[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

This whole thread is one long explanation. The bigger picture is more important than the details.

OK, I've gone back over the thread and found some interesting posts. Primarily I think there is a disagreement or perhaps it's a misunderstanding on both parties in what are the differences between the EES and the SET, what the papers are saying and what I am saying. So I will clarify again what I am saying and claiming that the EES papers say

1) That the SET takes a narrow view of evolution based on random gene change with natural selection (NS) being the sole force that determines adaptive fit to environments and reproductive survival.
2) That the EES offers a more expansive view which includes evolutionary change/variation beyond genes and that there are additional evolutionary forces on par with NS that also provide adaptive fit and reproductive survival because rather than be random they are often well suited and adaptive variations that allow creatures to survive and reproduce.
3) Because of these additional forces, this minimizes and biases NS role.
4) That the EES can add more explanatory power than the SET to evolution

I am not sure if this is how you see the disagreement so please help me so I can understand exactly where I have got things wrong.

You also said that I had misrepresented/misinterpreted/miss-characterized the EES papers and the differences between the SET and the EES. As far as I saw things I said I thought the above was a generally accurate representation of the EES papers and the differences to the SET.

I am not saying that my claim covers everything the papers say but rather it's a general description similar to the general description of the differences that the papers use which is covered in their summaries, conclusions, and tables in the various papers. This is mainly seen in tables 2 and 3 of this paper
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

From your posts, your view seems to be more in line with the SET view, and have mentioned this with the following posts.
FrumiousBandersnatch said post #105
It is natural selection that establishes whether some genetic variation is adaptive or not; where 'adaptive' means having a reproductive advantage that enables the genes for that variation to propagate through the population, i.e. evolutionary fitness.

I claimed the papers showed that the EES forces can produce non-gene variations and that the EES forces can produce adaptive fit similar and on par with NS thus sometimes biasing and minimizing NS. This was probably one of the main disagreements we had on several occasions. You also claim that the science for the EES is not proven. But I have posted evidence it has. I think this was an acknowledgment by you that the EES is distinct from the SET but that it is not yet verified.

From what I can understand from the thread the main reason you think I am misinterpreting the papers and the differences between the SET and the EES is that the EES is not adding any new science and the EES and the SET are looking at the same science and that its a conceptual matter that involves time scales and categorization as to what is determined to be of significance for evolution or not. That the SET already includes the EES forces and its a matter of viewpoint and emphasis.

I agree but said there are some important differences being overlooked, underestimated, and underemphasized that have been supported by the science that makes EES distinct from the SET. Where the EES is adding new scientific assumptions and predictions which creates new scientific hypotheses and structure for evolution. IE

This new hypothesis of evolution is called the extended evolutionary synthesis, and it's been outlined in a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society

In this regard, alternative conceptual frameworks can be valuable because they draw attention to constructive new ways of thinking, additional causal influences, alternative predictions, or new lines of inquiry.

The EES does make novel predictions, several of which are summarized in table 3, together with an account of the equivalent expectation deriving from a more traditional standpoint.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

So I think it comes down to a difference in recognizing what actually causes and directs evolution. You think like supporters of the SET take a gradualist and adaptive view of evolution (small random gene change with NS being the only driving force and determination for adaptive fit between living things and environments) by your comments.

I say that I agree with the EES papers which are saying that the EES forces are evolutionary causes themselves including and apart from gene change that and that they are forces that direct evolution in their own right and on par with NS. That this can influence and dictate what NS can and cannot do.

If this is not the case can you elaborate for me as I would genuinely like to understand? Like I said I am not fussed as to how evolution is caused but only want to determine the truth and facts.

