extended evolutionary synthesis (EES)

Some questions a creationist might ask.Is EES divorcing itself from formal reductionism?Is there anything new under the sun here? How does EES affect basic biochemical research defining evolution, is comparative genomics improved? Remember evolution is also Paleontology, how do you take a whole biome approach in Paleontology? I suppose a updated version of ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny is in order because Haeckel’s fabrication is a bit worn out.Noting that observable changes in genotype are beyond empirical observation, genotype changes can be rejected out of hand. So that leaves phenotype variance as related to the whole biome approach Wait a minute that would be adaptation by natural selection.

quote:

---

I see this "whole biome approach" taking shape and becoming more and more integrated into our study of organism and their evolution. So an extended synthesis should simply be an attempt to help focus our efforts in evolutionary biology into a more inclusive, extensive understanding of how and why organisms change. I think the WHY issue is at the heart of the need for an EES. Natural selection working on random mutations, while it may be accurate enough, is simply too basic and unsatisfying. I think we can provide better answers for WHY organisms evolve.

---

I think if should be at the heart of EES. Just my opinion.

Well first of all, there is not currently an EES. What we are discussing is should there BE an EES.So, should an EES divorce itself from reductionism? Well, I would say yes and no. Whenever you are trying to understand a complex system, obviously you will need to break it down into its constituent parts. But on the other hand, the whole is often greater than the sum of its parts. However, I would also add that your characterization that the current synthesis is married to the concept of reductionism is not really valid. Perhaps you could clarify. That's a good question. Those that suggest that there is no need for an EES would say that it would not affect biochemical research, which is why there is no need for it. My thought is that we are already approaching biochemical research from a non-genecentric approach and an EES would be more about incorporating this into a more formal framework. It is worn out. I am tired of hearing creationists bring it up. What does that even mean? Observable changes are beyond empirical observation? Yeah, I don't get your point here. "If" what? If evolution occurs? That evolution does occur is a forgone conclusion. There is no "if." If humans evolved from apes, or if mammals evolved from reptile ancestors, or if birds evolved from theropod dinosaurs, is that what you are talking about? Certainly those questions will never be answered to the satisfaction of creationists, but our current knowledge suggests that the "if" question is already answered.HBD

Haeckel's ideas were never widely accepted, and his drawings were really not that far off from accurate. We can empirically determine when mutations occur and where.We have examples of a child's genome being compared to the parents' genomes. We have measurements of mutations caused by polymerases in PCR. There are tons of empirical measurements of mutagenesis.

quote:

---

We can empirically determine when mutations occur and where.
We have examples of a child's genome being compared to the parents' genomes. We have measurements of mutations caused by polymerases in PCR. There are tons of empirical measurements of mutagenesis.

---

My mistake I wrongly associated changes in genotype with a broader definition of evolution. Your description is more accurate.

quote:

---

What does that even mean? Observable changes are beyond empirical observation?

---

I do say that my statement is incorrect my apology.