[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

I think you are confused about what I'm saying. I am not attacking Massimo. I have a great deal of respect for him.

I don't know enough about biology to really even understand the differences being discussed. I understand what kin selection is, and I was under the impression that it can be comfortably accommodated in the existing framework. So my reaction to the OP is that, from my perspective, whether one side or the other wins, the differences are so subtle that I probably won't be able to even tell the difference.

Actually those who support the EES are saying that the relegation of the forces that the EES highlight to being subtle and making little difference is what they are trying to dispel. That is is what part of the problem is in that natural selection is being highlighted at the expense of these other forces.

The standard evolutionary theory has minimized these additional forces to the sidelines as little or no consequence and to being something that may constrain NS. Whereas the EES elevates forces like developmental bias and plasticity, niche construction, and non-genetic inheritance as causes of evolution like NS and in fact, can direct the course of what NS can and cannot do. So the issue is determining what role NS plays if any in some situations.

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

The most striking and contentious difference from the original MS concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution, one of the oldest controversies in evolutionary biology (e.g. [116,117]). In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.

Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that the EES is more than simply an extension of ‘business as usual’ science: it requires conceptual change [15]. The additional evolutionary processes that the EES highlights are more than just non-essential ‘add-ons’ [10] and may be as important in shaping evolution as those recognized within the field over the past century.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

 

[stevevw]

I suspect it's because you seem to misunderstand the difference between the EES and the SET, which is summed up in the article you quote:

"... they <EES proponents> contend that four phenomena are important evolutionary processes: phenotypic plasticity, niche construction, inclusive inheritance and developmental bias. We could not agree more. We study them ourselves.

But we do not think that these processes deserve such special attention as to merit a new name such as ‘extended evolutionary synthesis’." <my bolding>​

I understand the difference in the EES and the SET. 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.

 

[stevevw]

Quite. It's a position that makes confirmation bias unavoidable.

So, therefore, someone who takes a fixed view that evolution is only about adaptations and NS will be biased towards only seeing evolution through this lens as well and therefore relegating anything else as noise and constraints to the standard view. This is even acknowledged in the papers 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. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

This paper is from Michael Lynch who is certainly not a creationist but an avid well-known supporter of evolution.
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see Stoltzfus, 2006a).
The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

If having a belief makes confirmation bias unavoidable then are you saying all the great scientists who hold a belief in God have been biased in their findings. Like I said it's funny how people are resorting to attacks on individuals rather than deal with the content. That in itself speaks about confirmation bias.

Everyone is influenced by their worldview including yourself and others who support a particular view of evolution. There are many articles that show how mainstream scientists bias their papers towards certain findings. They show that the majority of papers are either biased or sloppy.

How about looking at the content and not the person. I have been linking a lot of content that supports what I am saying. Are you also claiming that all these authors who are non-religious are biased?

 

[stevevw]

Pointing out dishonesty is not trolling.

But you have not proven this. You are only making an accusation. You need to support your accusation. As far as I am concerned you have come into this thread without anything constructive to add on the content of the thread and are only making criticisms about persons.

I did so once, your answers did not impress and you learnt nothing, just kept (as now) use the same old links (that does not say what you think they do).

Yes, they do. Read the above post which explains exactly what the EES is about.

Regardless of whether you say you have discussed the EES before which I doubt as I have not engaged in it for a long time. So for this new thread and for others can you give us your views on the EES.

 

[SelfSim]

So, therefore, someone who takes a fixed view that evolution is only about adaptations and NS will be biased towards only seeing evolution through this lens as well and therefore relegating anything else as noise and constraints to the standard view.

Exploring hypotheses/models in science, by necessity, involves making deliberate choices about what parameters to incorporate with those models prior to testing them. This is how science progresses and is not bias.

The conclusions drawn from those test results, should permit expansion of the model parameters going forward and should never limit tests conceived from a broader set of parameter choices. Doing so, introduces bias.

If having a belief makes confirmation bias unavoidable then are you saying all the great scientists who hold a belief in God have been biased in their findings.

Good science tests its going-in assumptions. Some assumptions may not be distinguished properly before testing proceeds. Testing then, presents the opportunity of distinguishing that those assumptions were, in fact, untested assumptions. We see this in many study reports. Testing is not about proving some model over another - that approach always represents bias.