 

[VirOptimus]

OK, I've gone back over the thread and found some interesting posts. Primarily I think there is a disagreement or perhaps it's a misunderstanding on both parties in what are the differences between the EES and the SET, what the papers are saying and what I am saying. So I will clarify again what I am saying and claiming that the EES papers say

1) That the SET takes a narrow view of evolution based on random gene change with natural selection (NS) being the sole force that determines adaptive fit to environments and reproductive survival.
2) That the EES offers a more expansive view which includes evolutionary change/variation beyond genes and that there are additional evolutionary forces on par with NS that also provide adaptive fit and reproductive survival because rather than be random they are often well suited and adaptive variations that allow creatures to survive and reproduce.
3) Because of these additional forces, this minimizes and biases NS role.
4) That the EES can add more explanatory power than the SET to evolution

You have said that this misrepresents/misinterprets/miss-characterizes the EES papers and the differences between the SET and the EES. Yet as far as I saw things I said I thought the above was a generally accurate representation of the EES papers and the differences to the SET. I am not saying that my claim covers everything the papers say but rather it's a general description similar to the general description of the differences that the papers use which is covered in their summaries, conclusions, and tables in the various papers.

From your posts, your view seems to be more in line with the SET view and have mentioned this with the following posts.
FrumiousBandersnatch said post #105
It is natural selection that establishes whether some genetic variation is adaptive or not; where 'adaptive' means having a reproductive advantage that enables the genes for that variation to propagate through the population, i.e. evolutionary fitness.

I claimed the papers showed that the EES forces can produce non-gene variations and that the EES forces can produce adaptive fit similar and on par with NS thus sometimes biasing and minimizing NS. This was probably one of the main disagreements we had on several occasions. You also claim that the science for the EES is not proven. But I have posted evidence it has. I think this was an acknowledgment by you that the EES is distinct from the SET but that it is not yet verified.

From what I can understand from the thread the main reason you think I am misinterpreting the papers and the differences between the SET and the EES is that the EES is not adding any new science and the EES and the SET are looking at the same science and that its a conceptual matter that involves time scales and categorization as to what is determined to be of significance for evolution or not. That the SET already includes the EES forces and its a matter of viewpoint and emphasis.

I agree but said there are some important differences being overlooked, underestimated and underemphasized that have been supported by the science that makes EES distinct from the SET. Where the EES is adding new scientific assumptions and predictions which creates new scientific hypothesis and structure for evolution. IE

This new hypothesis of evolution is called the extended evolutionary synthesis, and it's been outlined in a paper in the Proceedings of the Royal Society

In this regard, alternative conceptual frameworks can be valuable because they draw attention to constructive new ways of thinking, additional causal influences, alternative predictions, or new lines of inquiry.

The EES does make novel predictions, several of which are summarized in table 3, together with an account of the equivalent expectation deriving from a more traditional standpoint.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

So I think it comes down to a difference in recognizing what actually causes and directs evolution. You think like supporters of the SET take a gradualist and adaptive view of evolution (small random gene change with NS being the only driving force and determination for adaptive fit between living things and environments) by your comments. I say that I agree with the EES papers which are saying that the EES forces are evolutionary causes themselves including and apart from gene change that and that they are forces that direct evolution in their own right and on par with NS. That this can influence and dictate what NS can and cannot do.

Aaaand I was right.

 

[stevevw]

Aaaand I was right.

The point is I have gone back over the entire thread to double-check and try to understand why someone has said I am wrong. There may be some misunderstandings that need to be clarified. I am honestly trying to clarify and then understand the disagreements and not just claim to be right for no good reason. I am engaging "unlike you" so that I can better understanding why someone has said I am wrong.

Hopefully, we can get down to the detail of why you or others think I am wrong so that we can determine the facts. But If I disagree in the end on a point or two about whether I am wrong then why is this so bad. People see things differently and that is what the EES and the SET debate are about.

As FrumiousBandersnatch said some of the issues with the differences in the EES and the SET are conceptual where certain processes and influences are more emphasized and given more casual influence. That is basically what I am saying. I am claiming that the EES papers make certain forces more casual than the SET does. So how is that so controversial or wrong.

 

[VirOptimus]

The point is I have gone back over the entire thread to double-check and try to understand why someone has said I am wrong. There may be some misunderstandings that need to be clarified. I am honestly trying to clarify and then understand the disagreements and not just claim to be right for no good reason. I am engaging "unlike you" so that I can better understanding why someone has said I am wrong.

