[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

triple post

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So you didn't claim that I was saying that the mainstream evolution view is that random mutations are the only source for all variations and there are no other sources such as recombination available for NS.

That's not what you said I claimed. It is extremely frustrating responding to you when you can't be consistent in your claims. I will not be continuing this conversation.

 

[stevevw]

That's not what you said I claimed. It is extremely frustrating to respond to you when you can't be consistent in your claims. I will not be continuing this conversation.

That is why I asked you what you claimed I was saying and you refused to clarify this. So I am left playing a guessing game as you dart and weave trying not to be caught out.

So let me clarify again.
Bungle_Bear said

Steves wording that the mainstream view "ONLY HIGHLIGHTS" natural selection acting on random mutations as the cause of variation was different from the source I posted which said it made random mutations the MAIN source of variations.

Steve said
I said "ONLY HIGHLIGHTS" was the same thing as the MAIN source as it HIGHLIGHTS random mutations above other variations thus making it the main source.

You said I was wrong and insisted I was only claiming random mutations as the only source of variation for NS. Thus excluding all other variations.

So doesn't that logically follow that I am also excluding all other variations?

If the above is correct, that is exactly what I said you were claiming to speedwell.

That being the case the quote I made in the same post that you were using to disputing my claims also acknowledges other sources of variation for mainstream evolution and thus proves your claim wrong.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Here we go again. Then why all this resistance to it. Why is there a dispute between the two views? Why do those supporting the SET say there is no need for the EES and why do those supporting the EES say that the EES takes a narrow view and doesn't recognize the EES forces as actual causal mechanisms of evolution.

This was all explained near the beginning of the thread.

Also, please proofread your posts before submitting them. Half the problems are typos and stream-of-consciousness mistakes that mislead and cause confusion (as in your post above).

 

[Speedwell]

Here we go again. Then why all this resistance to it. Why is there a dispute between the two views? Why do those supporting the SET say there is no need for the EES and why do those supporting the EES say that the EES takes a narrow view and doesn't recognize the EES forces as actual causal mechanisms of evolution.

Why have you gone out of your way to magnify any "dispute" between the two views?

 

[Speedwell]

You know as well as I do that I was merely making the distinction between novel variation by random mutations and other variations mentioned by the mainstream view and not making any claim that the mainstream view only thinks that there is one source for all possible variations that have ever been produced being random mutations. Do you see the distinction?

But if you still think that I made this claim then support it? Show me where I claimed that all variations (with the emphasis on ALL) are the product of random mutations. That means that I have not acknowledged any other source of variations and claim that every single variation that has ever come about is from random mutations. Can you support your claim without taking my comments out of context as Bungle_Bear did?

You are just going to have to walk away from all of this "who claimed what" business--it's impossible to untangle now and not worth the trouble. In any case, the point I was trying to make is that you are mistaken in what appears to be your notion that some "variation" is caused by mutation and other variation by other causes. As I understand it, all the causes contribute to all variation, and Darwin was able to construct a workable theory with remarkable predictive value without understanding or being able to separate any of the causes of variation at all.

 

[stevevw]

This was all explained near the beginning of the thread.

I know but despite that, it seemed some are disputing its relevance.

Also, please proofread your posts before submitting them. Half the problems are typos and stream-of-consciousness mistakes that mislead and cause confusion (as in your post above).

Never said I was the best at grammar. But I would say half the problem is people wanting to undermine the thread by bringing up small irrelevant issues that derail things. I wouldn't have to spend so much time explaining how they have misrepresented my position.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I know but despite that, it seemed some are disputing its relevance.

They're rightly disputing your interpretation of its relevance.

Never said I was the best at grammar.

The grammar isn't the main problem. It's typos, inarticulacy and the resulting incoherence.

But hey, if you're happy with people not understanding what you're trying to say, don't change a thing.

But I would say half the problem is people wanting to undermine the thread by bringing up small irrelevant issues that derail things. I wouldn't have to spend so much time explaining how they have misrepresented my position.

What you seem to think are small irrelevant issues are often crucial to understanding.

The fact you're still banging on about it is evidence enough that you haven't properly understood what we've been saying from the start.

 

[stevevw]

You are just going to have to walk away from all of this "who claimed what" business--it's impossible to untangle now and not worth the trouble.

