What makes Evolution a theory?

[CoreyD]

FYI, I'm going to ignore all your snarky little digs and just focus on the actual topic.

I believe what you are saying is you will ignore where I made reference to your... attitude and sarcasm, and only address the topic.
That's fine. It's what I should have done.

Except all the mechanisms that drive evolution have been observed, documented, and studied. That's why I brought up experimental evolution and field studies.

Why would you say that, knowing that science is a study which is ongoing, and it could hardly be concluded that we know everything there is to know where scientific research is concerned. Especially in view of the fact that none of mechanism currently known were discovered until they were proposed years after the theory.... and not at the same time either.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) revisits the relative importance of different factors in evolution, examining several assumptions of the earlier modern synthesis and augmenting it with additional causative factors.

Although the MS still remains a foundational framework for current evolutionary biology, both MST1 and MST2 have been contested since the 1970s. For example, Niles Eldredge and Stephen Jay Gould's theory of punctuated equilibria (1972) challenges MST1 by questioning that evolution is a gradual process, whereas the development of the biological sciences in the past five decades, especially in the fields of epigenetics, niche construction theory, evolutionary developmental biology (aka evo-devo), and genomics, seems to undermine MST2. As Massimo Pigliucci (2007) argues, there are some important evolutionary mechanisms or phenomena that are ‘missing’ from the MS. In other words, for many biologists and philosophers (e.g. Jablonka & Lamb, 2005; Laubichler, 2010; Odling-Smee et al., 2003), the significance of many important mechanisms or phenomena, including epigenetic inheritance, niche construction, and phenotypic plasticity, is incorrectly downplayed in the MS. In a nutshell, there are two main problems with the central tenets of the MS.4

The Hereditary Mechanism and the Search for the Unknown Factors of Evolution

Many evidently disagree with you.

Spoiler

Several scientists have supported the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES), which aims to expand the scope of evolutionary theory beyond the Modern Synthesis (MS). Notable proponents include Massimo Pigliucci and Gerd B. Müller, who relaunched the idea of an extended synthesis in 2007 with a book titled "Evolution: The Extended Synthesis" in 2010. They argue that the EES should consider more organism- and ecology-centered approaches, taking into account processes such as evolvability, phenotypic plasticity, and niche construction.

Other scientists contributing to the development and support of the EES include C. H. Waddington, who called for an extended synthesis based on his research on epigenetics and genetic assimilation in the 1950s; Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge, who argued for an extended synthesis based on their idea of punctuated equilibrium in the 1980s; and Ryuichi Matsuda, who coined the term "pan-environmentalism" as an extended evolutionary synthesis in the 1980s.

Additionally, researchers in the field of evolutionary developmental biology have contributed to the EES by emphasizing developmental bias, evolvability, and the inherency of form as primary factors in the evolution of complex structures and phenotypic novelties.

• Massimo Pigliucci: Relaunched the idea of an extended synthesis in 2007 and co-authored "Evolution: The Extended Synthesis" in 2010[52].
• Gerd B. Müller: Co-authored "Evolution: The Extended Synthesis" in 2010 and contributed to the development of the EES.
• C. H. Waddington: Called for an extended synthesis based on his research on epigenetics and genetic assimilation in the 1950s.
• Stephen Jay Gould: Argued for an extended synthesis based on the idea of punctuated equilibrium in the 1980s.
• Niles Eldredge: Collaborated with Gould in arguing for an extended synthesis based on punctuated equilibrium in the 1980s.
• Ryuichi Matsuda: Coined the term "pan-environmentalism" as an extended evolutionary synthesis in the 1980s.

You're misunderstanding then. They're simply saying the same thing I said earlier, that scientists have figured out the evolutionary history of some, but not all, things. And those things they haven't figured out yet are opportunities for research.

I'm not sure what you think is so significant about that.

We must not be looking at the same article, because big issues, are not simple, and not knowing how evolution produce new and complex features as one of those big issues, is not as simple as "some, but not all, things".

It looks to me like you don't want to understand, and I am not about to sit all day and argue with you on that, so feel free to think what you want.

So was I. You don't know that experimental evolution and field studies are some of the main ways scientists test aspects of evolutionary theory?

So the theory of evolution is field studies now?
This is a strawman. I will ignore it.

And it not only seeks to, it actually does explain what we see.


But you're wrong. Various aspects of evolutionary theory can be, and have been, verified.

Wow. Various aspect of the theory, is the theory?
Keep arguing.

You can accept or deny whatever you like. And as long as we're discussing evolutionary theory, you're just wrong (as noted above).

What is "noted above" is simply arguing against, someone for no reason, as nothing you said relates to the theory of evolution, or the OP.

So am I, and the fact remains that it's reasonable for scientists to conclude that new traits arose via evolutionary mechanisms in the past (since that's how we always see them arise today).

If you think "various aspects" of the theory, is the theory... I have no comment.