Hopefully, we can get down to the detail of why you or others think I am wrong so that we can determine the facts. But If I disagree in the end on a point or two about whether I am wrong then why is this so bad. People see things differently and that is what the EES and the SET debate are about.

I cant speak for others, but for me its obvious its pointless. You will just repeat the same old same old and still not understand why you are wrong.

 

[stevevw]

I can't speak for others, but for me it's obvious it's pointless. You will just repeat the same old same old and still not understand why you are wrong.

That is what I am trying to understand and clarify. Obviously, if I disagree then there are reasons I disagree form my understanding and point of view.

But here's the thing I think is ironic. When you say you cannot speak for others and say its pointless to continue to point out I am wrong. Who says that you are right and I am wrong. What are you basing this on? You don't have a degree in biology. How can you a layperson tell me that I am wrong when you don't have the ability to do so. How can you understand the EES papers more than I to be able to point out where I am wrong.

I'm not saying that having a degree is entirely necessary to get a basic understanding but the point is I don't think you are in any more of a position than I am to say that I am wrong. Especially in that, you have never really engaged in the detail of why I am wrong which makes me suspicious that you don't understand.

For example, let's just take one point of difference you claim I am wrong about. I said that the EES papers say
1) That the SET takes a narrow view of evolution based on random gene change with natural selection (NS) being the sole force that determines adaptive fit to environments and reproductive survival.

You say I am wrong and don't understand the papers. But the EES papers clearly state this. This is one of their basic claims. Now we are getting done to the detail to see if I am wrong or not and I can predict you will not engage and make up some excuse.

 

[VirOptimus]

That is what I am trying to understand and clarify. Obviously, if I disagree then there are reasons I disagree form my understanding and point of view.

But here's the thing I think is ironic. When you say you cannot speak for others and say its pointless to continue to point out I am wrong. Who says that you are right and I am wrong. What are you basing this on? You don't have a degree in biology. How can you a layperson tell me that I am wrong when you don't have the ability to do so. How can you understand the EES papers more than I to be able to point out where I am wrong.

I'm not saying that having a degree is entirely necessary to get a basic understanding but the point is I don't think you are in any more of a position than I am to say that I am wrong. Especially in that, you have never really engaged in the detail of why I am wrong which makes me suspicious that you don't understand.

For example, let's just take one point of difference you claim I am wrong about. I said that the EES papers say
1) That the SET takes a narrow view of evolution based on random gene change with natural selection (NS) being the sole force that determines adaptive fit to environments and reproductive survival.

You say I am wrong and don't understand the papers. But the EES papers clearly state this. This is one of their basic claims.

You dont know my degrees (or lack thereof).

The point is that we still see right through you and I stand by my assesment (that you yourself have confirmed in the past) that you only argue this as a religious point. You want to include god in the ToE.

And that makes all of your arguments void of any meaning.

 

[stevevw]

You don't know my degrees (or lack thereof).

The point is that we still see right through you and I stand by my assessment (that you yourself have confirmed in the past) that you only argue this as a religious point. You want to include god in the ToE.

And that makes all of your arguments void of and meaning.

So we are back to the logical fallacy for why you think I am wrong. You do know this is a poor basis for any argument. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground let alone show I am wrong.

You are admitting that you are actually dismissing me as wrong not because I have got things wrong or see things wrong but because you assume that I must be wrong because my belief is clouding my view and judgment. That I am incapable of differentiating the two. That is a poor argument that doesn't stand up.

Also, other facts to be noted
1) You are misrepresenting my position with this logical fallacy as you are quoting me out of context which is being dishonest.

2) I have never mentioned God in this thread as a basis for what I am saying.

3) You are discounting all the science content that has been posted because of your bias in only wanting to see things from a religion v evolution standpoint.