That sounds like a walk away from to avoid admitting I was correct. You have to understand I don't like being misrepresented. For me, it is questioning my integrity and a ploy to try and discredit things and therefore demands defence. Otherwise left without exposing those misrepresentations allows people to start to use it against me in the future as they have already done to undermine anything.

In any case, the point I was trying to make is that you are mistaken in what appears to be your notion that some "variation" is caused by mutation and other variation by other causes. As I understand it, all the causes contribute to all variation, and Darwin was able to construct a workable theory with remarkable predictive value without understanding or being able to separate any of the causes of variation at all.

Yes I agree and I don't dispute that there is a range of variations open to natural selection and for Darwin, natural selection was just acting on that variation regardless of how it was produced. But this is irrelevant to the point I was making.

As I said earlier in relating things back to the OP, and the differences between the EES and the SET it is important to determine the sources of variation because this then tells us what role NS actually plays and thus how evolution actually works and this is at the core of the debate between the EES and the SET.

As opposed to random mutations which is the ultimate and main source highlighted by the SET (already supported) the EES shows that some variations are non-random which makes a big difference for NS role and therefore adds other driving forces besides NS. Under the mainstream view, NS is said to be the sole determining factor for what traits are selected (already supported) and between random mutations and NS, this is how one creature evolves into another (descent with modification).

Therefore as I have pointed out this forces explanations of evolution around how organisms have adapted to environments. I used the ant and ant nest as an example. The SET view is that ants have been adapted to their nests and make any contribution of the ant itself in creating that niche as an adaptive environment to the background. It only highlights adaptations through genes and overlooks any constructive efforts of organisms or reciprocal influences between organisms and environments. This view promotes an adaptive explanation at the expense of any EES forces that may be at play.

I know the SET acknowledges some of these other forces but as I said it doesn't recognize them as actual driving forces of evolution in the same status as causes like the adaptive view which makes NS the only driving force (already supported as you know).

It is this lack of recognition of the EES forces as actual causes of evolution that can be misleading and overlooks important explanatory power. It is showing how the adaptive narrative is inadequate and misleading as it forces people to come up with adaptive explanations regardless of other forces at play. I used Gould and Lewontin's paper as an example of the adaptive so so stories used to explain every possible variation that has variation. That is why I see the EES as important as it adds explanatory power and is more inclusive so we don't have to explain everything in adaptive terms.

 

[stevevw]

They're rightly disputing your interpretation of its relevance.

Not necessarily. The latest dispute for example has been about semantics and interpretations. What a word like 'highlight' for example means. This was done to try and show that my claim didn't match my support rather than seeking clarification and engaging in the actual content. The posters misrepresented my position knowing that this was not the case from the ample evidence supplied from other quotes they choose to ignore. Just another way to undermine my credibility.

I have gone through several situations now along these lines and each time shows that I was correct and at the very least it has been a case of misunderstanding. But the point here is no clarification is sought by some, it is automatically assumed I must be wrong and that's the unfair part. I find if I am not vigilant on these matters then they are used against me to undermine everything else I say. According to some, I have not been right on anything which I find dogmatic and shows how no matter what I say some just don't want to acknowledge the truth.

The grammar isn't the main problem. It's typos, inarticulacy and the resulting incoherence.

Ok I will try to keep an eye on this. I have Grammarly so I can check things. But what I find hard to understand is that some people were actually understanding me quite well when they said I was misinterpreting the papers. So is this now a case that I was correct in my understanding of the papers or just that I made typos, and was inarticulate, and that resulting in incoherence. Humm I think there's a bet each way on this.

But hey, if you're happy with people not understanding what you're trying to say, don't change a thing.

I am not sure it is just about this as I have tried to clarify and still there is disputes.

What you seem to think are small irrelevant issues are often crucial to understanding.

Yes and that is why I bang on about it.

The fact you're still banging on about it is evidence enough that you haven't properly understood what we've been saying from the start.

I guess that's your opinion and how you see things because you are not the one being constantly misrepresented.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

That is why I asked you what you claimed I was saying and you refused to clarify this. So I am left playing a guessing game as you dart and weave trying not to be caught out.