That's ridiculous on its face. Obviously if it were only a hypothesis, it couldn't be a theory.

Sorry but I'm not about to go with your empty assertions and opinions over the consensus conclusions of the scientific community. You're free to believe whatever you like, but no one else (especially actual scientists) is obligated to even notice them, let alone adopt them.

Neither are actual scientists or anyone else obligated to consider your empty assertions and opinions, over actual facts.

Some can, some can't. So?

The theory cannot be verified, since the theory is not "some aspects" of the theory.

That's why I asked before about paternity testing. We can't go back and observe the child's procreation, so do you think that means paternity can never be verified? Or with genetic ancestry testing, where we can't go back and observe my ancestors' migration. Do you think that means my ancestry can never be verified?

I urged you to keep going, and you never did.
What you are here saying, is similar to pigs can fly, because we found the gene for flight in its DNA code.
Because one can trace a lineage of human, does that mean interpreting genes leads you to an ape... to a fish?
That's as ridiculous as imagining pigs can fly.

Please provide a citation or source for this claim.

Scientists who express skepticism about Darwinian evolution may face professional repercussions, including job loss or demotion, due to their views. For instance, David Coppedge, a senior computer systems administrator for the Cassini Mission at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, was demoted and eventually discharged after offering colleagues DVDs about intelligent design, even though no one had complained about his actions beforehand.
May Non-Scientists Question Darwinism? | Evolution News and Science Today
Similarly, Roger DeHart, a high school biology teacher in Washington State, faced harassment from pro-Darwin activists and was ultimately removed from teaching biology despite complying with his district’s gag order. These cases highlight the potential risks scientists and educators face when they publicly question Darwinian evolution.

That's completely wrong. Your ignorance of how experimental evolution and field studies help verify aspects of evolutionary theory is causing you to make some fundamental errors.

"how experimental evolution and field studies help verify aspects of evolutionary theory"?
That was never the subject, and I wasn't discussing that.
Is this the reason you create these strawman... to ridicule others and elevate yourself?

And if you truly think the components of evolutionary theory are just things scientists made up out of whole cloth, with no supporting evidence whatsoever, that just reveals an even deeper level of ignorance on your part.

Only pride and egotism would move a person make claims about another person which are not true, and then lambast that person over those false claims.

Please provide a source or citation for this claim.

You provided my answer below...

No, I'm not about to try and teach a course in evolutionary biology here at CF. There are plenty of resources out there for people who want to learn.

I wasn't asking you to teach me anything.
Do you think your attitude would encourage anyone to want you to teach them?
This is a discussion and debate forum. Not an instruction institute.

The topic of the OP, is "What makes Evolution a theory?"
If you don't want to have a discussion on it, that's okay, but why are you on the thread... Is it to teach?

But you're dodging the point. Do you agree that we know of no process, other than evolution, that generates new biological traits?

See above.
When you want to discuss the subject and answer questions related to it, you can ask me any question, and I would be willing to answer.

No, you're just wrong. You claimed evolutionary mechanisms are "conditions that produce results". They are processes (such as mutation, drift), not conditions.


You said "The mechanisms attributed to the adaptation to venom are assumed, and are all wrong".


No, not saying that.


No, you've completely misunderstood.

The main tools geneticists use to figure out what various genetic sequences do are based in our knowledge of evolutionary mechanisms and the relative relatedness of different taxonomic groups.

Bayesian parameter estimation for automatic annotation of gene functions using observational data and phylogenetic trees

Author summary Understanding the individual roles that genes play in life is a key issue in biomedical science. While information regarding gene functions is continuously growing, the number of genes with uncharacterized biological functions is still greater. Because of this, scientists have...

journals.plos.org

In a nutshell, they put genetic sequences from diverse organisms such as humans, flies, bacteria, etc. through a model that's based on our knowledge of their relative evolutionary relatedness of them (humans are more closely related to flies than bacteria) and get highly accurate identification of the functions of those sequences as a result.

That's a direct application of evolutionary theory, common descent, and universal common descent that produces extremely accurate and valuable results. How can that be if those things aren't true?


Then logically, getting extremely accurate results is a very good indication that the framework (evolutionary theory) is correct.

I am not sure the OP wants to go that far, information, and counter information, on the for or against the theory.
The subject is What makes Evolution a theory?

I think it is therefore important to make clear that those aspects of the theory, which most believers of it, would rather not mention, or discuss, are a very significant a part of the theory - at the very root.

In other words, the theory cannot exist just as "those aspects we observe".
The core idea "All life on Earth - including humanity - shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago".

Since you don't want to discuss that, I don't think there is anything else we have to discuss.

 

[River Jordan]

Why would you say that, knowing that science is a study which is ongoing, and it could hardly be concluded that we know everything there is to know where scientific research is concerned.

