Hi;
I think that just about everybody has now denied and distanced themselves from the old, 'genetic determinism' model, but because the selectionist approach to evolution, in the form of Fisher, Haldane, and Wright's RM+NS model, does not hold water if their random genetic mutations are not solely responsible for, and do not entirely compel, phenotypic traits and their variations, it is still respected in certain quarters. My question is, how can random genetic mutations be the cause of evolution if genes are not the determining cause of traits? If, as modern genomic studies show, 'genes' do not 'cause' traits, (that is, do not compel and determine traits), but only enable and facilitate their development, then how can random genetic mutation be said to be the responsible mechanism for the origins of biological novelty? To enable and to facilitate is not the same as to cause.
Mechanisms are compelling causes, not the conditions that enable them to operate. A forest fire is not caused by dry timber, although that does enable one; only a flame from a fire started by a match or a lightning bolt is the direct, immediate and compelling efficient cause. If 'genes' are only the 'dry timber' wrt evolution and development, then what is the 'flame'?
™ Version 4.2