Like I said it's funny how people are resorting to attacks on individuals rather than deal with the content. That in itself speaks about confirmation bias.

Perhaps .. but from what I've seen thus far of your responses in this thread, you appear to have come in fishing for that, which represents its own bias.

Everyone is influenced by their worldview including yourself and others who support a particular view of evolution. There are many articles that show how mainstream scientists bias their papers towards certain findings. They show that the majority of papers are either biased or sloppy.

Thank goodness for peer review, then! Peer review continues well beyond publication and sometimes even exceeds an author's lifetime.

How about looking at the content and not the person. I have been linking a lot of content that supports what I am saying. Are you also claiming that all these authors who are non-religious are biased?

Are you fishing for a response here again?

 

[stevevw]

Exploring hypotheses/models in science, by necessity, involves making deliberate choices about what parameters to incorporate with those models prior to testing them. This is how science progresses and is not bias.

The very fact that there are choices in the parameters about what should and should not be included is what invites bias. A person can choose to only look at certain things thus excluding other possibilities.

The conclusions drawn from those test results, should permit expansion of the model parameters going forward and should never limit tests conceived from a broader set of parameter choices. Doing so, introduces bias.

Not if those tests are based on certain assumptions. Then the results wil be interpreted based on those assumptions. That is the problem.

Good science tests its going-in assumptions. Some assumptions may not be distinguished properly before testing proceeds. Testing then, presents the opportunity of distinguishing that those assumptions were, in fact, untested assumptions. We see this in many study reports. Testing is not about proving some model over another - that approach always represents bias.

This is all idealistic. The fact is studies have found much bias in scientific testing and research. Human are involved and they have the capacity to bias the structure and criteria of what is to be tested and what the results will show.

Perhaps .. but from what I've seen thus far of your responses in this thread, you appear to have come in fishing for that, which represents its own bias.

And still attacks on people and no debate about the content. I think that is more telling than anything else as it is actual and not implied.

[/quote] Thank goodness for peer review, then! Peer review continues well beyond publication and sometimes even exceeds an author's lifetime.[/quote] That is what the articles are saying. It is the peer-reviewed system that is bias and sloppy. This even shows up in groupthink in that consensus rules rather than any alternatives.

Peer Review Bias: A Critical Review
Various types of bias and confounding have been described in the biomedical literature that can affect a study before, during, or after the intervention has been delivered. The peer review process can also introduce bias.
https://www.mayoclinicproceedings.org/article/S0025-6196(18)30707-9/fulltext

Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others
It takes significant reviewer agreement to have a paper accepted. One potential downside is that important research bucking a trend or overturning accepted wisdom may face challenges surviving peer review. In 2015, a study published in P.N.A.S
Peer Review: The Worst Way to Judge Research, Except for All the Others

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False
There is increasing concern that most current published research findings are false. The probability that a research claim is true may depend on study power and bias, the number of other studies on the same question, and, importantly, the ratio of true to no relationships among the relationships probed in each scientific field.
Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

Are you fishing for a response here again?

No just wishing that people would engage in the content rather than logical fallacies.

 

[Speedwell]

But you have not proven this. You are only making an accusation. You need to support your accusation. As far as I am concerned you have come into this thread without anything constructive to add on the content of the thread and are only making criticisms about persons.

In my opinion, complaints by the attendees of the Altenberg conference of the inaccurate spin Susan Mazur put on it should be considered as evidence of her dishonesty.

 

[SelfSim]

The very fact that there are choices in the parameters about what should and should not be included is what invites bias. A person can choose to only look at certain things thus excluding other possibilities.
...
Not if those tests are based on certain assumptions. Then the results will be interpreted based on those assumptions. That is the problem.

Well, the process actually promotes the exposition of inherent biases starting initially from the position of falsifying one's own hypothesis (and recording those results alongside any verifying ones).
What you say above also appears to assume that there is some 'truth' against which you're claiming there is bias .. but where pure research of the unknown treads, there is no particular 'truth' known yet .. or, do you think there is? If so, how did you come across these insights of what the 'truth actually is?', because that's more important than the claimed truth itself.

