10 ways the EES is different than the MS


Here are 10 ways the extended evolutionary synthesis (EES) is different than the modern synthesis (MS):

  1. The EES emphasizes the role of development in evolution. The MS focuses on genes as the primary unit of evolution, while the EES argues that development is also a major driver of evolutionary change. This is because development determines how genes are expressed, and it can also create new variation through processes like phenotypic plasticity.

  2. The EES recognizes the importance of evolvability. Evolvability is the ability of a population to produce new variation that can be selected for. The MS largely ignored evolvability, but the EES argues that it is essential for understanding how evolution works.

  3. The EES takes a more holistic view of evolution. The MS focuses on individual genes and populations, while the EES considers the entire organism, its environment, and its interactions with other organisms. This more holistic approach is necessary to understand the complex processes that drive evolution.

  4. The EES acknowledges the role of non-genetic inheritance. The MS assumes that inheritance is only through DNA, but the EES recognizes that other forms of inheritance, such as epigenetics and maternal effects, can also play a role in evolution.

  5. The EES emphasizes the importance of niche construction. Niche construction is the process by which organisms modify their environment in ways that affect their own evolution. The MS largely ignored niche construction, but the EES argues that it is a major driver of evolutionary change.

  6. The EES includes a wider range of phenomena. The MS focuses on adaptation, but the EES also considers other phenomena, such as speciation, extinction, and the evolution of complexity.

  7. The EES is more open to new ideas. The MS was developed in the 1940s and 1950s, and it has been slow to change since then. The EES is more open to new ideas, and it is constantly evolving as new evidence is gathered.

  8. The EES is more interdisciplinary. The MS is largely focused on population genetics, but the EES draws on insights from a wide range of disciplines, including developmental biology, ecology, and psychology.

  9. The EES is more applicable to real-world problems. The MS is often criticized for being too theoretical, but the EES is more focused on real-world problems, such as climate change and the evolution of antibiotic resistance.

  10. The EES is more inclusive. The MS was developed by a largely white, male, Western scientific establishment, but the EES is more inclusive of different perspectives and experiences.

It is important to note that the EES has not completely replaced the MS but time is on it's side. The EES provides a more comprehensive and up-to-date perspective.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Beyond the Sequence: The Epigenetic "Fingers" That Play the DNA Keyboard

Image
Imagine the keyboard itself is not a standard piano keyboard, but a modular synthesizer, capable of producing an almost infinite array of sounds. The DNA sequence, then, represents the fundamental building blocks of this synthesizer, the raw materials from which all sounds are generated. Epigenetics, our "fingers," manipulates these building blocks, adjusting parameters like volume, timbre, and rhythm, transforming the raw potential of the DNA sequence into a symphony of cellular functions. We can further refine the "fingers" analogy. Consider that each finger represents a distinct epigenetic mechanism: DNA methylation, histone modifications, and non-coding RNA.  DNA methylation, for instance, might be the "index finger," capable of precisely silencing specific genes, like muting individual keys on the synthesizer. Histone modifications, the "middle finger," could represent the ability to adjust the accessibility of the DN...
Read more

Why are Christian philosophers running towards Darwin while biologists are "running" away?

Image
As nature reveals the strength of epigenetics and the weakness of Neo-Darwinism, biologists are “running” away from the long-standing accepted theory. In The Federalist , April 2019, Benjamin Dierker reviews “Why one-third of biologists now question Darwinism”: "Current estimates are that approximately one-third of professional academic biologists who do not believe in intelligent design find Darwin’s Theory inadequate to describe all of the complexity in biology.” Dierker continues, “The important note is that these are not ideologues or religious zealots, nor do they propose a god or biblical solution.  Rather, they find problems in the lack of explanatory power of Darwin’s theory in light of modern understanding of mutation, variation, DNA sequencing and more. These expressions of doubt do not reject naturalism or evolution per se, but the rigor of the Neo-Darwinian model for explaining the development of life.” For 40 years, scientists calculated natural se...
Read more

Rewriting the Rules: Epigenomic Mutation Bias Challenges Randomness in Evolution

Image
This research challenges the long-held dogma that mutations occur randomly, irrespective of their consequences, by demonstrating a clear, epigenome-mediated mutation bias in Arabidopsis thaliana . The study meticulously unveils how mutation rates are not uniform across the genome but are significantly reduced in functionally constrained regions, particularly within gene bodies and essential genes. This discovery fundamentally alters our understanding of evolutionary processes, suggesting that mutation is not a purely directionless force. "Mutation bias reflects natural selection in Arabidopsis thaliana" This opening statement encapsulates the core finding: mutation rates are not random but reflect epigenetic pressures. The authors demonstrate that mutations are less frequent in crucial genomic regions, directly contradicting the prevailing theory of random mutation. This observation suggests an active mechanism that minimizes deleterious mutations in essentia...
Read more