Because it's true. I find it hard to believe you're not aware that mechanisms like mutation, various modes of selection, recombination, migration, neutral drift, and others have been observed, documented, and studied extensively.

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) revisits the relative importance of different factors in evolution, examining several assumptions of the earlier modern synthesis and augmenting it with additional causative factors.

The debate there, as the title says, is about the relative importance of different mechanisms. Old school evolutionary biologists favored selection as the primary mechanism, whereas advocates of the EES want more focus put on things listed in the article (epigenetics, evo-devo).

And PE is primarily about different types of speciation, but it still occurs via the same mechanisms as traditional Darwinian gradualism.

We must not be looking at the same article, because big issues, are not simple, and not knowing how evolution produce new and complex features as one of those big issues, is not as simple as "some, but not all, things".

Don't assume your ignorance is shared by everyone else. Evolutionary scientists have figured out many different ways evolutionary mechanisms produce complex features, up to and including watching it happen in real time. That's where your ignorance of the field of experimental evolution is hurting you.

So the theory of evolution is field studies now?

So you really are ignorant of the importance of field studies in researching and testing how populations evolve.

Wow. Various aspect of the theory, is the theory?

You aren't aware that scientific theories have multiple components to them? Wow.

The theory cannot be verified, since the theory is not "some aspects" of the theory.

Not only can it, it has been. I showed you one example of how running genetic sequences through a framework of universal common ancestry produces very consistent and accurate results, which is an obvious verification of UCA. You ignored it.

What you are here saying, is similar to pigs can fly, because we found the gene for flight in its DNA code.

No, not even close. You really don't understand how establishing paternity and ancestry via genetic testing shows how we don't need to directly observe an event before we can conclude it happened and draw other conclusions about it? Wow.

Because one can trace a lineage of human, does that mean interpreting genes leads you to an ape... to a fish?

Actually, yes (although not in the childish terms you put it in).

Scientists who express skepticism about Darwinian evolution may face professional repercussions, including job loss or demotion, due to their views. For instance, David Coppedge, a senior computer systems administrator for the Cassini Mission at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Lab, was demoted and eventually discharged after offering colleagues DVDs about intelligent design, even though no one had complained about his actions beforehand.
May Non-Scientists Question Darwinism? | Evolution News and Science Today
Similarly, Roger DeHart, a high school biology teacher in Washington State, faced harassment from pro-Darwin activists and was ultimately removed from teaching biology despite complying with his district’s gag order. These cases highlight the potential risks scientists and educators face when they publicly question Darwinian evolution.

I'm familiar with some of those cases and the ID creationists aren't depicting them accurately. If you'd like, we can go over them one at a time.

See above.
When you want to discuss the subject and answer questions related to it, you can ask me any question, and I would be willing to answer.

You're dodging the question again, and I'll take that as a concession that you can't name another process, besides evolution, that produces new traits.

The core idea "All life on Earth - including humanity - shares a last universal common ancestor (LUCA), which lived approximately 3.5–3.8 billion years ago".

Since you don't want to discuss that, I don't think there is anything else we have to discuss.

I just did discuss it by pointing you to a verification of UCA. If you don't know enough about the subject to understand and comment on the material I posted, that's understandable.

 

[stevevw]

Any scientists claim God as a part of the mechanism?

Not necessarily God but purpose, teleology and agency which then points to purpose in evolution and God. Rather than a blind and random process that just happens to land on what appears to be designed but isn't.

 

[tonychanyt]

Not necessarily God but purpose, teleology and agency which then points to purpose in evolution and God. Rather than a blind and random process that just happens to land on what appears to be designed but isn't.

Can you quote a scientist who expressed the above?

 

[CoreyD]

Because it's true. I find it hard to believe you're not aware that mechanisms like mutation, various modes of selection, recombination, migration, neutral drift, and others have been observed, documented, and studied extensively.

This has nothing to do with what I said, and I don't know why you continue to make strawman arguments, and accuse me of things I never said.... or that had nothing to do with what was said..
Isn't that being snarky and arrogant?

The debate there, as the title says, is about the relative importance of different mechanisms. Old school evolutionary biologists favored selection as the primary mechanism, whereas advocates of the EES want more focus put on things listed in the article (epigenetics, evo-devo).

What does this have to do with the fact that not all mechanism can be said to be known?

And PE is primarily about different types of speciation, but it still occurs via the same mechanisms as traditional Darwinian gradualism.


Don't assume your ignorance is shared by everyone else. Evolutionary scientists have figured out many different ways evolutionary mechanisms produce complex features, up to and including watching it happen in real time. That's where your ignorance of the field of experimental evolution is hurting you.

Evolutionary scientists?
Is that a term for the scientists that accept the theory?

Did the article somehow leave out those "evolutionary scientists", when it said...
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. How does evolution produce new and complex features?

Perhaps they are ignorant as well?

So you really are ignorant of the importance of field studies in researching and testing how populations evolve.