This is all idealistic. The fact is studies have found much bias in scientific testing and research. Human are involved and they have the capacity to bias the structure and criteria of what is to be tested and what the results will show.

Sure .. and good scientists are more aware of that, than I think you credit them as being ... as are humans who are more aware of their weaknesses, than those who aren't.

And still attacks on people and no debate about the content. I think that is more telling than anything else as it is actual and not implied.

I, myself, have read some of the content you have posted .. and it leaves me quite unmotivated to comment on any of it, in particular. Rather, I am personally left with, like:
'Yeah ok .. so what? Get on and develop your test evidence .. (and quit whining about the lack of attention your ego may be getting)'

That is what the articles are saying. It is the peer-reviewed system that is bias and sloppy. This even shows up in groupthink in that consensus rules rather than any alternatives.

Peer review isn't perfect .. does that make you happier?
When you speak of 'groupthink', are you specifically referring to web-forums debating Creationism vs Evolution(ism)? If so, I'd say well: 'Whaddidya expect would happen?'

No just wishing that people would engage in the content rather than logical fallacies.

Well for my part in this, I can't necessarily see anyone refuting the very high level focuses of this EES idea .. namely because it would be a sort of:
'Yeah let's wait and see what advances this kind of model makes in verifying predictions not as consistently as thus far done to date'
.. or, in more blunt terms:
'Shut up and calculate fellas/gals!'

 

[VirOptimus]

But you have not proven this. You are only making an accusation. You need to support your accusation. As far as I am concerned you have come into this thread without anything constructive to add on the content of the thread and are only making criticisms about persons.

Yes, they do. Read the above post which explains exactly what the EES is about.

Regardless of whether you say you have discussed the EES before which I doubt as I have not engaged in it for a long time. So for this new thread and for others can you give us your views on the EES.

As you are not an honest poster I wont engage.

You are in error and dont understand science at all. Aa I have said you only want to preach and arent interested in science (and have no real understanding of even basic science).

 

[stevevw]

In my opinion, complaints by the attendees of the Altenberg conference of the inaccurate spin Susan Mazur put on it should be considered as evidence of her dishonesty.

They were not complaints but rather quotes from attendees. If they were inaccurate then the quoters would have complained and no such protests have been made. I also tend to think this is an accurate reflection by the fact that 1) the Altenberg gathering was about questioning the standard theory including natural selection and 2) this sort of view is also included in other articles not associated with Altenberg including scientific articles. Like anything, there will be more extreme views but that is not Susan Mazur's fault. She is merely commentating on what she witnessed and was told.

 

[stevevw]

As you are not an honest poster I won't engage.

You are in error and don't understand science at all. Aa I have said you only want to preach and arent are interested in science (and have no real understanding of even basic science).

This has been your MO. You come into people's threads make unfounded accusations and don't engage.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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.

No, those are fictional caricatures. All parties acknowledge that these factors are contributors to evolution, and all are subject to natural selection. The differences are a matter of relative influence and emphasis, and the evidence to date is inconclusive. Within each group there is a variety of opinions on the current situation.

The analogy with speciation is obvious - it's a debate on the taxonomy of evolutionary theory - do the changes in emphasis fit comfortably within the SET framework or do they justify naming a new 'species' of evolutionary theory, EES?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So, therefore, someone who takes a fixed view that evolution is only about adaptations and NS will be biased towards only seeing evolution through this lens as well and therefore relegating anything else as noise and constraints to the standard view. This is even acknowledged in the papers 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. Some might fear that they will receive less funding and recognition if outsiders — such as physiologists or developmental biologists — flood into their field.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

This paper is from Michael Lynch who is certainly not a creationist but an avid well-known supporter of evolution.
The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see Stoltzfus, 2006a).
The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf

You still don't get it. Most people who take an interest in evolutionary theory are not 'supporters' of one side or other, they're just interested to see where the evidence takes us. People who work in one area or another naturally feel their work is particularly important and have a vested interest in it being recognised as such; some are more vocal than others. The relative influence of the various contributions to evolution will become clearer over time. This is just how science works, it's a competitive evolutionary process, producing a punctuated equilibrium.

If having a belief makes confirmation bias unavoidable then are you saying all the great scientists who hold a belief in God have been biased in their findings.