 

[VirOptimus]

So we are back to the logical fallacy for why you think I am wrong. You do know this is a poor basis for any argument. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground let alone show I am wrong.

You are admitting that you are actually dismissing me as wrong not because I have got things wrong or see things wrong but because you assume that I must be wrong because my belief is clouding my view and judgment. That I am incapable of differentiating the two. That is a poor argument that doesn't stand up.

Also, other facts to be noted
1) You are misrepresenting my position with this logical fallacy as you are quoting me out of context which is being dishonest.

2) I have never mentioned God in this thread as a basis for what I am saying.

3) You are discounting all the science content that has been posted because of your bias in only wanting to see things from a religion v evolution standpoint.

Heh, as I said, I stand by my assesment.

 

[VirOptimus]

So we are back to the logical fallacy for why you think I am wrong. You do know this is a poor basis for any argument. So your argument doesn't even get off the ground let alone show I am wrong.

You are admitting that you are actually dismissing me as wrong not because I have got things wrong or see things wrong but because you assume that I must be wrong because my belief is clouding my view and judgment. That I am incapable of differentiating the two. That is a poor argument that doesn't stand up.

Also, other facts to be noted
1) You are misrepresenting my position with this logical fallacy as you are quoting me out of context which is being dishonest.

2) I have never mentioned God in this thread as a basis for what I am saying.

3) You are discounting all the science content that has been posted because of your bias in only wanting to see things from a religion v evolution standpoint.

Also, you have stated that this is a religious topic for you in the past.

And comon, a religious poster with no background in science parroting known ID talking points, of course its based on religion!

 

[stevevw]

Heh, as I said, I stand by my assessment.

OK, that's fair enough but it makes it hard to understand exactly why or how I am wrong without elaborating beyond your assertion. You do understand you haven't made a very good argument as far as arguments go. Just an unsupported assertion.

 

[stevevw]

Also, you have stated that this is a religious topic for you in the past.

And comon, a religious poster with no background in science parroting known ID talking points, of course, it's based on religion!

But this is just more of the same (logical fallacies) and still not a very good argument and still dishonest. IE

* I have not stated that this is purely a religious topic in the past so this is being dishonest.

* I do have some science background (studies social sciences and human behavior which covered aspects of evolution that relates to human behavior. Have also researched evolution for many years. So to say that I have absolutely no background is a misrepresentation. Just like you claim I misrepresent the EES papers.

* So your second point that a religious poster with no science background loses credibility and thus doesn't support a good argument.

* How is the EES promoting ID. You are making the mistake of thinking that anyone who challenges the SET is doing so for religious reasons which were my point anyway. Even the EES points this out that some may think this but they point out that this is not the case. So you are admitting that you dismiss the EES because you think its promoting ID. I have gone out of my way to distance the support for the EES from religion including ID in this thread.

* But mostly this is still a logical fallacy. In other words, you are saying that anyone on CF who does not have a science background and who is religious has nothing valid to say about evolution and therefore has no credibility to comment or debate the topic.

Oh except if it's you or agree with you. lol.

 

[VirOptimus]

But this is just more of the same (logical fallacies) and still not a very good argument and still dishonest. IE

* I have not stated that this is purely a religious topic in the past so this is being dishonest.

* I do have some science background (studies social sciences and human behavior which covered aspects of evolution that relates to human behavior. Have also researched evolution for many years. So to say that I have absolutely no background is a misrepresentation. Just like you claim I misrepresent the EES papers.

* So your second point that a religious poster with no science background loses credibility and thus doesn't support a good argument.

* How is the EES promoting ID. You are making the mistake of thinking that anyone who challenges the SET is doing so for religious reasons which were my point anyway. Even the EES points this out that some may think this but they point out that this is not the case. So you are admitting that you dismiss the EES because you think its promoting ID. I have gone out of my way to distance the support for the EES from religion including ID in this thread.

* But mostly this is still a logical fallacy. In other words, you are saying that anyone one on CF who does not have a science background and who is religious has nothing valid to say about evolution and therefore has not credibility to comment or debate the topic.