I am definitely not ignorant about strawman argument, and pride and egotism, which is behind falsely accusing persons of things they provided no input on.

You aren't aware that scientific theories have multiple components to them? Wow.

Why would you think up something like that in your head, to make another false accusation, when you know full well that I am aware of this, and made reference to this, here.
It's one thing for a person to be busting their head with ego.
It's another to repeatedly slander someone, and since habitual liars are no company of mine, I'll have to say goodbye.

Not only can it, it has been. I showed you one example of how running genetic sequences through a framework of universal common ancestry produces very consistent and accurate results, which is an obvious verification of UCA. You ignored it.

No, not even close. You really don't understand how establishing paternity and ancestry via genetic testing shows how we don't need to directly observe an event before we can conclude it happened and draw other conclusions about it? Wow.

Actually, yes (although not in the childish terms you put it in).

I'm familiar with some of those cases and the ID creationists aren't depicting them accurately. If you'd like, we can go over them one at a time.

You're dodging the question again, and I'll take that as a concession that you can't name another process, besides evolution, that produces new traits.

I just did discuss it by pointing you to a verification of UCA. If you don't know enough about the subject to understand and comment on the material I posted, that's understandable.

Were you ignoring these as you typed... The snarky bits, I mean?
Goodbye.
Have a nice day.

 

[stevevw]

Can you quote a scientist who expressed the above?

Yeah sure.

This goes back to an ongoing dispute between evolutionists and those who suppose some sort of design in evolution. Ernst Mayr was the main objector of any implication the language mentioned purpose or design. But at that time scientist could not help but use such language as that is what the evidence was describing.

So Mayr and company came up with the idea of tele-onomy which meant that the systems that evolved through NS and mutations programmed what produced pupose and the appearence of design. Rather than the organism itself as an agent.

This got around the direct language but it was still not enough to stop the implication of purpose especially with the expanded view from the EES and other discoveries which puts the organism central as beiung able to direct its own evolution.

At the same time NS and mutations were proving inadequate to explain behaviour. Especially associated with culture and nesting, niche construction, Developmental bias and inheritence beyond genes.

This is the paper
Evolutionary Teleonomy as a Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
One of the primary areas where the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis differs from the Modern Synthesis is in the number of modes of inheritance available for evolutionary action. These modes of inheritance, however, each appear to incorporate some amount of teleonomy in their operation. Thus, we have a program within an organism that is affecting its evolution. This directly contradicts Mayr’s notion that “If an organism is well adapted, if it shows superior fitness, this is not due to any purpose of its ancestors or of an outside agency.” In fact, according to niche inheritance, the adaptation of an organism to its environment is precisely because of the teleonomic purposes of the organism’s ancestors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

This is a commentary on the paper
Teleology and the extended evolutionary synthesis
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/04/21/teleology-and-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: New Conversations and Theological Questions at the Horizons of Modern Science
"http://biologos.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-evolutionary-theory"]

I will include this article from Evolution News because though it is not a science article it does link most of the scientific articles related to teleology.
The Return of Teleology to Biology

The Return of Teleology to Biology | Evolution News and Science Today

Biologists have faced a vexing dilemma since the philosophy of scientific materialism came to dominate Western thought.

evolutionnews.org

Heres some articles on the EES
This site will have many papers and research projects.

How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Lamarckism is defined by claims about the mechanism and ontology of evolution. In Lamarckian evolution, individual organisms adapt themselves to their environments and bequeath these adaptations to their offspring (Gould 2002). The claim about this mechanism is therefore that evolution follows from the transmission of acquired characteristics (i.e., traits acquired after the completion of ontogeny) from one generation to the next. The claim about ontology is that individual organisms evolve through their responses to environmental stimuli. As an explanation of adaptation, then, Lamarckism has two implications: first, that evolution is teleologically directed by the organism's responses to environmental input.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

 

[tonychanyt]

Yeah sure.

This goes back to an ongoing dispute between evolutionists and those who suppose some sort of design in evolution. Ernst Mayr was the main objector of any implication the language mentioned purpose or design. But at that time scientist could not help but use such language as that is what the evidence was describing.

So Mayr and company came up with the idea of tele-onomy which meant that the systems that evolved through NS and mutations were what produced pupose and the appearence of design. Rather than the organism itself as an agent or any process itself that had purpose.

This got around the direct language but it was still not enough to stop the implication of purpose especially with the expanded view from the EES and other discoveries which puts the organism central as beiung able to direct its own evolution.

At the same time NS and mutations were proving inadequate to explain behaviour. Especially associated with culture and nesting, niche construction, Developmental bias and inheritence beyond genes.

