Does biology need the theory that all life shares a common ancestor?

Faith & Science Conversation
333

Dredge,

Provine went kinda nuts as the years passed. At least, someone who knows him well told me that. He had no qualms about inviting YECs to his classrooms and running them through the grill. Quoting him marginalises you with “those people” who choose a certain type of sparring partner.

You are aware of the great proportion of Catholic thinkers, including both scientists and humanists, who’ve come to peace with an ‘old’ Earth, right Dredge?

If you cut away the outliers on both sides, you’ll find a much more solid and coherent middle.

One would have to guess that a Catholic was largely consuming Protestant evangelical literature for them to somehow have come to the extreme conclusion that God couldn’t (read: wasn’t _______ enough to) have created using evolutionary and developmental processes.

You know literally every single BioLogos writer believes in miracles (beyond nature-alone), right? ; )

In any case, hope you saw my late note to you above.

1 Like
334

Why?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:331, topic:35756”]
Kevin Laland would handle your ‘concerns’ rather well, anonymous blogger @T_aquaticus, as would Dennis Noble, I assume.
[/quote]

Until they do so it is nothing more than a fantasy.

This is the salesmanship that I was talking about before. The EES crowd has not brought anything important to the table and they try to overplay their hand. It is all show and no substance. Even in your own posts you can’t present anything scientific that would overturn the current paradigm.

1 Like
335

What is “Darwinism”, according to you?

1 Like
336

Only one reason; he’ll snatch at any straw which he thinks might somehow unravel all the evidence for evolution. You’ll note he treats the EES pretty much like other anti-evolution Fundamentalists, and like them he doesn’t really understand it.

You will find this is a recurring characteristic of his posts, which is why he will write pages playing irrelevant word games, while staying away from the actual science. Ask a direct question about the science (as I did), and he falls silent.

337

I think this is an overstatement. There are elements to the proposed EES that are real and important for biology and evolution. For those elements, the only real controversy is whether labelling them as part of a new synthesis is anything more than marketing; if they change the evolutionary paradigm, then the change has already happened (and most researchers didn’t notice).

Other proposed components strike me as being quite variable in their importance. My off-the-cuff take on some of them . . .

Evo-devo: a major, important research program that’s already well-accepted and flourishing. Maybe it should be better incorporated into straight evolutionary theory – but lots of subfields would benefit from more communication with other subfields. (And of no relevance to most organisms, of course.)

Facilitated variation: really an application of some evo-devo-related ideas, and a useful heuristic way of thinking about possible evolutionary trajectories.

Transgenerational epigenetic inheritance: real and unlikely to be of much evolutionary significance.

(Horizontal gene transfer, neutral theory: important extensions to the original synthesis, at least for subsets of organisms, but so well accepted and incorporated that they are not usually mentioned in EES discussions.)

Newman’s dynamical patterning stuff: intriguing possibility for early animal evolution, quite speculative and difficult to test.

Niche inheritance: makes me sleepy.

Epigenetic innovation: In the broad sense of phenotypic plasticity, real and important for facilitating evolution, but not very novel. In the narrow sense of an entire population changing phenotype because of environmental change, speculative and poorly supported.

I could easily be wrong about some of these ideas. That’s partly because none of them, even the ones I think are valid and important, have any discernible effect on the kind of studies I have worked on – and this despite the fact that quite of bit of my work has intersected with evolution in one way or another.

1 Like
338

Some of what you list has been a part of the standard theory for decades now, such as Evo-Devo, facilitated variation, HGT and neutral theory, and Newman’s patterning. Even with Evo-Devo, that has been a part of biology since the 1960’s with the discovery of the lac operon. As far as epigenetic variation, it is extremely limited and is only inherited by a few generations which makes it a non-player in long term evolutionary lineages or in explaining the differences between species. Even with epigenetics it all still boils down to the DNA sequence. Which bases get methylated under which conditions is controlled by DNA sequence. What the effects of methylation are is also controlled by DNA sequence. The current theory handles all of those things just fine without needing to abandon anything, or extending anything.

1 Like
339

Hence my comment about marketing.

340

I concur with glipsnort. There are many areas of work associated with EES that are interesting and certainly valid. These are not terribly controversial and are currently being studied as technology and modeling permits. Still, it’s a bit of a mixed bag. There are some good ideas and then there are some crank-like proposals (I’m looking at you, James Shapiro). Those individuals who promote EES do not hold to a single, monolithic opinion as to what it represents. Some believe it is a ‘revolutionary, paradigm busting, new approach that greatly departs from past theory’. Rather more think it’s useful to reframe views about various mechanisms and to try to approach research from a different or fresh angle. I’m more inclined to side with the latter over the former though I’m far from convinced about EES being a cohesive approach. To me, it’s a bit of a mishmash, but YMMV.

