So my review did what it was supposed to do. Has the review you cited (without reading) been cited by any empiricists who did anything? By Big Thinkers who thought of anything to do?
We’re not talking about a book here, and I sincerely doubt that Futuyma has shared a list of books that he has read with you. Has Futuyma cited this review in his work? Have any of the Big Dogs in the field?
And many, many papers are published in lower-tier journals that have zero impact on any big picture.
My pointing out that calling peptidyl transferase, the ribozyme at the center of protein synthesis, a protein doesn’t affect an overall argument against the RNA World hypothesis is neither little nor nit-picking nor merely “technical” (a word choice that appears to be intelligently designed to avoid using “empirical”). That fact is the strongest evidence supporting the hypothesis. Concealing it speaks volumes.
That would not be the sort of article that should be inspired by the review you cited–that is, if it is worth reading. Surely it inspired you to think of ways to empirically test “big picture” evolutionary theory? The fact that it hasn’t (it can’t) is what tells you that EES is a meaningless exercise in rebranding.
Are you sure? I suspect that when they say that Behe and Denton are creationists and reject evolution they are using both terms in a different sense. Who’s to say whether one sense is superior to another? But at least you must understand what they’re trying to say rather than a version you make up. Now it happens that I use the word “creationist” generally in the same way you appear to. But I realize that there are other valid usages. If however @Faizal_Ali claims that Behe and Denton are creationists, period, no other meanings possible, then he’s wrong. But does he really say that?
Perhaps. But are they wrong?
I wouldn’t say that I’m an evolutionary theorist. I have some acquaintance with evolutionary theory, though I try to avoid population genetics as much as possible. I agree with @dsterncardinale on this point, though: my reaction to the EES is about what his is. There are a few interesting bits (niche construction probably has real applications) but there’s a lot of nonsense in it too.
You understand that you have just confessed to trolling?
Yes. You have no qualifications, training or expertise to make that assessment. Moreover, you are disdainful of the reading that would be required for you to achieve that knowledge.
I am agnostic regarding what level of expertise, if any, they have regarding this subject. But I’m not the one heralding them as great experts, so I have no claims I need to substantiate. Unlike you.
I will say, however, the fact that they take the EES seriously is reason enough to doubt their credibility.
Yes. From direct discussion with people in the field, and the degree to which EES is ignored in the evolutionary literature and scholarly discussion, except to the extenet that it is dismissed as irrelevant.
In case the Futuyma article I cited above is too heavy for some to read in its entirety, I will simply quote its conclusion (with my added emphasis):
Laland et al . [14] add that in the EES, evolution is ‘redefined as a transgenerational change in the distribution of heritable traits of a population’. That sounds equivalent to one traditional definition of evolution as change in gene frequencies, except that the EES redefinition would include non-genetic inheritance. Definitions are conventions, so does the definition of evolution matter? Perhaps, the philosophers of science Evelyn Fox Keller and Elizabeth Lloyd [148, pp. 2–3] noted that words ‘help to hold worldviews together’ and that ‘the effort to “control and curtail the power of language” remains a significant feature of scientific activity. The very extent to which scientists…aim at a language of fixed and unambiguous meanings constitutes, in itself, one of the most distinctive features of their enterprise. And even though never quite realizable, this effort to control the vicissitudes of language, like the commitment to objectivity, reaps distinctive cognitive benefits’. Definitions, then, should not be altered lightly.
Are advocates of an EES engaged in an ‘effort to control the vicissitudes of language’, and to what end? Some of the emphases in the proposed EES, such as niche construction, the supposed pioneering role of phenotypic plasticity in adaptation, and quasi-Lamarckian interpretations of epigenetic inheritance, are reminiscent of the rise of neo-Lamarckism in the early twentieth century, during the ‘eclipse of Darwinism’. Bowler [149, p. 258] writes that ‘Lamarckism allows life itself to be seen as purposeful and creative. Living things are in charge of their own evolution: they choose their response to each environmental challenge and thus direct evolution by their own efforts. With or without any religious implications, this is certainly a more hopeful vision than that derived from Darwinism. Life becomes an active force in nature, no longer merely responding in a passive manner to environmental pressures’. Welch [28] hears echoes of this theme in current critiques of standard evolutionary theory. He quotes neurobiologist Steven Rose [150] to that effect ‘redefining evolution as “a change of gene frequency in a population” is a reductionism too far, depriving living organisms of playing any part in their own destiny’, and recalls that Gregory Bateson [151] found in Waddington’s genetic assimilation implications ‘for the battle between non-moral materialism and the more mystical view of the universe’. I do not think all advocates of an EES are impelled by emotional distaste for the utter lack of purpose and agency in evolution by natural selection, but it may be useful to ask if our views of evolutionary theory are affected by extrascientific values. As Welch [28] notes, ‘we do need to explain why ideas are so often hailed as important before they have done much scientific work’.
Some of the emphases in the proposed EES, especially non-genetic inheritance, may prove interesting, if developed both theoretically and empirically. Evolutionary developmental biology is an exciting field that can join a structuralist approach to the traditional emphasis on genetic variation — but it does not diminish the roles of genetic variation and selection. Modern versions of the Baldwin effect will need considerably more evidence before we can conclude that this kind of effect is important, and there are good reasons to doubt that it is. Overall, I have seen little evidential support for challenges to the basic tenets of the ES.
There have now been many essays on why a new, or supposedly new, viewpoint or approach is warranted. If advocates of an EES are to convince many biologists, they will need to provide empirical support. To remain vital, a field of science requires challengers who aim to topple traditional views; but if it is not to be knocked about and smashed by unruly children (I am thinking of current politics in my country), the science also needs traditionalists. John Maynard Smith [152], 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’.
We’re both interested outsiders when it comes to evolutionary theory. Neither of us has formal qualifications or training in the area. (And no, a standard biology course in “genetics and evolution” in your undergrad, pre-med years does not make you an expert on evolutionary theory. Nor does learning basic concepts of immunology in medical school.) Yet it’s quite evident to me from the authors you mention (and fail to mention) and the authors you dismiss (quite evidently without having read their writings, or with only a glancing acquaintance with their writings) that I’ve done more reading in evolutionary theory than you have. So you’re not in a position to judge my knowledge.
Anecdotal, then, and dependent on the particular people you’ve talked with – which, it’s quite obvious from your statements, is a group of people who are obsessively “gene-focused” and therefore the most likely to narrow-mindedly reject approaches to evolution which consider more than genes and population genetics.
Which you’re not qualified to estimate, because it’s not your field. I notice that you decline to produce the survey of the attitudes of biologists that would be necessary to verify your outsider’s conjecture.
And note that the Futuyma essay you cite provides articulate, fact-based objections to the EES. Not an “Ugh!” I was complaining not about criticisms of the EES, but about the “Ugh!” being substituted for rational argument. You jumped in, in knee-jerk fashion, to defend the “Ugh!” – doubtless because I was the one who was criticizing it. (If I ever responded to a claim with “Ugh!” and John Harshman here told me that “Ugh!” was not an argument, you wouldn’t have jumped in to defend me. The double standard is blatant. If you’re on the “right” side, “Ugh!” is a permissible argument, but if you’re on the wrong side, evidence and reason are demanded.)
@Eddie, do you have any comments on these quotes from Futuyma’s paper?
Evolutionary theory will continue to be extended, but there is no sign that it requires emendation.
The concept of niche construction emphasizes ways in which organisms actively modify their environment, such as burrowing by gophers and dam-building by beavers, but the broadest expression of the idea of niche construction is simply, as Lewontin [43, p. 280] wrote, that ‘organisms determine what is relevant’. …The proponents of niche construction [44] take this broad view, even if they stress examples in which species (especially of animals such as beavers) actively modify their environment—a theme that has also been developed by Dawkins [45].
Dawkins, Eddie!!!
I have been a naturalist since boyhood. I think I recognized niche construction even then, because Lewontin’s principle is blindingly obvious to any naturalist.
The related notion of ‘ecological inheritance’ can likewise be criticized because of its imprecision and excessive breadth.
Niche construction may prove useful if it prompts questions and generates research on familiar aspects of biology (as has research on phenomena such as stasis and sex ratios). So far, studies that identify themselves with niche construction have been mostly theoretical, and mostly addressed to cultural niche construction, especially by humans. But these themes had already been addressed long before the term ‘niche construction’ was introduced [52], and understudied phenomena are available to anyone who becomes familiar with enough biology (why do haploid chromosome numbers range from one to more than one hundred among insect species?); so associating a study with a term does not in itself show that the term or concept played a critical generative role. A great deal of research, on many topics as I have noted, has long used the concept of niche construction, without using the label.
It’s just rebranding.
Odling-Smee et al . [44, p. 2] proposed that niche construction ‘should be regarded, after natural selection, as a second major participant in evolution’, and indeed as a ‘core evolutionary process’. … I do not know what the criterion of a ‘core’ evolutionary process might be, but none of these seems to be as fundamental and comprehensive as mutation, genetic drift, gene flow and natural selection.
