Who’s Skeptical of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?

Is anyone here skeptical of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) in biology/biological sciences? If so, why? If not, why not?

Background: A couple of days ago I interviewed one of the participants in the Royal Society’s recent ‘New Trends’ meeting (audios now available), who is obviously pro-EES ,as part of a nearly completed research project from the past couple of years.

My interviewee gave the (ahem) ‘brilliant’ answer of a stone when asked to speak about ‘things that don’t evolve’ (one of those interviewer places where it’s really hard to mask a delighted smile with neutrality!) after claiming not to understand the question: “What are the limits of evolution as a scientific theory?” (we had already been discussing its ‘possibilities’ and I explained earlier that I would ask both about the possibilities and the limits of evolutionary theories). Undergrad students around the world chuckle when they hear the Rock answer (as if geological evolution doesn’t exist in the minds of biologists)!

It’s just a ‘play of scales,’ after all, that slips us into the ‘evolution of everything,’ don’t forget 😉

157 thoughts on “Who’s Skeptical of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis?

  1. phoodoo: Sure.Like maybe a nice cornea can fixate, then later you can get a fluid filled sack and a pupil to lay it on top of.

    That would be useful for the optic nerve just laying around, waiting for something to do, to attach to.

    This “ladder of evolution” view strikes me as blinkered. In that view, yes, you evolve one (useless in isolation) feature, then wait for the next, until at the top of the ladder you have thousands of individually useless features working in harmony to produce an eye. And if this is your view, no wonder you find it preposterous. It IS preposterous.

    The usual response to this is to provide a broad survey of mechanisms by which organisms across the biosphere use light to gather information. And we see everything from wonderfully complex eyes of various kinds at one extreme, across to vaguely light-sensitive tissue spots at the other. The AHA! epiphany is we NEVER find a partially-completed eye, and very rarely find any feature serving no useful function at all. Instead, we find eyes of all kinds in a perpetual (but very slow motion) state of flux, with some becoming more acute and others less. But all of these are complete organs at all times and in all phases.

  2. Flint,

    Right. So why in the world would anyone ever propose that the alleles don’t have to arise in the proper order? You are just confirming that they must and do.

  3. Flint: And if this is your view, no wonder you find it preposterous. It IS preposterous.

    They don’t understand what they are criticising. Optic nerves lying around waiting to be used sounds more like what I would expect from design not evolution.

  4. DNA_Jock: No, it wouldn’t.
    A basic understand of the theory of evolution (yes, phoodoo, it exists) would help you avoid such glaring mistakes.

    Please link to this alleged ToE- make sure it is a scientific version

  5. DNA_Jock:
    colewd,

    Well, your estimate for how long a mutation would take to fix in a primate population is waaay too short, but thanks to your parallel / serial fail, your estimate for the number of fixed alleles is waaay too small. I would estimate that there have been 500 mutations fixed since the split between the US and the UK. But there is no way that I am an “evo pro”: decades ago, I used to be a molecular biologist; I have only a passing understanding of population genetics.
    Hint: if the human population were not growing, then we would expect roughly 100 neutral alleles to fix every generation.
    [Cue more spittle-infested incredulity from phoodoo]

    That is untestable. Given the size of the human population we would never expect to see a neutral mutation become fixed.

  6. Frankie: Please link to this alleged ToE- make sure it is a scientific version

    “What evolution is” by E. Mayr is a good start, Frankie.
    I suspect you will want to discuss chapter 10…

  7. Frankie: That is untestable. Given the size of the human population we would never expect to see a neutral mutation become fixed.

    No Frankie, it is perfectly testable. Perhaps you could persuade the ID researchers to put all that funding to good use. But I do love it when you are inadvertently correct:
    “Given the size of the human population we would never expect to see a neutral mutation become fixed.” Yes, because looking to find it happen would be expensive, not because it isn’t happening.

  8. DNA_Jock: “What evolution is” by E. Mayr is a good start, Frankie.
    I suspect you will want to discuss chapter 10…

    I read it- there isn’t anything in it that says how to test the claim that vision systems evolved via natural selection and drift. I own the book and will have a look at chapter 10 but I am sure that you are mistaken

  9. DNA_Jock: No Frankie, it is perfectly testable. Perhaps you could persuade the ID researchers to put all that funding to good use. But I do love it when you are inadvertently correct:
    “Given the size of the human population we would never expect to see a neutral mutation become fixed.” Yes, because looking to find it happen would be expensive, not because it isn’t happening.