Not necessarily - it depends whether the belief is relevant to the area they're concerned with, and how well they compartmentalize the two. Their output tells the story.

How about looking at the content and not the person. I have been linking a lot of content that supports what I am saying. Are you also claiming that all these authors who are non-religious are biased?

No; I think you are misinterpreting both the content you quote and what it means for evolutionary theory.

 

[VirOptimus]

This has been your MO. You come into people's threads make unfounded accusations and don't engage.

My ”accusations” are very much wellsupported and anyone reviewing your posting history will see that.

 

[stevevw]

No, those are fictional caricatures. All parties acknowledge that these factors are contributors to evolution, and all are subject to natural selection.

I don't you completely understand the EES if this is your view. The EES influences are not contributors to evolution, they are causes like NS. The forces the EES mention can actually dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. They can bypass NS altogether.

They can offer well suited and integrated variation that does not need selecting from unsuitable variation. The variation is already selected by other factors such as development bias. As with niche construction creatures are not adapted to environments but rather adapt environments to suit them. Therefore, NS is not even involved as the creature knows exactly what is needed for them to adapt. If you disagree then please explain what the following means. I have highlighted sections of the paper in blue and taken the relevant parts that apply to how the EES and natural selection work together.

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].

Here a number of papers are cited that show developmental processes can do what NS does but even better. They can produce beneficial phenotype variations which can be inherited as a direct response to environmental pressure rather than NS having to sift out non beneficial variations to find the rare benefit.

Developmental bias and plasticity therefore play central roles in the EES as generators of novel, yet potentially functional and coordinated, phenotype variation. This conception of bias is different from the traditional characterization of developmental constraints: rather than accounting for the absence of evolution or adaptation, developmental bias is also a source of adaptive variation. Developmental bias and niche construction are, in turn, recognized as evolutionary processes that can initiate and impose direction on selection.

I highlighted the sentence that states that development bias rather than being a constraint on adaptive evolution as I mentioned earlier in how the standard theory tries to minimize its role it says it is also a source of adaptive variation. This highlights the debate going on where the SET wish to minimize the EES forces and the EES say that these forces are actually causes and sources for evolution just like NS.

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation. The causal description of an evolutionary change may, for instance, begin with developmental plasticity or niche construction, with genetic change following [27,73].

The most striking and contentious difference from the original Modern Synthesis concerns the relative significance of natural selection versus generative variation in evolution. In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.

I highlighted the above as this cuts to the core of what the papers and I are saying. This is not just about an add on or relegating these forces to the side lines. The EES forces mentioned are causes of evolution along with NS. But unlike NS can produce well suited and integrated variation without it having to be adapted. Sometimes not even using genes at all which is a central competent of SET. Sometimes the variation happens first and then the genetic change follows later. So variation is not just reliant on gene change as with SET.

As a consequence, the EES predicts that organisms will sometimes have the potential to develop well-integrated, functional variants when they encounter new conditions, which contrasts with the traditional assumption of no relationship between adaptive demand and the supply of phenotypic variation [5,122].

The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

Nevertheless, our analysis suggests that the EES is more than simply an extension of ‘business as usual’ science: it requires conceptual change [15]. The additional evolutionary processes that the EES highlights are more than just non-essential ‘add-ons’ [10] and may be as important in shaping evolution as those recognized within the field over the past century.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

As mentioned, the standard theory mainly focuses on adaptive evolution (NS acting on random variations to produce adaptive fit to environments) and makes living things passive contributors to their own evolution. The EES has creatures playing a central role in what happens, changing environments, interacting back and forth with environments and other living creatures that allows them to change and fit in to their environment without NS having to adapt them. This is a big fundamental difference.

As the paper says these forces direct NS dictating what it can and cannot do sometimes bypassing it all together as the EES forces do the same thing as NS but better i.e. produce well suited and integrated variation that doesn’t need selecting and allows creatures to fit their environments. This was mentioned by the Altenberg 16 that I posted earlier so it seems to be supported by a number of scientists.

The differences are a matter of relative influence and emphasis, and the evidence to date is inconclusive. Within each group there is a variety of opinions on the current situation.

The analogy with speciation is obvious - it's a debate on the taxonomy of evolutionary theory - do the changes in emphasis fit comfortably within the SET framework or do they justify naming a new 'species' of evolutionary theory, EES?