I am somewhat relived that the discussion is heated and vibrant. In science, that tends to be a healthy sign that ideas are being engaged and that something will likely fall out one way or the other. It would be helpful if participants had a broad understanding and historical appreciation of evolutionary theory. Often, scientists in a newer generation don’t quite know what’s gone before. Or, they come from other fields and are less familiar with the broader topic of evolutionary biology. For example, if one is primarily trained in developmental biology, they’ll have a lot of catching up to do in order to understand where things stand the context of evolutionary theories. Often, that ‘new thing’ you’ve discovered has already been considered. If you’re not familiar with the territory, you risk wasting effort like in the parable of blind men trying to understand an elephant.

Re: “Hype” – Related to salesmanship. I think EES is being badly and prematurely hyped. It is a means of gaining attention (and funding?) but excess hype muddies the actual issues. See, for example, how ‘epigenetics’ has been mangled and misappropriated in the popular press. It’s even been adopted by medical woo-meisters to promote highly questionable treatments. Currently, ‘epigenetics’ is taking the place of ‘quantum’ as a term that greatly misused and misunderstood in the public. Enthusiasm for, and public knowledge about the applicability of ‘EES’ is also outpacing the scientific debate. The history of science is littered with example of revolution-promising approaches that delivered far less than expected. So, I’m a bit less than sanguine about the EES being particularly novel. Most likely, evolutionary theory will continue to advance and someone will label it 'EES" after the fact.

2 Likes
341

Notice that the real scientists (those that do science for a living) here are only addressing EES. The so-called “Third Way” is so far into left field, I would categorize it as scientific “foul ground” – probably a few rows into the stands!

342

Hi Curtis,

“The so-called “Third Way” is so far into left field”

Now that you’ve broad brushed 50 scholars, why don’t you get a bit more specific about what they all have in common that counts as “so far into left field” to you: http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com/people

I’m not saying you’re necessarily wrong. E.g. I’d count as least 2 of them amongst the most fanatical of their genre. It’s just a broad-brush with no explanation.

The Third Way includes “real scientists” (what a loaded term that is, like “practicing Catholic”) that are working on what they call) EES. Granted that what EES actually is or is not may not be clear. But they are indeed working & it’s not like non-biologists are expected to clean up this “insider mess” for the biologists themselves who are clearly and undeniably arguing, disagreeing, not getting along, etc.

And no doubt it is also possible, Curtis Henderson, to argue that people have come through BioLogos who are “probably a few rows into the stands!” too, don’t you think? At least to acknowledge that possibility would be a sign of fairness & respect for justice.

343

Thanks for this post Argon, engaging with the topic rather than dismissing it, as a few posters here have done. This one sentence above caught me; perhaps could you explain what the “after the fact” refers to? Pigliucci has already used the term “extended evolutionary synthesis” (EES), which has been adopted by a significant number of people. If [sic] something is already being extended, then what is after that fact?

I agree with you regarding improved historical appreciation and the possibility that younger scientists are missing or mashing the historical meaning of the Modern Evolutionary Synthesis (MES). Are you distinguishing people using a theory, with many extensions, few or none, Argon, from the actual theory change itself, as if theory change can be studied objectively on its own?

Likewise, if there were to be any general consensus agreement amongst biologists that what is called MES, even with different names, even NEEDS to be extended, that would at least be a starting point. If there is a “no extension is even possible” attitude on display, of course, one realises they are not speaking with innovators in such a conversation.

344

You are correct on this count, I should not have lumped in so many people into a single characterization. I think it would still be fair to say that a large number of people associated with Third Way are either not understanding or not accurately representing well-established science. I haven’t read the works of every person represented, but I know that there are claims that current studies of evolution ignore important mechanisms such as horizontal gene transfer. Others view epigenetics as a Lamarckian mechanism for evolution. Others are very active in biosemiotics. Check here if you want to read more: Should there be a “Third Way” of evolution? I think not. – Why Evolution Is True

I admit my criticism was unduly harsh and probably unfair to some (or many?) individuals. Why would it be required that I criticize other forum-posters every time I offer a criticism of something else? Do you offer up unrelated criticisms out of “fairness and respect for justice” each time you criticize someone else’s position?

1 Like
346

What I mean by “after the fact” is that whatever additions are made or whatever becomes subsumed within the field of evolutionary biology in the future may be called ‘EES’ regardless of whether the factors currently proposed by today’s EES proponents actually play as important roles as they envision.