This is the paper
Evolutionary Teleonomy as a Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
One of the primary areas where the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis differs from the Modern Synthesis is in the number of modes of inheritance available for evolutionary action. These modes of inheritance, however, each appear to incorporate some amount of teleonomy in their operation. Thus, we have a program within an organism that is affecting its evolution. This directly contradicts Mayr’s notion that “If an organism is well adapted, if it shows superior fitness, this is not due to any purpose of its ancestors or of an outside agency.” In fact, according to niche inheritance, the adaptation of an organism to its environment is precisely because of the teleonomic purposes of the organism’s ancestors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

This is a commentary on the paper
Teleology and the extended evolutionary synthesis
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/04/21/teleology-and-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: New Conversations and Theological Questions at the Horizons of Modern Science
"http://biologos.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-evolutionary-theory"]

I will include this article from Evolution News because though it is not a science article it does link most of the scientific articles related to teleology.
The Return of Teleology to Biology

The Return of Teleology to Biology | Evolution News and Science Today

Biologists have faced a vexing dilemma since the philosophy of scientific materialism came to dominate Western thought.

evolutionnews.org

Heres some articles on the EES
This site will have many papers and research projects.

How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Lamarckism is defined by claims about the mechanism and ontology of evolution. In Lamarckian evolution, individual organisms adapt themselves to their environments and bequeath these adaptations to their offspring (Gould 2002). The claim about this mechanism is therefore that evolution follows from the transmission of acquired characteristics (i.e., traits acquired after the completion of ontogeny) from one generation to the next. The claim about ontology is that individual organisms evolve through their responses to environmental stimuli. As an explanation of adaptation, then, Lamarckism has two implications: first, that evolution is teleologically directed by the organism's responses to environmental input.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

None of these quotations says what you claimed.

To save the effort of your readers, this is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Give the source/citation.
2. Provide the URL link to the source if available.
3. Indent the quoted text.
4, Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making. Be concise and to the point.

I do this for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice it, I guarantee it will sharpen your analytical thinking. However, no one is required to do it; I prefer to interact with people who do.

 

[River Jordan]

This has nothing to do with what I said, and I don't know why you continue to make strawman arguments, and accuse me of things I never said.... or that had nothing to do with what was said..
Isn't that being snarky and arrogant?


What does this have to do with the fact that not all mechanism can be said to be known?


Evolutionary scientists?
Is that a term for the scientists that accept the theory?

Did the article somehow leave out those "evolutionary scientists", when it said...
Some of the questions that evolutionary biologists are trying to answer include:

1. How does evolution produce new and complex features?

Perhaps they are ignorant as well?


I am definitely not ignorant about strawman argument, and pride and egotism, which is behind falsely accusing persons of things they provided no input on.


Why would you think up something like that in your head, to make another false accusation, when you know full well that I am aware of this, and made reference to this, here.
It's one thing for a person to be busting their head with ego.
It's another to repeatedly slander someone, and since habitual liars are no company of mine, I'll have to say goodbye.







Were you ignoring these as you typed... The snarky bits, I mean?
Goodbye.
Have a nice day.

Thanks for your time Corey.

 

[River Jordan]

Yeah sure.

This goes back to an ongoing dispute between evolutionists and those who suppose some sort of design in evolution. Ernst Mayr was the main objector of any implication the language mentioned purpose or design. But at that time scientist could not help but use such language as that is what the evidence was describing.

So Mayr and company came up with the idea of tele-onomy which meant that the systems that evolved through NS and mutations were what produced pupose and the appearence of design. Rather than the organism itself as an agent or any process itself that had purpose.

This got around the direct language but it was still not enough to stop the implication of purpose especially with the expanded view from the EES and other discoveries which puts the organism central as beiung able to direct its own evolution.

At the same time NS and mutations were proving inadequate to explain behaviour. Especially associated with culture and nesting, niche construction, Developmental bias and inheritence beyond genes.

This is the paper
Evolutionary Teleonomy as a Unifying Principle for the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis
One of the primary areas where the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis differs from the Modern Synthesis is in the number of modes of inheritance available for evolutionary action. These modes of inheritance, however, each appear to incorporate some amount of teleonomy in their operation. Thus, we have a program within an organism that is affecting its evolution. This directly contradicts Mayr’s notion that “If an organism is well adapted, if it shows superior fitness, this is not due to any purpose of its ancestors or of an outside agency.” In fact, according to niche inheritance, the adaptation of an organism to its environment is precisely because of the teleonomic purposes of the organism’s ancestors.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321339258_Evolutionary_Teleonomy_as_a_Unifying_Principle_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

This is a commentary on the paper
Teleology and the extended evolutionary synthesis
http://potiphar.jongarvey.co.uk/2017/04/21/teleology-and-the-extended-evolutionary-synthesis/

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis: New Conversations and Theological Questions at the Horizons of Modern Science
"http://biologos.org/blog/the-changing-face-of-evolutionary-theory"]

I will include this article from Evolution News because though it is not a science article it does link most of the scientific articles related to teleology.
The Return of Teleology to Biology

The Return of Teleology to Biology | Evolution News and Science Today

Biologists have faced a vexing dilemma since the philosophy of scientific materialism came to dominate Western thought.

evolutionnews.org

Heres some articles on the EES
This site will have many papers and research projects.