    Strange, you forgot to say how it is testable

  10. Frankie: Strange, you forgot to say how it is testable

    Test 1: do genome sequencing on two generations of humans.

    Test 2: do sufficient sequencing of lineages to demonstrate that the steady state assumption applies.

    Test 2 is cheaper, but requires some understanding of math. <ggg>
    so you should probably encourage the DI to stick with Test 1. Also, Test 2 may have already been done…

    Frankie: I read [What Evolution Is] – there isn’t anything in it that says how to test the claim that vision systems evolved via natural selection and drift. I own the book and will have a look at chapter 10 but I am sure that you are mistaken

    LOL. I draw your attention to Figure 10.2
    You probably should have looked at the book before picking that example…
    😉

  11. Frankie: I own the book and will have a look at chapter 10 but I am sure that you are mistaken

    I bet you own lots of books, yes, but how many have you actually read? Mung has seventeen books by a single author you know! Do you happen to have the same seventeen books Frankie?

  12. DNA_Jock: Test 1: do genome sequencing on two generations of humans.

    Test 2: do sufficient sequencing of lineages to demonstrate that the steady state assumption applies.

    Test 2 is cheaper, but requires some understanding of math. <ggg>
    so you should probably encourage the DI to stick with Test 1. Also, Test 2 may have already been done…

    LOL. I draw your attention to Figure 10.2
    You probably should have looked at the book before picking that example…

    Tests that show humans are related to humans doesn’t mean the same tests can be used to tell if two very different species are related. The DNA test that says I am related to my father would show neither of us is related to chimps. I cannot say about you and your family.

    Figure 10.2 is of various vision systems of various mollusks. It doesn’t say how natural selection produced any one of them. The only gene he talks about is PAX6 which is just a switch/ control gene. And that brings up more difficulty- how did natural selection- or any mechanism other than intentional design- produce regulatory networks and switches?

    If Mayr was promoting Lamarkian evolution figure 10.2 would help. But a modern theory of evolution needs to pack it all down at the genetic level.

  13. Frankie: Tests that show humans are related to humans doesn’t mean the same tests can be used to tell if two very different species are related.

    True that a human paternity test does not necessarily reveal anything about your relationship to bonobos.

    The DNA test that says I am related to my father would show neither of us is related to chimps.

    Wrong. As noted above, it would (probably) reveal nothing about your relationship to bonobos. Can you see the difference? Either your logic or your use of English is sadly lacking here.

    I cannot say about you and your family.

    Obviously. But if the test looked at olfactory receptor genes, the relationship would be quite clear.
    But none of that has anything to do with the topic of our conversation, which was the rate at which neutral mutations fix in a primate population. Perhaps you did not understand Test 1 or Test 2.

    Figure 10.2 is of various vision systems of various mollusks. It doesn’t say how natural selection produced any one of them. The only gene he talks about is PAX6 which is just a switch/ control gene. And that brings up more difficulty- how did natural selection- or any mechanism other than intentional design- produce regulatory networks and switches?

    You might want to (?re-?)read the rest of Chapter 10. Hope springs eternal…

    If Mayr was promoting Lamarkian evolution figure 10.2 would help. But a modern theory of evolution needs to pack it all down at the genetic level.

    Actually, no. Lamarkian evolution would require that each of those molluscs be able to transition to the “next” one on “the ladder of life”. From a Darwinian perspective, these molluscs are merely illustrations of what potential transitional forms might look like. If you believe the Figure supports a Lamarkian view, then it must also support a Darwinian view.

  14. DNA_Jock,

    But none of that has anything to do with the topic of our conversation, which was the rate at which neutral mutations fix in a primate population.

    We don’t know that rate.

    There isn’t anything in chapter ten that amounts to a scientific test of the concept that vision systems evolved by means of natural selection. Your bluff is called

  15. Frankie:

    But none of that has anything to do with the topic of our conversation, which was the rate at which neutral mutations fix in a primate population.

    We don’t know that rate.

    Yes, we do. It’s ~ 100 per generation. But it does involve some math. 😮

    There isn’t anything in chapter ten that amounts to a scientific test of the concept that vision systems evolved by means of natural selection. Your bluff is called

    And your repeated moving of the goal posts is noted. The book contains, in easily digestible form, the Theory of Evolution. That was your request.
    The chapter in question contains a parsimonious explanation (how on earth could it contain a “test” — it’s a book!) of the evolution of visual systems via RM+NS. If you consider the explanation inadequate, then the burden is upon you to show exactly how it is inadequate.

  16. DNA_Jock: Yes, we do. It’s ~ 100 per generation. But it does involve some math

    That assumes chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    And again- a scientific theory needs top make testable claims. There aren’t any scientifically testable claims in that book. It doesn’t even reference a scientific theory of evolution.

    And no, calling on numerous just-so mutations to produce a vision system is not the most parsimonious explanation. It can’t even be tested.

  17. Frankie: That assumes chimps and humans share a common ancestor.

    You’re not persuaded that two species, that share quite a few morphological similarities, that share over 98% of their genetic material, look suspiciously as if they might be related?

  18. Alan Fox: You’re not persuaded that two species, that share quite a few morphological similarities, that share over 98% of their genetic material, look suspiciously as if they might be related?

    Common design- you don’t have anything that explains the differences observed- from the placement of the spine entering the cranium to the upright motion we use.

  19. Alan Fox: You’re not persuaded that two species, that share quite a few morphological similarities, that share over 98% of their genetic material, look suspiciously as if they might be related?

    I can’t even look at two members of the same species and tell that they are related. Can you?

  20. Frankie,

    Common design explains the olfactory receptor genes? Really? Or are they, perhaps, Satan’s work, put there to make us doubt God’s wondrous plan?

  21. Frankie,

    “Common” isn’t a necessary entailment of “Design”. in fact, our vast experience with design shows us it is the exception.

    FrankenJoe just needs to co-opt that worky-thingy, evolution.

  22. DNA_Jock:
    Frankie,

    Common design explains the olfactory receptor genes? Really? Or are they, perhaps, Satan’s work, put there to make us doubt God’s wondrous plan?

    Well only intelligent design can explain olfactory receptors and a common design explains the similarities between species. The differences are explained by different requirements per each population.

  23. Frankie,

    making things up again? Common is not a necessary entailment of design. I refer you to ‘Newton’s for laws’ you’re so excited about – that you just violated.

  24. Richie, Common descent is not an entailment of a descent with modification. It isn’t an entailment of blind watchmaker evolution.

    Common design is an entailment of Linnaean taxonomy and his archetypes. It is a specific form of Intelligent Design. From observing the Intelligent Design we have determined it contains a common design with respect to the architecture of living organisms.

    Common design doesn’t add any extras entities, it is a refinement of the design inference. Its claims are more specific and within the design inference’s framework.

  25. Frankie: Well only intelligent design can explain olfactory receptors and a common design explains the similarities between species. The differences are explained by different requirements per each population.

    Saying “common design” has the identical explanatory power as saying “magic!” – absolutely zero. We see homology is two species – The Designer used common design! We see major differences in similar functions (the wings of bats and birds) – the Designer did it that way just because!

    “Common design” is the lamest excuse of the intellectual coward.

  26. Frankie: Well only intelligent design can explain olfactory receptors and a common design explains the similarities between species. The differences are explained by different requirements per each population.

    Curious. So the designer chose to give humans and chimps (and often gorillas) the identical non-functional olfactory receptor genes. Looks like the work of a Satanic Mechanic.
    But maybe the rain isn’t really to blame…

  27. Haha. Arrival of the Fittest.

    …reveals the astonishing hidden structure of evolution, long overlooked by biologists…

    Probably missing from their theories then. So Wagner give us yet another evolutionary theory.

    …Wagner presents a compelling, authoritative, and up-to-date case for bottom-up intelligence in biological evolution …

    Intelligent evolution. Got to be yet another evolutionary theory.

    And the number mounts.

  28. DNA_Jock,

    Natural selection doesn’t explain the keeping of non-functional olfactory genes- neither does drift. Heck they can’t explain the existence of olfactory genes.

    Non-functional today means they may have been active before and became unnecessary and perhaps for a future use. Ask NASA about redundancies.

  29. Mung,

    Mung End of Year Report Card

    Evolution gripes: B+
    Moderation moans: A-
    Making positive case for ID: F

  30. DNA_Jock: Curious. So the designer chose to give humans and chimps (and often gorillas) the identical non-functional olfactory receptor genes. Looks like the work of a Satanic Mechanic.
    But maybe the rain isn’t really to blame…

    He also gave us a broken GULO gene for producing vitamin C. Just like he gave cetaceans and sirenians the unexpressed Tbx4 genes for hind limbs. But the worst of all is he gave chimps and gorillas a baculum while the humans don’t. So much for wanting us to the special species.

  31. Looks like the work of a Satanic Mechanic.

    Like those awful #ifdef statements in C code that causes swaths of code to be ignored if you’re not running on windows.

  32. Alan Fox: I’m saying language evolved because it still evolves.

    So you believe it [language] is heritable and has allele frequencies that change due to the environment.

  33. Richardthughes:

    It was fine when we got it. Genetic entropy / teh_fall, etc.

    I had a YEC on another board tell me the reason why whales have unexpressed genes for hind limbs is they degraded after the Fall. I asked him what did Adam and Eve do when they saw the four legged blue whale tromping around the Garden of Eden. After that he got strangely quiet. 🙂

  34. Mung: So you believe it [language] is heritable and has allele frequencies that change due to the environment.

    Do the other creationists you hang around with still use these childish equivocation tactics you seem to favor?

  35. Adapa,

    Perhaps Adam had a baculum originally, but lost it after the Apple Incident. That would provide a poignant etymology for the “Fall”…

  36. I was a remedial math teacher for a long time. It’s a sad truth that whatever the subject, there will be a small number of people who just lack the necessary firepower. Unlike the classroom though, on the internet they’ll show up every day to aggressively prove to you that they still haven’t gotten it.

  37. Alan Fox: You’re not persuaded that two species, that share quite a few morphological similarities, that share over 98% of their genetic material, look suspiciously as if they might be related?

    Its not evidence of being related but only evidence of likeness.
    Its a further line of reason AS TO WHY.
    The likeness is not evidence of WHY. Its not evidence of common descent.
    A creator could do it this way too for special reasons.
    Its not persuasive of CD between apes/people on looks. in fact the intelligence is more persuasive of not being related at all to apes or sebras or anything. Instead being related to a creator.
    A line of reasoning.

  38. Saying “common design” has the identical explanatory power as saying “magic!” – absolutely zero.

    That reeks of desperation, ignorance and intellectual cowardice. Common design is actually observed and experienced. It is so engrained in our culture we have methods of detecting when it is done illegally and also engineering specs to ensure it is done correctly.

    Also it is an entailment of Linnaean taxonomy. Whoopsie

  39. Mung: So you believe it [language] is heritable and has allele frequencies that change due to the environment.

    I believe the propensity for language in humans has evolved biologically. Modifications to sound production organs (voice box, hyoid bone, breathing control, the necessary dedicated parts of the brain that process speech and hearing, auditory apparatus) are the result of variation and selection.

    And the investment in language capability would not have happened without there being benefits in the ability for complex communication by speech. So language(s) must have evolved memetically in parallel. No I don’t think people are genetically disposed to a particular language. They are genetically disposed to learn any language very rapidly and easily as a child.

  40. Alan Fox: Modifications to sound production organs (voice box, hyoid bone, breathing control, the necessary dedicated parts of the brain that process speech and hearing, auditory apparatus) are the result of variation and selection.

    Your opinion isn’t science and all you have is your opinion. Please tell us how to test your opinion to see if it holds water.

    The point remains languages are designed by humans.

  41. Alan Fox: I believe the propensity for language in humans has evolved biologically. Modifications to sound production organs (voice box, hyoid bone, breathing control, the necessary dedicated parts of the brain that process speech and hearing, auditory apparatus) are the result of variation and selection.

    And the investment in language capability would not have happened without there being benefits in the ability for complex communication by speech. So language(s) must have evolved memetically in parallel. No I don’t think people are genetically disposed to a particular language. They are genetically disposed to learn any language very rapidly and easily as a child.

    If you’re interested in the evolution of language, Derek Bickerton’s More Than Nature Needs is pretty good. Bickerton is a linguist in the Chomskyian tradition, and he spends a lot of time recounting the history of universal grammar and defending his own theory of language in terms of how it resolves questions in the Chomskyian tradition. It’s very light on the neuroscience and there’s no genetics. But he does have some interesting insights into the likely ecological function of proto-language and how selective forces could have driven the transition from proto-language to language.

  42. OMagain: Name them.

    French, Spanish, Russian, English, Japanese, Creole, …There are many.

    Probably best for you to see if you can get one down first.

  43. OMagain: Name them.

    Yes, who designed the gradual change in spelling ang vocabularly from Chaucer to the New York Times Stylebook? Who designed Valley Speak? Who designs regional accents? Who decides whether you say soda or pop?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.