Buried near the end of the Guardian article is the sentence "As with so many of the arguments that divide evolutionary biologists today, this comes down to a matter of emphasis. " Thatâs a far better summary of the situation than the headlines, and than what many of the protagonists claim. Perry Marshall titled his book claiming that EES constitutes Evolution 2.0. Personally, I think that the EES is more like Evolution 1.376b, but itâs pretty much a matter of emphasis. Yes, there are aspects to evolution that have been historically either neglected or unknown (in the case of some molecular discoveries). But the overall picture has not actually changed. Mutations, recombination, sexual reproduction, etc. create new information in the form of a new set of genetic directions. Natural selection and random factors (i.e., probabilistic or humanly unpredictable events such as genetic drift, asteroid impacts, whether a particular individual happens to not find a mateâŚ) determine if that new information goes on into the next generation. What is the relative role of these different factors? That probably varies drastically from situation to situation.
Misuse of such headlines to attempt to argue against evolution is probably a major reason why many are suspicious of the EES-type rhetoric. As the article alludes to, practically everyone wants to claim that their area is particularly important. Part of that is confirmation bias - if you study something, you are both looking at settings where it is likely to be prominent and noticing it a lot, besides the âmy field deserves attention, recognition, and fundingâ aspect.