new directions for populations in the adaptive landscape. In the late 1960's, Kimura suggested it was a (or the) major driver of genetic change. Novel suggestions of this type tend to be controversial in proportion to how radical they are, but that's how science works; there is justifiable inertia in a hard-won status quo.

So, no.

As I said previously, it's clear that you don't understand the fundamentals sufficiently well. Misinterpreting pop-sci opinion pieces and technical papers is not the way to learn about evolution. Go and get a proper education in the subject.

 

[stevevw]

What you said was, "Calling natural selection adaptive is the same as saying it has a selective advantage." That is simply incorrect, for the reason I gave; i.e. natural selection is selective, it is the phenotype that is adaptive or has a selective advantage.

Yes and that is what I was talking about, 'variations'. In that sense, as you have just acknowledged variations can be adaptive to suit environments and give a selective advantage so adaptive and selective advantage is more or the speaking about the same thing. I mean as Lynch has pointed out natural selection is an easy concept to understand even for a layperson.

Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection, and because the concept of selection is easy to grasp a reasonable understanding of comparative biology is often taken to be a license for evolutionary speculation.

People often use examples where NS is selecting out a feature that gives an advantage like the fastest Gazelle escaping the lion etc. I know there's a bit more to it than that but at its basics, it's not rocket science.

Genetic drift is an 'evolutionary cause' by definition - it changes gene frequencies in a population. It has been part of evolutionary theory since the 1930s. Sewall Wright introduced into the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis as a driver of new directions for populations in the adaptive landscape. In the late 1960s, Kimura suggested it was a (or the) major driver of genetic change. Novel suggestions of this type tend to be controversial in proportion to how radical they are, but that's how science works; there is justifiable inertia in a hard-won status quo.

So, no.

As I said previously, it's clear that you don't understand the fundamentals sufficiently well. Misinterpreting pop-sci opinion pieces and technical papers is not the way to learn about evolution. Go and get a proper education in the subject.

But for the purposes of this thread as to what forces 'cause' evolution in the first place the argument has been about Natural selection acting on random mutations v the EES forces as causes of evolution in that they produce the variation in the first place and adaptation. Drift only acts on these variations that have already been caused. Drift can also fix harmful variations/alleles so it can act against the evolution of fitter life.

Genetic drift, unlike natural selection, does not take into account an allele’s benefit (or harm) to the individual that carries it. That is, a beneficial allele may be lost, or a slightly harmful allele may become fixed, purely by chance.
Genetic drift (article) | Natural selection | Khan Academy

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... blah...

When you don't even understand the criticism, it's time to stop.

 

[VirOptimus]

He will just make the same assertions on how he is correct again (like the last bazillion times anyone corrected him).

This is to easy.

 

[Speedwell]

But for the purposes of this thread as to what forces 'cause' evolution in the first place the argument has been about Natural selection acting on random mutations...

Natural selection does not act on random mutation. It acts on randomly distributed variation is the phenotype. This randomly distributed variation is brought about by various causal factors including but not limited to random mutation.

 

[stevevw]

Natural selection does not act on random mutation. It acts on randomly distributed variation is the phenotype. This randomly distributed variation is brought about by various causal factors including but not limited to random mutation.

But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

Heritable variation comes from random mutations. Random mutations are the initial cause of new heritable traits. For example, a rabbit can't choose to have a different fur color. Rather, a genetic mutation causes a difference in fur color, which may help that rabbit hide better in its environment. Natural selection acts on existing heritable variation. Natural selection needs some starting material, and that starting material is heritable variation.
Evolution and natural selection review (article) | Khan Academy

If you follow the above it states that natural selection acts on heritable variations for evolution to occur and heritable variations come from random mutations. I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. Therefore natural selection acts on random mutations.

This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

I mean saying that NS acts on any variation in the populations don't say much about the evolution of new species or the increased variation and complexity we see in the history of life. NS acting on existing variation will only delete what is existing from the population. Nothing new is added unless it comes from mutations which will then allow populations to diverge and new species to occur. So according to the mainstream view, it is NS acting on random mutations that will drive the evolution.

This is such a dominant view that some scientists even think mutation and not natural selection is the driving force of evolution
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution
They change through mutation. ... I say mutation is the most important, driving force of evolution. Natural selection occurs sometimes, of course, because some types of variations are better than others, but mutation created the different types. Natural selection is secondary
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution