It seems I’m not the only one questioning the traditional and Modern Synthesis views of evolutionary theory. There’s an ongoing debate about the strengths and weaknesses of these ideas. This discussion has grown to include proposals for an 'Extended Evolutionary Synthesis. Below are some key arguments for and against this expanded view of evolution.
Note: If links to not work, then copy-paste them one by one into a search engine.
To fully understand the nature of reality, one must consider both the beauty of a sunset and its impact on the human brain.
To the best of my knowledge, random mutation and natural selection are still the core principles of evolutionary theory. However, new research suggests other factors also play a role in evolution, beyond just mutation and selection—this is the point I’m trying to make.
So no, then. Can you find evidence that epigenetic markers persist over evolutionary time?
I’m not going to click on that ridiculously long link. Sorry.
What are you talking about? Please explain in your own words, not something apparently written by a chatbot. I’m not going to discuss this with your chatbot.
Have you read any of your “Refereences”?
Keep in mind that you aren’t a scientist at all. A scientist is a person who does science, which you have not. Even if you read all the papers your chatbot cited, you wouldn’t be a scientist any more than the chatbot would. Fortunately, you don’t have to be a scientist to understand science, though it helps.
Then you should try harder. For starters, most selection (and the drift you refuse to acknowledge) acts on standing variation. New mutations are a mere drop in the bathtub of variation.
Why do you think that inbred populations are more likely to become extinct?
Why do you keep repeating this gross misrepresentation? Non-Darwinian neutral evolution is a huge part of modern evolutionary biology. This strategic omission, coupled with your focus on Darwin, are strong hints that you’ve been basing your position on IDcreationist propaganda.
Also, if your laundry list somehow argues against mainstream evolutionary biology, why aren’t any of your “Third Way” heroes doing empirical work in any of those fields? All of these data come from people who accept evolution. How do you reconcile that?
We’ve read Third Way blather. What would change our minds is Third Way empiricism. There isn’t any AFAIK.
So, we should read a 390-page book with no empirical advances, while you cite papers you haven’t read and have trouble getting through one that was recommended?
I didn’t say they were, but hypothesis testing does the heavy lifting.
But you obviously haven’t assessed any of the recent empirical progress in those fields. I note that you ignored my recommendation for reading about your first alleged issue. Why?
That you acknowledge that these criticisms are against the “traditional and Modern Synthesis views of evolutionary theory” is an admission that these are nothing but strawman arguments. They are only persuasive to people who are ignorant of the current state of evolutionary theory. That does not include the people with whom you are engaged in the present discussion, many of whom are professionals in the field . If you would give the ego trip a rest and try learn from them, this could be a productive learning experience for you. But only “if.”
In the article, I noticed there was no mention of epigenetic markers persisting over evolutionary time.
However, I think a more pertinent question might be whether epigenetics influences evolution at all.
I did a brief review of the literature, and it seems that the scientific consensus generally supports the idea that epigenetics does play a role in evolution. The ongoing debate, however, centers around the extent of this influence and the specific mechanisms involved.
From what I gathered, some researchers, particularly those studying plants, seem to argue that epigenetics has a notable impact on evolutionary processes.
Therefore, a more nuanced approach is needed to determine the extent to which epigenetics influences evolution.
No chatbot there. Does gravity need teleology to be explained? Why would cognition require it? even if it did influence evolution! Apparently, consciousnes is an emergent property. Does that require teleology to be explained? Can we not separate the intelligence from the design part?
Yep, all of them and I know that some-many are not up to snuff, but the point that I was trying to make is that there is some evidence out there related to cognition influencing evolution. The better ones were behing paywalls, so I did not include them.
No, I’m not basing any of this on ID or creationist propaganda.
These fields have been doing empirical research, and that’s what truly matters when it comes to validating whether or not they have an impact on evolution. Whether or not my “Third Way” “buddies” are involved in research is irrelevant—what matters is that their statements are grounded or not in empirical evidence.
Evolution is undeniably true, but the theory might yet again require an upgrade.
I read as much as I could, and from what I did read, it seemed to support my point that epigenetics—especially in plants—can influence evolution.
Given that you haven’t gone through any of the 390 pages, it’s difficult to assess whether the material is relevant or not to our discussion.
That said, I understand your point about asymmetry.
