Further to: New call for an Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (The main problem the extended evolutionary synthesis creates for Darwinism is that evolution happens in many different ways, not just their way):
From the paper:
By contrast, the EES regards the genome as a sub-system of the cell designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it. Organisms are not built from genetic ‘instructions’ alone, but rather self-assemble using a broad variety of
inter-dependent resources.
A reader writes to ask,
1. “designed by evolution”?
That means that design is so obvious that you can not get rid of it. But you can not represent “evolution” as an agent because “evolution” is not an agent, a force, a cause… Evolution is just “nothing”, the way we name the passing of time, but not the cause of the change.
2. “Designed by evolution to sense and respond to the signals that impinge on it” That is purely teleological, thank you.
3. “Self -assembly??”Ontogeny is not a process of assembly of parts. Aristotle called this process “epigenesis” 2.500 years ago. Kant explained that parts and the whole form being cause and effect to each other.
4. “…using a broad variety of inter-dependent resources”This interdependence sounds a little bit like “irreducible complexity””resources” has big teleological implications. The cell (or the organism that is being formed) “uses the resources” in order to…(Form is the final cause of the process)
Thanks to Jablonka, Müler et al. for reminding us how evident teleology and design are in biology.
Doubtless, the extended evolutionary synthesizers will be asked by others to explain.
Should be an interesting discussion.
Follow UD News at Twitter!