So let me clarify again.
Bungle_Bear said

Steves wording that the mainstream view "ONLY HIGHLIGHTS" natural selection acting on random mutations as the cause of variation was different from the source I posted which said it made random mutations the MAIN source of variations.

Steve said
I said "ONLY HIGHLIGHTS" was the same thing as the MAIN source as it HIGHLIGHTS random mutations above other variations thus making it the main source.

You said I was wrong and insisted I was only claiming random mutations as the only source of variation for NS. Thus excluding all other variations.

You have said to others you do not like to be misrepresented. I have, at no point, misrepresented what you said. Show me the same courtesy and stop misrepresenting me.

At this stage I see only 2 possible explanations for what you are doing:
1. Dishonesty. Although possible, I think it unlikely. You have no obvious motive and other posts appear to indicate you have an honest disposition.
2. You are linguistically challenged. Your posting history and interactions with other posters clearly demonstrate you struggle to grasp the meaning of complex and nuanced English. Occasionally even the basics appear to be beyond you.

Given the above, and coupled with your continued refusal to accept any errors that are highlighted to you, I conclude that you do not really understand what is going on.

 

[VirOptimus]

You have said to others you do not like to be misrepresented. I have, at no point, misrepresented what you said. Show me the same courtesy and stop misrepresenting me.

At this stage I see only 2 possible explanations for what you are doing:
1. Dishonesty. Although possible, I think it unlikely. You have no obvious motive and other posts appear to indicate you have an honest disposition.
2. You are linguistically challenged. Your posting history and interactions with other posters clearly demonstrate you struggle to grasp the meaning of complex and nuanced English. Occasionally even the basics appear to be beyond you.

Given the above, and coupled with your continued refusal to accept any errors that are highlighted to you, I conclude that you do not really understand what is going on.

He is dishonest.

 

[stevevw]

You have said to others you do not like to be misrepresented. I have, at no point, misrepresented what you said. Show me the same courtesy and stop misrepresenting me.

As far as I see you misrepresented my position despite my pleas and additional support showing I did not take the position that mainstream evolution only views random mutations as the source of variations.

I even said that this was about the semantics of one word 'ONLY' which you wanted to emphasize above all else and that this should not represent my position considering there was ample evidence from the same post which clearly showed I did mean the MAIN source of variation with the word HIGHLIGHT.

But you wanted none of that and held me to a rigid and uncompromising judgment. Your intentions were revealed when you rejected anything I said by saying, I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAID IN THAT POST. You were judge, jury, and executioner and had already decided I was wrong and didn't want to listen to me at all.

At this stage I see only 2 possible explanations for what you are doing:
1. Dishonesty. Although possible, I think it unlikely. You have no obvious motive and other posts appear to indicate you have an honest disposition.
2. You are linguistically challenged. Your posting history and interactions with other posters clearly demonstrate you struggle to grasp the meaning of complex and nuanced English. Occasionally even the basics appear to be beyond you.

Given the above, and coupled with your continued refusal to accept any errors that are highlighted to you, I conclude that you do not really understand what is going on.

Isn't it ironic that you wanted to condemn me on the semantics of one word and rejected all other evidence that I could be right and now you want to allow me some leeway on a technicality of being linguistically challenged which may have contributed to the situation. You were unwilling to even considered that when you were doing my thinking and injecting your linguistic interpretations into my words.

Even after I clarified things which made it quite clear that that was not my position or meaning you still insisted I was wrong. Even speedwell now agrees with my interpretation that I was not making random mutations the ONLY source of variation for natural selection with the mainstream evolution view. He knows I acknowledged other sources. He knows I meant random mutations were the only source for NEW/NOVEL variations that were not there in the first place and not at the exclusion of all other variations like recombination. But still, you want to make out that I either was wrong or am linguistically challenged on this matter. Anything as long as you don't concede you were wrong.

 

[stevevw]

He is dishonest.

Your true motives have been revealed. You just come into this thread just to make snide comments that attack people personally and I would ask that you cease. Bungle_Bear said in his judgment I was not being dishonest from the rest of my posts. But you are not happy with anyone giving me any credit at all and feel the need to ensure everyone is convinced of the opposite. That's all you ever do. It is non-constructive and doesn't prove anything apart from tearing down individuals. At least others have the decency to engage and explain things.