As others noted previously, most of the ideas cited by people trying to formulate a basis for EES have been percolating in the general community for some time already. Other ideas are also out there that are post-‘Modern Synthesis’, like neutral theory pioneered by those like Kimura, King and Jukes. We have been in a post-‘Modern Synthesis’ period for some time.

When we think of ‘evolutionary theory’, we have to remember that it’s not like the Grand Unified Theory of physics that could be rendered in one equation. The MES and what has since developed is actually an amalgam of both generalized and specific ‘rules’. These rules and models apply differently and to varying degrees depending on the specific situation. For example, neutral drift and adaptive selection both play roles in evolution. But which is more ‘important’? Well, that can perhaps be quantified in specific cases but as a general question applied to all of evolution, it makes little sense to ask. Also problematic is that both neutral and adaptive steps are likely required in most evolutionary pathways. It’s not a case of either/or. Sometimes I envision evolutionary theory like a ball of tangled, short strings. Pull one string and you’ll see it is wrapped around others. There is no ‘ballness’ in any single string. Currently there are those who point to 4-5 specific topics as comprising the core of EES. I see that as an artificial grouping, a subset of research areas previously identified (independently), and each already a subject of investigation.

4 Likes
347

@Dredge

This is a statement based in ignorance . Geology is the greatest engine … but most people don’t know about Geology’s conclusions.

348

Any claim that “geology is the greatest engine of atheism ever invented” is equally absurd as Provine’s, gbrooks9.

1 Like
349

What matters is real original research that is published in a peer reviewed journal. Science isn’t run by priests who make dogmatic pronouncements from an altar. “So-and-so scientists says this is true, so it must be true” is not how science works.[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:342, topic:35756”]
Granted that what EES actually is or is not may not be clear. But they are indeed working & it’s not like non-biologists are expected to clean up this “insider mess” for the biologists themselves who are clearly and undeniably arguing, disagreeing, not getting along, etc.
[/quote]

Scientists have never gotten along. We are quite a contentious bunch. With that said, there is no mess to clean up. What we have is a group of scientists who are making claims that aren’t back by actual science, and they are largely being ignored because of that.

2 Likes
350

Coming back to this, Argon, if I may, this really was a gem of a comment, if I understood what you meant.

whatever additions are made or whatever becomes subsumed within the field of evolutionary biology in the future may be called ‘EES’ regardless of whether the factors currently proposed by today’s EES proponents actually play as important roles as they envision.

Thus, theoretical additions to MES make sense enough to call it EES, even if certain factors may not be as influential post-MES as some people in the EES camp today think? EES people are really not putting down MES proponents, they are just saying MES needs updating & expansion (i.e. theoretical extension). Otherwise, are you saying that no matter how extended the EES becomes it must nevertheless still be “just a bigger MES” on a fundamental level, rather than possibly a theory significantly different? The base cannot change? Obviously we’re not just talking about age of the earth anymore.

On the EES I’m watching both/many sides as an outsider, one who cannot influence their argument from within, but who cannot avoid to notice that there is indeed an argument. Even if it is a discussion about what it is exactly that is being proposed to be “extended” in a new synthesis, several biologists I know think this is worthwhile in that it will help in recovering knowledge of what the MES was 50+ years ago and what remains of it now, etc. Indeed, it comes across as a basic study exercise in history and philosophy of biology for some people.

I like how you call neutral theory as “post-MES”, indicating a temporal post-date. The question is when “post-” turns eventually into something else that needs a new name; not as a date, but as a different theory or method that requires thus a different name. There are some who speak of alternative non-evolutionary types of change, while Universal Darwinism & Epic of Evolution still resonate for others.

351

That is true of every single theory in science. You don’t hear anything about “Extended Quantum Mechanics” or “Extended Thermodynamics” even as those theories are added onto. It is just QM and Thermodynamics.

1 Like
352

In this case, you are partly right and partly wrong (or just incomplete). Many sciences include “extensions” to theories (mathematics is easiest to witness) within their disciplinary domain. It is when a theory is over-extended, either within the domain or beyond it, that problems arise. Don’t you agree?

Making “added onto” a synonym for “extended” has its difficult features too, given the history and philosophy of science and other uses available at play. E.g. we know that QM is not just an “extension” of Classical Physics.

353

Can you find an example in physics or biology?[quote=“Al-Khalil, post:352, topic:35756”]
It is when a theory is over-extended, either within the domain or beyond it, that problems arise. Don’t you agree?
[/quote]

The only over extension that I see is on the part of the EES crowd where they are making grand claims about really minor mechanisms as it applies to the theory of evolution. Some of what they claim isn’t even anything new.