(2018-01-20, 03:07 PM)Chris Wrote: Your point was that you didn't refer to something?
Yes. You were counteracting a point that I never made in the first place. I made some other point, which was actually confirmed by Laland's article.
EES evolutionary biologists aren't overly controversial because the ideas they refer to - epigenetics, evo-devo, developmental bias, etc. are overly controversial (which Laland confirmed). They're overly controversial because they disagree over whether the current characterization of evolutionary theory adequately captures those ideas or whether it needs a broader characterization.
My response to Kamarling, referred to the former - whether it would be regarded as overly controversial for a biologist to bring up newer ideas (e.g. epigenetics, evo-devo, etc.), since that is what we had been talking about (newer ideas or criticisms as to mechanisms wrt abiogenesis). Your choice of Laland quote referred to the latter - attacks on whether evolutionary theory needs a broader characterization.
Linda