How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

extendedevolutionarysynthesis.com

The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy
Lamarckism is defined by claims about the mechanism and ontology of evolution. In Lamarckian evolution, individual organisms adapt themselves to their environments and bequeath these adaptations to their offspring (Gould 2002). The claim about this mechanism is therefore that evolution follows from the transmission of acquired characteristics (i.e., traits acquired after the completion of ontogeny) from one generation to the next. The claim about ontology is that individual organisms evolve through their responses to environmental stimuli. As an explanation of adaptation, then, Lamarckism has two implications: first, that evolution is teleologically directed by the organism's responses to environmental input.
https://academic.oup.com/bioscience/article/64/6/511/290249

Those EES articles are mostly about epigenetics and how it provides a way for organisms themselves to influence the future evolutionary fates of their descendants. It's not about guidance of evolution by God.

I try and be careful with attributing evolutionary developments to God, because some of them are pretty cruel and horrible.

 

[stevevw]

None of these quotations says what you claimed.

To save the effort of your readers, this is how to do referencing in a scholarly manner:

1. Give the source/citation.
2. Provide the URL link to the source if available.
3. Indent the quoted text.
4, Bold the relevant keywords that are important to the point that you are making. Be concise and to the point.

I do this for others who read my posts. It is a standard high-school scholarship. If you practice it, I guarantee it will sharpen your analytical thinking. However, no one is required to do it; I prefer to interact with people who do.

Yeah I've been to Uni and know the criteria lol. I guess I lost a couple of marks lol. Then theres the different referencing like Harvard or APA ect. I use to hate that. Oh and then there was the software that spotted all the quotes or lack there of out of place from memory.

I am not sure what exactly you are looking for. If its teleology within evolution then these links are probably the only available. Unless you want to use the links from Intelligent Design or Creationist sites which most people reject.

 

[stevevw]

Those EES articles are mostly about epigenetics and how it provides a way for organisms themselves to influence the future evolutionary fates of their descendants. It's not about guidance of evolution by God.

I try and be careful with attributing evolutionary developments to God, because some of them are pretty cruel and horrible.

First as Christians we should expect to see God within His creation even down to the micro and sub atomic level or to the so called beginning of the universe which is not proving as simple as some BB 14B years ago. But looking more like a timeless universe.

Second the EE is much much more than epigenetics and epigenetics is not like what most people think it is as far as the influence on phenotypes which can involvechanges to the genes themselves in their expression.

But even along the same line under inheritence beyond genes we have a number of influences associated with nesting, and culture which directly influence behaviour and survivability as well as creating beneficial environments that will themselves influence natural selection of self created and organised beneficial conditions rather than being passive players subject to the environment alone.

Also NIche construction which is said to be a evolutionary force on its own like NS. A bit like artificial selection and we know humans can manipulate things to produce certain outcomes with animals and crops. But Niche construction is an extension or living creatures so is not artificial as its in tune with nature.

Creatures and especially humans can change their environments to suit adaptation and survival rather than being change to modl to environments. Which the MS tends to make everything gene centric with NS being the force that evolves phenotypes. Thus a major difference which puts the creature central and in control and not a passive entity being acted upon by external forces.

Then we have Development Bias and Plasticity. Developmental bias basically means that mutations are not so random. There are only certain ways phenotypes can be expressed and so are tapping into a blueprint for life rather than having to evolve novel information the genome is putting forward certain ways creatures evolve rather than anyway.

Developmental platicity is similar except theres a reciprical relationship between environments and bodies where stresses act on the tissues and cells which can trigger phenotype changes that remarkably suit the environment lived in. PLants are a good example in how those in lower sunlight grow larger leaves. Some traits are for no reason and just a result of the environment. WE find the same species of fish in neighbouring lakes having different shapes due to the particular different enviroment.

There is more though. Have you read the links, especially from the EES site itself.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

 

[The Barbarian]

So goes the same with evolution and big bang theories. Until science can gives us something solid, they will remain theories and they should be treated like that.

You're confusing evolution the phenomenon we observe in nature, with the theory that explains it, and likely with consequences of evolution like common descent. An idea in science doesn't qualify as a theory until its predictions have been repeatedly verified by evidence. Evolutionary theory made numerous predictions that have since been verified:
1. There must have been transitional forms between
a. fish and tetrapods
b. reptiles and mammals
c. ancient dinosaurs and birds
d. frogs and other amphibians
(long list)
This is why honest YECs admit that these are "very good evidence for macroevolutionary theory."
Even more convincing is that we never find transitionals where they shouldn't be. No insects with bones, no mammals with feathers.