In fact, why are you even on this thread.

 

[pitabread]

Nevermind, other posters covered it earlier in the thread, but it seems the OP didn't listen.

 

[VirOptimus]

Your true motives have been revealed. You just come into this thread just to make snide comments that attack people personally and I would ask that you cease. Bungle_Bear said in his judgment I was not being dishonest from the rest of my posts. But you are not happy with anyone giving me any credit at all and feel the need to ensure everyone is convinced of the opposite. That's all you ever do. It is non-constructive and doesn't prove anything apart from tearing down individuals. At least others have the decency to engage and explain things.

In fact, why are you even on this thread.

See post 135.

 

[Speedwell]

That sounds like a walk away from to avoid admitting I was correct. You have to understand I don't like being misrepresented. For me, it is questioning my integrity and a ploy to try and discredit things and therefore demands defence. Otherwise left without exposing those misrepresentations allows people to start to use it against me in the future as they have already done to undermine anything. Yes I agree and I don't dispute that there is a range of variations open to natural selection and for Darwin, natural selection was just acting on that variation regardless of how it was produced. But this is irrelevant to the point I was making.

Which might make sense if we knew what point it was you were trying to make.

But natural selection does act on variation no matter how it is produced. Natural selection acts on all living creatures, even those you imagine to have used their intelligence in anticipation of selection.

As I said earlier in relating things back to the OP, and the differences between the EES and the SET it is important to determine the sources of variation because this then tells us what role NS actually plays and thus how evolution actually works and this is at the core of the debate between the EES and the SET.

It plays the same role whatever the source of the variations

As opposed to random mutations which is the ultimate and main source highlighted by the SET (already supported) the EES shows that some variations are non-random which makes a big difference for NS role and therefore adds other driving forces besides NS. Under the mainstream view, NS is said to be the sole determining factor for what traits are selected (already supported) and between random mutations and NS, this is how one creature evolves into another (descent with modification).

What, exactly, do you mean by "random?"

Therefore as I have pointed out this forces explanations of evolution around how organisms have adapted to environments. I used the ant and ant nest as an example. The SET view is that ants have been adapted to their nests and make any contribution of the ant itself in creating that niche as an adaptive environment to the background. It only highlights adaptations through genes and overlooks any constructive efforts of organisms or reciprocal influences between organisms and environments. This view promotes an adaptive explanation at the expense of any EES forces that may be at play.

I know the SET acknowledges some of these other forces but as I said it doesn't recognize them as actual driving forces of evolution in the same status as causes like the adaptive view which makes NS the only driving force (already supported as you know).

If the EES processes really are a "driving force" on the same order as the other causes of variation, we will find out about it. You, yourself posted a link to a list of research projects designed to test the EES hypotheses. I suggest we wait and see.

It is this lack of recognition of the EES forces as actual causes of evolution that can be misleading and overlooks important explanatory power. It is showing how the adaptive narrative is inadequate and misleading as it forces people to come up with adaptive explanations regardless of other forces at play. I used Gould and Lewontin's paper as an example of the adaptive so so stories used to explain every possible variation that has variation. That is why I see the EES as important as it adds explanatory power and is more inclusive so we don't have to explain everything in adaptive terms.

Evolutionary biologists don't make up "so-so" stories. They back them with research findings.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

As far as I see you misrepresented my position despite my pleas and additional support showing I did not take the position that mainstream evolution only views random mutations as the source of variations.

I have quoted specific instances where you have misrepresented my words and asked you to stop. You have not done the same. Either link to where I have misrepresented you or withdraw the accusation. Note: if your own words misrepresented your view, that is not me misrepresentating your words. I want you to show where I have claimed you used words or meanings other than those you actually used.

I even said that this was about the semantics of one word 'ONLY' which you wanted to emphasize above all else and that this should not represent my position considering there was ample evidence from the same post which clearly showed I did mean the MAIN source of variation with the word HIGHLIGHT.

But you wanted none of that and held me to a rigid and uncompromising judgment. Your intentions were revealed when you rejected anything I said by saying, I REALLY DONT CARE WHAT YOU SAID IN THAT POST. You were judge, jury, and executioner and had already decided I was wrong and didn't want to listen to me at all.