Ouch.
Professor Laland also suggests that the value of niche construction is that it provides a different point of view. Whether or not that will prove to be so will depend on whether or not it yields theoretical and empirical research that differs from what would otherwise be pursued [56]. What, exactly, as Gupta et al. [52] ask, has been neglected by standard evolutionary theory that niche construction theory proposes to supply? Will ‘niche construction’ be merely a label or ‘brand’ that advertises its advocates’ research, or will it be uniquely productive of insight and understanding? So far, no new, general theoretical principles that promise to guide novel empirical research have been articulated by proponents of niche construction.
Bolding mine. It appears to me that “ugh” is a very accurate distillation from an expert. Perhaps “phhht” would better capture the lack of substance in EES.
That appears to be his meaning. You were present for several of the remarks. But he can clarify if that is not his meaning. It certainly appeared to be Jonathan Burke’s meaning, when he said that you weren’t an evolutionist unless you accepted not only universal common descent but also accepted the current majority view regarding how evolution works, and when he many times directly or indirectly called Behe and Denton creationists.
A troll posts things with the deliberate intention of starting a fight. I posted the quotation with the genuine hope that people would actually comment on the statement, not for the sake of starting a fight. But I suspected that no one, or very few, would comment on the statement, and that virtually everyone would attack me either for just quoting a statement, or for my alleged motives. And I was right – that’s exactly what happened. I appear to be an acute psychologist, at least regarding the people here.
The discussion here is not about Hunter’s use of the statement. The discussion is about whether the statement, taken in itself, is true, false, or a bit of both. You refuse to participate in that discussion. Whether this is because you don’t know enough about contemporary evolutionary theory to evaluate the statement (a possibility, as evolutionary theory is not your field), or for some other reason, I cannot say.
We had the discussion about Futuyma’s reading already. I quoted a statement of Futuyma to the effect that he read lots of books on evolutionary theory, and that Wagner’s book was one of the best that he had ever read. I didn’t claim to know what other books Futuyma had read. But at the time we had the discussion, T. aquaticus admitted that he had not read Wagner’s book, and not a single person here chimed in to say that he had read it. Everyone here keeps praising Futuyma as a great authority on evolutionary biology, yet no one, it seems, respects his thinking enough to read a book on evolutionary theory which he declares to be one of the best he’s ever read. More generally, when “big picture” books are mentioned, it’s never the professional biologists here who raise them. And the general attitude here toward such works, even when they are written by world-class evolutionary biologists from Harvard or Princeton, etc., is one of disdain, as if they don’t have the slightest bit of importance for evolutionary thought. You’re probably the most representative of that tendency of anyone here.
Very good. So you now admit your assessment of these authors’ understanding of evolutionary theory was just you blowing hot air as usual. Glad we could clear that up.
Okay, you want an actual argument? Here you go: EES largely (not exclusively, but largely) comes from people outside of the field of evolutionary biology, and often from philosophy, who tell us (evolutionary biologists) that we need to be considering this long list of things that are already part of evolutionary theory. The EES folks act as though the Modern Synthesis is representative of evolutionary theory in the year of our lord 2021, and like…cmon. Take the time to learn the state of the field you’re critiquing, please. Stuff like evo-devo, epigenetics, plasticity, etc…that’s all already part of the field. How do I know? Bc I teach it to undergrads every year. And if I’m teaching it to undergrads, you can be sure it’s well trod.
And that’s not even getting into the woo-y “third way” stuff like “cellular intelligence”.
Be that as it may, he obviously is another evolutionary biologist who falls into the “EES, ugh!” camp, along with several others in this very discussion.
So that so far leaves only Drs. Whosit and Whatshisname, or whatever the identity of the people who wrote the article you thought we should all read (but haven’t read yourself), on the “EES, hooray!” side.
The only thing we’ve cleared up is that neither you nor anyone else here intends to comment directly on the statement on the table. And that’s fine. After the first two responses above, which were on point, all the rest of this discussion has been the usual pile-on thuggery. I except Michael Okoko’s comments, which were fair-minded attempts to keep the discussion non-personal and on the passage quoted. Time for a moderator to pull the plug on yet another useless exercise in head-butting.
You need to pay attention to the responses. There has been much discussion regarding the thesis of the article, from active professionals in the field. That discussion, of course, did not go the way you wanted it to, so your response is to pick up your toys and go home crying. Too bad, there was actually an opportunity here for you to learn something.