Exactly and it has been the lack of explanatory power with SET that has caused scientists to look elsewhere. So far, the evidence for the EES seems to fit well with what is being found. A good example is convergent evolution. SET has it that similar features with distantly related creatures was due to adaptive evolution. Similar environments produce similar features. But this explanation lacked direct evidence and relied on assumptions and coincidences. This didn’t fit what was being found as the convergence went down to the molecular level.

Then it was found that through developmental bias only certain forms are produced. Evolution is not free to produce any feature but only certain features according to similar developmental programs in all living things. Therefore, NS is guided along certain paths which are dictated by developmental processes. This evidence is supported through research and fits better with what we see. But traditionalists still insist that convergent evolution is purely the result of adaptive evolution with NS producing these similar features over and over again.

Developmental bias may also contribute to the many examples of convergence across the tree of life. The diversity of organismal form is only partly a consequence of natural selection—the particular evolutionary trajectories taken also depend on features of development.

Of particular interest is the observation that phenotypic variation can be biased by the processes of development, with some forms more probable than others [12,17,25–28]. Bias is manifest, for example, in the non-random numbers of limbs, digits, segments and vertebrae across a variety of taxa [25,26,29,30], correlated responses to artificial selection resulting from shared developmental regulation [31], and in the repeated, differential re-use of developmental modules, which enables novel phenotypes to arise by developmental rearrangements of ancestral elements, as in the parallel evolution of animal eyes [32].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

 

[stevevw]

My ”accusations” are very much wellsupported and anyone reviewing your posting history will see that.

Still no engagement in the content and still a logical fallacy of ad hominem. Lets just stick to the OP and content.

Are you saying that the EES is just a load of rubbish. Do you think the EES influences can minimize or even bypass natural selection.

 

[stevevw]

You still don't get it. Most people who take an interest in evolutionary theory are not 'supporters' of one side or other, they're just interested to see where the evidence takes us. People who work in one area or another naturally feel their work is particularly important and have a vested interest in it being recognised as such; some are more vocal than others. The relative influence of the various contributions to evolution will become clearer over time. This is just how science works, it's a competitive evolutionary process, producing a punctuated equilibrium.

Yes I agree and that is why both views were included in that paper. You have to consider all the evidence and views to get a complete picture of what is happening. That is why I am posting info on the EES.

I don't deny Natural selection is a force of evolution I just disagree with those who make it the be all and end all when there are other forces that are just as relevant. As far as I am concerned the EES adds to evolution, gives it more explanatory power and helps explain some of the gaps the SET could not explain. I that sense it is a step forward in science. At the every least it should be acknowledged and examined and not denied.

Not necessarily - it depends whether the belief is relevant to the area they're concerned with, and how well they compartmentalize the two. Their output tells the story.

Well some of the greatest theories have been presented by theists so I guess the end result shows their belief didn't get in the way.

No; I think you are misinterpreting both the content you quote and what it means for evolutionary theory.

I disagree. I think I have given a pretty comprehensive understanding of the EES. Anyway I have posted some sections for you to comment on above so we will see.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't you completely understand the EES if this is your view. The EES influences are not contributors to evolution, they are causes like NS. The forces the EES mention can actually dictate what natural selection can and cannot do. They can bypass NS altogether.

Would 'causal contributors' make you happy? Whatever, that's semantic quibbling. I'm not going to get into another long and pointless debate with you - 'been there, done that.

Suffice to say that phenotype and environment dictate the outcome of natural selection. Different mechanisms of variation and adaptation take effect over different timescales; natural selection contributes to, and acts on, all of them.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I don't deny Natural selection is a force of evolution I just disagree with those who make it the be all and end all when there are other forces that are just as relevant.

Straw man - who is making it the 'be all and end all'?

As far as I am concerned the EES adds to evolution, gives it more explanatory power and helps explain some of the gaps the SET could not explain. I that sense it is a step forward in science. At the every least it should be acknowledged and examined and not denied.

As the quote I posted from your link explains, both SET and EES are studying the same mechanisms based on the same data. Your description misrepresents them.

 

[VirOptimus]

Still no engagement in the content. Are you saying that the EES is just a load of rubbish.

I’m saying your posts are rubbish.