2. Genetics will show the same phylogenies found by fossil record and anatomical data
Now that we can analyze DNA, that prediction has been verified.

3. Embryology should show evolutionary changes. This has also been verified, such as the transition from reptilian jaw joints to mammalian jaw joints in opossum embryos.

Like gravity, evolution is a confirmed theory. Actually, evolution is more confirmed, since we know why evolution works, but we still aren't precisely sure why gravity works.

There seems to be some confusion about what a theory is.
A scientific law is what scientists expect to see under certain circumstances.
A hypothesis is a proposed scientific explanation for an observed phenomenon
A theory is an scientific idea that has been repeatedly confirmed by evidence. Hypotheses become theories after many confirmations.

Theories and laws both predict things. The difference is, theories also explain why the predicted events happen. Hence Kepler's laws of planetary motion, and Newton's theory of gravitation. Both predict the movements of planets. But Newon's theory explains why it happens.

And evolutionary theory is not about the way life began. If God had just poofed the first living things into being, evolution would still work exactly as it does. Even Darwin just assumed that God created the first living things. He mentions that in the last sentence of On the Origin of Species.

 

[Hvizsgyak]

And what do you think a theory becomes after it's been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt?

That's the problem here, you may think some theories are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when possibly there are some hidden features that could contradict that theory. For example, Earth at the center of the universe:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Knowledge of the location of Earth has been shaped by 400 years of telescopic observations, and has expanded radically since the start of the 20th century. Initially, Earth was believed to be the center of the Universe, which consisted only of those planets visible with the naked eye and an outlying sphere of fixed stars.[1] After the acceptance of the heliocentric model in the 17th century, observations by William Herschel and others showed that the Sun lay within a vast, disc-shaped galaxy of stars.[2] By the 20th century, observations of spiral nebulae revealed that the Milky Way galaxy was one of billions in an expanding universe,[3][4] grouped into clusters and superclusters. By the end of the 20th century, the overall structure of the visible universe was becoming clearer, with superclusters forming into a vast web of filaments and voids.[5] Superclusters, filaments and voids are the largest coherent structures in the Universe that we can observe.[6] At still larger scales (over 1000 megaparsecs[a]) the Universe becomes homogeneous, meaning that all its parts have on average the same density, composition and structure.[7]"

With the information that we have right now about the Universe, scientist call say (to a certain extent) that the Earth is not at the center of the known universe. The key word though is "KNOWN". What happens when we find out there is even more to the Universe? Unknown for right now. So, you can't say with 100% accuracy that the Earth isn't at the center of the Universe because you don't exactly know how big the Universe really is.

Same applies to evolution, you don't have every single fossil that was ever once a living creature so you can't say for sure this is how humans evolved. Yes, you might feel 90% sure but not 100%.

 

[The Barbarian]

Same applies to evolution, you don't have every single fossil that was ever once a living creature so you can't say for sure this is how humans evolved. Yes, you might feel 90% sure but not 100%.

This is true. But you're talking about universal common descent, not evolution. Evolution is an observed phenomenon. A fact. Macroevolution is an observed fact. But until we could analyze DNA, we weren't certain that common descent was true. Even Darwin suggested that there might have been any number of originally created organisms. We understand how evolution works. While every new bit of evidence continues to confirm universal common descent of all life on Earth, we will never be absolutely certain. Being 99.9% sure, is not absolute certainty. Likewise, we can't be absolutely certain the sun will continue to shine tomorrow. But we are very, very confident that it will. For the same reason we are very, very confident of common descent.

 

[River Jordan]

First as Christians we should expect to see God within His creation even down to the micro and sub atomic level or to the so called beginning of the universe which is not proving as simple as some BB 14B years ago. But looking more like a timeless universe.

I guess we just see things differently, because I don't see God in things like MRSA or VRE.

Second the EE is much much more than epigenetics and epigenetics is not like what most people think it is as far as the influence on phenotypes which can involvechanges to the genes themselves in their expression.

But even along the same line under inheritence beyond genes we have a number of influences associated with nesting, and culture which directly influence behaviour and survivability as well as creating beneficial environments that will themselves influence natural selection of self created and organised beneficial conditions rather than being passive players subject to the environment alone.

Also NIche construction which is said to be a evolutionary force on its own like NS. A bit like artificial selection and we know humans can manipulate things to produce certain outcomes with animals and crops. But Niche construction is an extension or living creatures so is not artificial as its in tune with nature.

Creatures and especially humans can change their environments to suit adaptation and survival rather than being change to modl to environments. Which the MS tends to make everything gene centric with NS being the force that evolves phenotypes. Thus a major difference which puts the creature central and in control and not a passive entity being acted upon by external forces.

Then we have Development Bias and Plasticity. Developmental bias basically means that mutations are not so random. There are only certain ways phenotypes can be expressed and so are tapping into a blueprint for life rather than having to evolve novel information the genome is putting forward certain ways creatures evolve rather than anyway.