Isn't it ironic that you wanted to condemn me on the semantics of one word and rejected all other evidence that I could be right and now you want to allow me some leeway on a technicality of being linguistically challenged which may have contributed to the situation. You were unwilling to even considered that when you were doing my thinking and injecting your linguistic interpretations into my words.

Even after I clarified things which made it quite clear that that was not my position or meaning you still insisted I was wrong. Even speedwell now agrees with my interpretation that I was not making random mutations the ONLY source of variation for natural selection with the mainstream evolution view. He knows I acknowledged other sources. He knows I meant random mutations were the only source for NEW/NOVEL variations that were not there in the first place and not at the exclusion of all other variations like recombination. But still, you want to make out that I either was wrong or am linguistically challenged on this matter. Anything as long as you don't concede you were wrong.

"Given the above, and coupled with your continued refusal to accept any errors that are highlighted to you, I conclude that you do not really understand what is going on."

I am prepared to accept you did not represent your position correctly. But that will require you admitting you made that mistake.

 

[stevevw]

I have quoted specific instances where you have misrepresented my words and asked you to stop. You have not done the same. Either link to where I have misrepresented you or withdraw the accusation. Note: if your own words misrepresented your view, that is not me misrepresentating your words. I want you to show where I have claimed you used words or meanings other than those you actually used.

"Given the above, and coupled with your continued refusal to accept any errors that are highlighted to you, I conclude that you do not really understand what is going on."

I am prepared to accept you did not represent your position correctly. But that will require you admitting you made that mistake.

I am not going to admit to something that was not a mistake. Like I said it's only a mistake because you took that one line out of my post and focused on that one word ONLY. In all other meanings, HIGHLIGHT means exactly that highlight means emphasizing one thing over the others and doesn't mean the only thing. Even when you put only in front of it. You stepped into an ongoing conversation where it was absolutely clear that I was not claiming random mutations were the only variation that mainstream evolution says happen full stop.

Under that 1 line, you pulled out of my post was the link you used to claim I did not support what the link said. But under that link was the rest of my post that clearly showed that the word HIGHLIGHT was referring to one of several variations by mainstream view IE

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.

That was the rest of my explanation which you refused to include. Why would I say other sources are not HIGHLIGHTED if I was only saying random mutations is the ONLY source of variation HIGHLIGHTED and there are no other sources at all.

I also posted this quote for the same conversation with Speedwell on the same topic a couple of posts before that where I said
#507
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

This says exactly what the link said.

But no you said I DONT CARE WHAT THESE POSTS SAY because you wanted to quote mine my own words and single out a sole word out of my entire explanation so you could twist my position out of context. Whereas any fair assessment a person would have read and included the entire post to get a proper understanding of my position.

Speedwell and I have been debating that topic for many posts and we have discussed the other variations and how random mutations fit in and are more about producing new variations rather than variations from existing ones. I believe this where you have made the MISTAKE in thinking I was saying that all variations come from random mutations when I was saying only NEW/NOVEL variations come from random mutations as opposed to other variations from recombination, drift, and gene flow. I can show you 10 or 20 times where I have said that random mutations are only one source of variation for mainstream evolution in the same conversation I and speedwell were having.

So No there was no mistake on my part in using the word ONLY HIGHLIGHTS and means exactly what it says. ONLY HIGHLIGHTS one thing from others and not the ONLY thing. ONLY doesn't change the meaning of HIGHLIGHT in any way, shape, or form and speedwell did not bring up any claim like you.

The problem in saying I made a mistake and should own up to it doesn't wash with me. Because you didn't bother to read or include the rest of my posts on that topic you left yourself without proper context which has caused you to see things that way. If you would have included the whole post you would have seen it wasn't a mistake but rather was a consistent position I held right through the entire conversation with speedwell.

What gets my goat up the most is that rather than admit this you now want to use the point of where I may have made some mistakes elsewhere as a way to help support your claim on this one. That to me is making it even worse for me. But hey I will now move on as I have had my say. I don't expect an apology from you anyway.

 

[stevevw]

Which might make sense if we knew what point it was you were trying to make.

Like I said the thread was derailed into this semantics game based on the meaning of 1 word which somehow represented my entire position. Anyway, thank you for bringing things back on track.

