So, you agree that virtually all opposition to evolution is religiously motivated?
I am not going to quibble over semantics. It is obvious that many religious people disagree with evolution as in the fully-fledged Darwinian theory. But I disagree with the logic as it stereotypes people and makes things an either and or argument by putting people at two extreme ends of the spectrum for either supporting or disputing evolution. There are many people including non-religious people in between who dispute aspects of evolution as well. Like I said you don’t have to start by disputing all of evolution to dispute evolution and disputing important parts of it can lead to disputing most of it.
For crying out loud........
Common ancestry of living things through natural processes: descent with modification, natural selection, sexual selection,......
You know....... evolution theory as broadly understoond in the natural sciences.
OK but that is still a broad definition. I was referring to the basic mechanisms of evolution Natural selection and random mutations. As I said common ancestry is also supported by religious people. Besides the basis for descent with modification is change in genes (allele) which is still by blind natural selection and random mutations and takes the gene-centric view the EES is disputing.
The core remains: descend with modification followed by selection processes.
Debate about the importance and / or impact of factors and sub-process, does not change that at all.
Decent with modification is another word for random mutations producing the variation and natural slection selecting the modification. It is still the same as what the EES is disputing and is not a subprocess.
The processes that the EES mentions are not sub-processes and this is where you seem to not understand. They are the causes of evolution which in some cases are being said to displace random mutations and natural selection and will change the meaning of evolution from a random and blind process to a directed and self-organising process.
An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
https://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
People like to point at Punctuated Equilibrium as well, like you are doing here, as if it is somehow a thing that is in opposition to "Darwin's Theory". It really, really isn't.
At best, it's an expansion.
As far as I understand Punctuated Equilibrium is part of evolution and was put forward as a way to explain some of the anomalies in the fossil records with the sudden appearance of well-formed creatures with no previous transitions. But this relies on little evidence and is just an idea to address the increasing problems with the theory. That is why the EES has been said to be a better explanation and is well supported as it addresses these things through various development processes.
The dynamics of tissues, cells and the molecules they produce are capable of making forms that are very different from one another from the very same set of ingredients. So, the question of gaps in the fossil record is not simply a matter of time. It's a matter of an explanatory model that recognizes that a morphological phenotype is not a direct read-out of a genotype.
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html
- Reproduce with variation (somehow, change needs to be introduced during reproduction - be it through mutation or otherwise)
- Survive (natural selection - those best equipped to survive, have most chances of doing so. Those that survive, can potentially reproduce. Those best equipped to find a mate and breed, have most chances of doing so)
- Repeat (evolution happens gradually by passing on (modified) genes from one generation to the next).
This is what the EES and other scientists are disputing. First change can happen without gene change. The Standard view sees change as random and therefore can produce harmful and beneficial results which need to be sifted. The EES has processes that produce well suited and integrated variation that does not need to be sifted by selection. Therefore, random mutation and selections role is diminished.
Also, some scientists say that natural selection is not sufficient enough for the genomic and cellular features central to the building of complex organisms. In fact, it can be a barrier to further complexity by undermining it and introducing small harmful mutations.
http://www.pnas.org/content/104/suppl_1/8597.full
The problem is that you keep exaggerating its impact. None of this challenges the core principles of evolutionary biology. If anything, it expands it.
Or you are minimizing the importance of the EES as has been pointed out by scientists. It is not me who is exaggerating things. I am only repeating what is said by scientists.
While much of the evolutionary biology community resists the notion of an evolutionary framework that begins to consider the role of determinants beyond the gene, as the Extended Synthesis does, the momentum of the new synthesis is undeniable (see Google for "the Altenberg 16"). And there are other scientists and philosophers of science--avowed non-creationists--who say the Extended Synthesis does not go far enough in relegating natural selection to a reduced role.
https://archive.archaeology.org/online/interviews/newman.html
Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.
Yet new data pouring out of adjacent fields are starting to undermine this narrow stance. An alternative vision of evolution is beginning to crystallize, in which the processes by which organisms grow and develop are recognized as causes of evolution.
http://www.nature.com/news/does-evolutionary-theory-need-a-rethink-1.16080
There are many articles that state the processes like in the EES are not some sub- idea to evolution and show I am not exaggerating.
If the processes mentioned in the EES reduce the role or bypass the foundations of the Standard theory (random mutations and Natural selection) then this has a major impact and reconceptualises the whole theory. It displaces current ideas and it changes the foundational driving forces for change. It is not an extension but a complete change in concept from random and blind to pre-existing, directed, self-controlled and organised change. Something that living things may have had from the beginning.
Well, in the case of Dawkins, you are wrong about that as well.
Evolution isn't a worldview - it's a scientific theory explaining a phenomena of reality.
Dawkins says it contradicts the biblical narrative. I agree. It literally does. It also does so figuratively.
But this is Dawkins personal view and what has that got to do with the science. He is injecting something into it that should not be there if we are just dealing with the science and that’s what he does. Evolution is a world view because it is based on the science and science is a materialistic and mechanistic method. It excludes all else including the non-material and spiritual aspects. In this sense, people are taking a narrow view and assuming that everything can be explained by naturalistic and materialistic processes in the overall scheme of things.
First, it contradicts a literal genesis for obvious reasons.
It also contradicts a figurative genesis imo. Because the evolution model as prsently understood, means that if you could press the reset button and turn back time a couple billion years - humans would not end up existing again. We are not the point of the universe. Neither is any other currently extant species. That's what evolution teaches us, among other things.
Yes, I surely agree that it doesn't play nice with the religious idea that we humans are the point of the universe and predestined to exist somehow.
Enter "theistic evolution", where the proponents will then say things like "yes, but god interfered or 'guided' evolutionary paths to make sure humans would exist". A claim that is completely without evidence and only serves to marry reality with religious beliefs.
That's fine though, don't get me wrong. People can believe what they want, and at least this type of belief doesn't require one to deny/ignore demonstrable reality.
But it's just a belief that is religiously motivated.
We don't have any evidence that suggests any intervention or guidance took place at all.
That is why processes in the EES can represent a big change to evolution because they give direction, predictability and organisation to how life changes. In that sense, certain forms are produced and will always be produced. In other words, everything we see will more than likely be repeated the same if it happened again including humans.