Developmental platicity is similar except theres a reciprical relationship between environments and bodies where stresses act on the tissues and cells which can trigger phenotype changes that remarkably suit the environment lived in. PLants are a good example in how those in lower sunlight grow larger leaves. Some traits are for no reason and just a result of the environment. WE find the same species of fish in neighbouring lakes having different shapes due to the particular different enviroment.

There is more though. Have you read the links, especially from the EES site itself.

About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Yep, I know about all that. I was making sure people weren't confusing organisms influencing future generations' evolution with guidance by God.

 

[River Jordan]

That's the problem here, you may think some theories are proven beyond a shadow of a doubt when possibly there are some hidden features that could contradict that theory. For example, Earth at the center of the universe:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

"Knowledge of the location of Earth has been shaped by 400 years of telescopic observations, and has expanded radically since the start of the 20th century. Initially, Earth was believed to be the center of the Universe, which consisted only of those planets visible with the naked eye and an outlying sphere of fixed stars.[1] After the acceptance of the heliocentric model in the 17th century, observations by William Herschel and others showed that the Sun lay within a vast, disc-shaped galaxy of stars.[2] By the 20th century, observations of spiral nebulae revealed that the Milky Way galaxy was one of billions in an expanding universe,[3][4] grouped into clusters and superclusters. By the end of the 20th century, the overall structure of the visible universe was becoming clearer, with superclusters forming into a vast web of filaments and voids.[5] Superclusters, filaments and voids are the largest coherent structures in the Universe that we can observe.[6] At still larger scales (over 1000 megaparsecs[a]) the Universe becomes homogeneous, meaning that all its parts have on average the same density, composition and structure.[7]"

With the information that we have right now about the Universe, scientist call say (to a certain extent) that the Earth is not at the center of the known universe. The key word though is "KNOWN". What happens when we find out there is even more to the Universe? Unknown for right now. So, you can't say with 100% accuracy that the Earth isn't at the center of the Universe because you don't exactly know how big the Universe really is.

All that and you still didn't answer the question I asked. What do you think a scientific theory becomes once it's been proven?

Same applies to evolution, you don't have every single fossil that was ever once a living creature so you can't say for sure this is how humans evolved. Yes, you might feel 90% sure but not 100%.

You can believe that if you want, but I promise you there's not a single scientist on the planet who agrees.

 

[The Barbarian]

All that and you still didn't answer the question I asked. What do you think a scientific theory becomes once it's been proven?

Theories are never "proven." Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely test and confirm the predictions of theories to the point that it becomes unreasonable to deny them. No one ever "proved" Newton's theory of gravitation. But it is still used to navigate spacecraft around the solar system.

The process involves formulating an hypothesis about an observed phenomenon, and then testing that hypothesis repeatedly. After a large number of confirmed predictions, the hypothesis is accepted as a theory.

 

[stevevw]

I guess we just see things differently, because I don't see God in things like MRSA or VRE.

Sorry what is MRSA or VRE.

Yep, I know about all that. I was making sure people weren't confusing organisms influencing future generations' evolution with guidance by God.

Oh no these are all scientifically supported. The EES sit has an ongoing research program that is continually updating with new discoveries and testing results.

But what I think it does do is at least change the overall view of evolution from a purely programmed process to one that makes the agent more central. Whether that be in the beneficial choices made and the ability of being able to work with nature. Or the ability of the phenotype of change beneficially to adapt to environments rather than chance or blind NS.

Thats a pretty big fundemental change which puts more of the guidence for evolution already there within the agent rather than in a program dictating the agent. Especially for humans and free will.

Coincidently or not a similar thing is happening in physics where the observer is coming back as a possible effect and influence on reality itself. I know this is unrelated but its interesting how science tried to take the agent and subject out of the equation but reality keeps putting them back in.

 

[The Barbarian]

But what I think it does do is at least change the overall view of evolution from a purely programmed process to one that makes the agent more central. Whether that be in the beneficial choices made and the ability of being able to work with nature. Or the ability of the phenotype of change beneficially to adapt to environments rather than chance or blind NS.

Natural selection is predictable and not a matter of chance. Like a market economy, it might seem chaotic and uncontrolled, but it works quite well. The magic is not God tinkering with genomes every moment, but in His creation of a world in which such things come forth naturally according to His will. And yes, God can use contingency as easily as He uses necessity to effect His will.

 

[River Jordan]

Theories are never "proven." Logical certainty is not part of science. We merely test and confirm the predictions of theories to the point that it becomes unreasonable to deny them. No one ever "proved" Newton's theory of gravitation. But it is still used to navigate spacecraft around the solar system.

The process involves formulating an hypothesis about an observed phenomenon, and then testing that hypothesis repeatedly. After a large number of confirmed predictions, the hypothesis is accepted as a theory.

Great post! Thanks!