But natural selection does act on variation no matter how it is produced. Natural selection acts on all living creatures, even those you imagine to have used their intelligence in anticipation of selection.
It plays the same role whatever the source of the variations

Yes but you keep missing the point. Natural selection's role will differ depending on how the variation is produced and because NS is the driving force of evolution under the SET this will make a big difference in how evolution works depending on how variations are produced.

Under the SET variations for new/novel traits are randomly produced so NS is regarded as the sole force because it tests and sifts what variations and determine what traits are passed on. But what if the variation is not random and the outcome is always an advantage for survival and passing on traits. Then NS's role is biased and diminished. It is no longer the driving force of evolution. It not longer directs evolution, in the same way, the SET claims.

It changes explanations about evolution from adaptive ones where explanations are always about how organisms are adapted to environments by NS to including other explanations as mentioned by the EES which then become the driving force including directing what NS can and cannot do. That's a significant difference in the structure and concept of evolution.

What, exactly, do you mean by "random?"

My understanding is that mutations happen randomly in regards to whether their effects are useful for what an organism needs as in producing the right type of variation needed for a creature to adapt to their environment and survival. So in that regards NS then becomes the all-important determining factor in that it will test and sift those random mutational variations to weed out the non-beneficial traits and preserve the ones that allow an organism to pass on its traits.

But if the EES forces can produce non-random variations that are already a benefit and suitable for the environment and don't produce any bad effects then whatever produced those variations is now the selecting force other than NS and therefore biasing NS and driving evolution.

If the EES processes really are a "driving force" on the same order as the other causes of variation, we will find out about it. You, yourself posted a link to a list of research projects designed to test the EES hypotheses. I suggest we wait and see.

The thing is the EES has been around for years now and many of those experiments have already been done and support the claims if you read them. Some are just plain common sense. If a creature creatures its own environment or changes existing environments to suit its needs so that it can thrive and survive then it is dictating its own evolution and doesn't depend on being adapted to the environment. Humans are the best at that in that they can just about do anything to survive regardless of NS and there is evidence that NS is being bypassed as a result.

But we are also getting to understand how living things have this ability to self-organize and how development systems can respond to environments and produce well-suited changes to help them adapt through developmental bias and plasticity. Or how behavior influences evolvability and this has a big bearing on how evolution works.

Evolutionary biologists don't make up "so-so" stories. They back them with research findings.

I disagree. Under the adaptive view, the assumption is evolutionary change happens through adaptations. Take the eye and how they explain how this came about from the eye patch to today's eye. They cannot do experiments to show what happened back then but the explanation is based on how each step in the transition produced by random mutations was a benefit selected by NS that gradually produced what we see today.

But when you look at it in detail there are many gaps in the explanations because it is impossible to explain how complex systems like the eye could have adapted step by step. This applies to just about everything. Ask anyone about how (X trait) came about and the adaptive explanation is given even if there is no way of supporting that. I provided evidence for this previously remember.

The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later
Today, it is commonplace to pay lip service to the sorts of difficulties involved in demonstrating that a trait is ‘adaptive’, which Gould and Lewontin pointed out.

Adaptationists regard the consistency of the trait with the hypothesis that it is an adaptation shaped by natural selection as good evidence for the conclusion that it is. (circular reasoning my emphasis)
The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later - ScienceDirect

While adaptationist ‘just so’ stories have been offered (as typically occurs in every area of biology), recent theoretical analyses based on mathematical population genetics strongly suggest that non-adaptive processes dominate genome architecture evolution.
In recent work in evolutionary genomics, the challenge to adaptationism has been extended and forcefully urged in the biological literature by Lynch ([2007a], [2007b]; Lynch and Conery [2003]) and Koonin ([2009], [2012]), among others (for example, Maeso et al. ([2012]) and (Stoltzfus [2012])).
Genomic Challenge to Adaptationism

Advocates of adaptationism or “adaptationists” view natural selection among individuals within a population as the only important cause of the evolution of a trait; they also typically believe that the construction of explanations based solely on natural selection to be the most fruitful way of making progress in evolutionary biology and that this endeavor addresses the most important goal of evolutionary biology, which is to understand the evolution of adaptations.
Adaptationism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/Winter 2010 Edition)