Agree on that point.
I’ve reviewed some the recent empirical evidence, and while progress is being made, I don’t share the optimism in these fields that an answer is near. If anything, the goal seems more distant than before, as we continue to uncover increasingly complex mechanisms at play on what feels like an almost regular basis.
Good question. I’d say one is a real, physical event, while the other is a mental representation of that event. Since science can’t directly access what it feels like to experience a sunset, it does what it does best: measuring its effects on the brain. But the question remains—can a brain scan really provide a complete picture of reality?
The current debate is not about supporting or opposing the Modern Synthesis, but rather whether it should be expanded or modified by incorporating new elements. I do not view my position as a strawman argument. My intent in raising this point was to highlight that I am not alone in grappling with the challenge of reconciling empirical data with established theory, not to misrepresent or oversimplify the issue.
While I may not have the same level of expertise as those I’m engaging with in this discussion, I wouldn’t consider my differing perspective to be ignorance. However, I do acknowledge that I have less knowledge than others in this area. And that my position can change based on this added knowledge.
I’ve learned a great deal since joining the forum, and much of that learning has come from engaging in discussions with you.
Well of course it does. Epigenetic changes form part of the organism’s environment, and thus may exert selection on various loci. But do they exert strong enough selection in a consistent direction over a long enough period and enough individuals to result in fixation of any alleles? That’s quite another matter.
Doesn’t follow. It may be that one side is right, for sufficient reasons, and another is wrong.
Again, that’s obvious, since cognition results in behavior, and behavior again forms part of an organism’s environment. (Incidentally, do the words “Baldwin effect” mean anything to you?) But I don’t think the influence is of the sort you’re imagining, which appears to be organisms consciously influencing their own evolution.
Presumably you mean that the effect in the brain is a real physical event. Whether there is anything more to mental events than the physical is an open question - but at present physicalism seems more likely true.
Even under physicalism it’s not at all clear that a brain scan would be enough to provide a complete picture of the mental state - even if we knew how to interpret it.
I repeat: The Modern Synthesis is irrelevant to current evolutionary theory. It was superseded decades ago.
The “Third Way” and “Extended Evolutionary Synthesis” are the equivalent of a group claiming to be experts in automotive engineering and arguing that the choke needs to be replaced.
Here’s an article by PZ Myers from 2014 summarizing how he understands the (already by then) current state of evolutionary theory. In particular, pay attention to the table he reproduces from Eugen Koonin. For some unfathomable reason, the Third Way people still act like none of this is already part of the theory.
Indeed you are not the only grappler. As I understand it such grappling is what scientists do all day. They generate or collect empirical data and determine how it fits or doesn’t fit with the existing understanding of the topic. That is why they are best qualified to determine whether the Third Way proponents are really adding anything new and useful. Based on the responses from scientists here, the answer is not yet.
Well you say that, but then why did you insinuate in your previous post that classic evolutionary thought has a problem(that it represents a “shift in evolutionary thinking”) with teleonomy, the mere appearance of purpose, when it clearly has not?
The Mormons believe in pre-existent souls in a sort of spiritual lobby, who are about to be born and face the struggle to discover the truth, become Mormon, and get in line for issuance of planets. Perhaps this question, prior to just now having been asked, existed in some sort of lobby full of questions yet unasked, and so “remained” in that sense.
Reading your post here I couldn’t help but connect with a lot of the thoughts and experiences you shared. The nature of existence, origin of life, consciousness, and curiosity about what comes after death… all of that is stuff I think about frequently and suspect that we may never uncover their mysteries. Where we may disagree is where you seem to express that you want to expand science beyond its current restrictions (please correct me if I’m wrong), which in my view would simply make it not science. It’s just a philosophical tool we use, and changing it would simply make it not a good tool. That’s not to say I think science is the only way to know things. After all, there’s a whole foundation of philosophy underpinning science that is not science. However there are reasons we use science for specific purposes and other methods for doing other things.
There’s plenty of space for beliefs in higher powers or an afterlife or an overarching purpose to existence, but I don’t see why we should try to use methods that aren’t applicable to determine these things, nor even why we feel the need to try to use those methods for them. There’s a lot of value in sitting with the mysteries and possibilities of our world, and I don’t think we should tarnish them by trying to get their square edges through a round hole.