Thanks! Well, let’s see…
“This model has been almost universally rejected, but Eldredge and Gould called attention to the important and still not fully explained pattern of stasis, and raised a possible role for speciation in fostering long-term character evolution, which is a topic of ongoing research [[39–42](javascript:
].”
So this actually states that Eldredge and Gould’s concerns were valid, and a current topic of research, and I note that these concerns correspond with some of the EES concerns.
“So far, no new, general theoretical principles that promise to guide novel empirical research have been articulated by proponents of niche construction.” And similarly for phenotypic plasticity, etc.
But this part of the discussion only states that no good progress has been made in these various areas proposed by EES proponents. This does not address whether their concerns are valid.
“Macroevolution: ES explains by microevolutionary processes, the EES by additional processes such as developmental bias and ecological inheritance. I have noted that developmental bias is not a new idea, and no evolutionary biologist who studies macroevolution would deny it. The role of ecological inheritance in macroevolution is speculative and unnecessary until shown otherwise.”
That’s fine, but I wonder still what progress has been made in the field of macroevolution, overall, that corresponds to one of the EES concerns. The fact that there is such a field still, is evidence that there is still a valid concern here, and a mention of what the macroevolutionists are doing would be helpful, instead of just a rejection of a proposal by the EES people here.
“Overall, I have seen little evidential support for challenges to the basic tenets of the ES.”
So here finally, we have a direct evaluation of the challenges made by the EES people, and I must say I don’t see how the preceding discussion here gives any reason to reject their challenges.
“John Maynard Smith [[152](javascript:], one of the most broad-minded of great evolutionary biologists, wrote, ‘It is in the nature of science that once a position becomes orthodox it should be subjected to criticism…It does not follow that because a position is orthodox, it is wrong’.”
Of course, that doesn’t make it right, either. Nor does this actually address whether EES concerns are valid, either.