My points are about you and your posts.

My points have been suported with links. Also, everyone can read your posts.

 

[stevevw]

My points are about you and your posts.

Yes and your logic about that is fallacious. Your comment even supports this. You have made it about the person and not the content.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes and your logic about that is fallacious.

No, it really isnt.

 

[stevevw]

No, it really isn't.

I don't really understand what you mean. If you are saying that the only reason why I am wrong and that the content of my posts is wrong is because of "me" and "my beliefs" and "my lack of science background" then that is really a logical fallacy. You have already been dishonest in misrepresenting me so I don't trust your judgments to see things clearly.

Anyway, I am more interested in those who engage rather than just make assertions. That is not in the spirit of debate or CF.

 

[VirOptimus]

I don't really understand what you mean. If you are saying that the only reason why I am wrong and that the content of my posts is wrong is because of "me" and "my beliefs" and "my lack of science background" then that is really a logical fallacy. You have already been dishonest in misrepresenting me so I don't trust your judgments to see things clearly.

Anyway, I am more interested in those who engage rather than just make assertions. That is not in the spirit of debate or CF.

This is not really a topic that can be debated, the science is pretty clear and you are wrong (as has been pointed out numerous times). You are not wrong per se because of your religious belief but you let your religious belief inform your understanding of science and that makes you misunderstand (and misrepresent) what the science says.

 

[stevevw]

You want to include god in the ToE.
And that makes all of your arguments void of any meaning.

Just another point on this statement you made. What about the 100's of thousands of people who support theistic evolution including scientists and many on this forum. They include God in evolution so how do you accommodate them.

 

[VirOptimus]

Just another point on this statement you made. What about the 100's of thousands of people who support theistic evolution including scientists and many on this forum. They include God in evolution so how do you accommodate them.

Religion has no place in science. Most TE:s dont let their religion inform their scientific understanding so thats a non-issue.

They do not include god(s) in the ToE.

 

[stevevw]

This is not really a topic that can be debated,

Then why is the topic so hotly debated by scientists. IE

For a number of years now, there have been debates in the biological literature about the status (i.e., whether it is necessary) of the so-called extended (evolutionary) synthesis (ES).
Extended (Evolutionary) Synthesis Debate: Where Science Meets Philosophy

the science is pretty clear and you are wrong (as has been pointed out numerous times).

That is what I am trying to establish as to how I am wrong exactly with the other debaters. I know you won't elaborate because I don't think you even understand things yourself and keep relying on others.

But let's look at what I am actually saying and see if I am wrong. I said that the EES papers say that the EES forces of developmental bias, plasticity, niche construction, and inheritance beyond genes can cause and direct evolution on par with NS and in fact, can bias Natural selection in what it can and cannot do as far as being the sole driver of evolution which the SET claims. You say that I am wrong and am misinterpreting the EES papers. But let's see what the EES papers actually say on this.

the EES recognizes processes that bias the outcome of natural selection, specifically developmental bias and niche construction. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity and some forms of inclusive inheritance are potential sources of bias.

From this standpoint, too much causal significance is afforded to genes and selection, and not enough to the developmental processes that create novel variants, contribute to heredity, generate adaptive fit, and thereby direct the course of evolution. Under this perspective, the sharp distinction between the proximate and the ultimate is undermined by the fact that proximate causes are themselves often also evolutionary causes [90].

The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone, and need not start with mutation.

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

You are not wrong per se because of your religious belief but you let your religious belief inform your understanding of science and that makes you misunderstand (and misrepresent) what the science says.

So how are the above extracts from the papers not supporting what I have said? They say exactly what I have said in plain English. You don't need a degree to understand this. There is no hidden double meaning, no religious slant by myself. Just a clear and proper reading shows that it supports what I am saying.

I cannot see what the big deal is. Why you are so resistant to what is being said. It doesn't mean evolution doesn't happen. It just expands our understanding and view of the causes of evolution which in science is usually a good thing as it adds more explanatory power.

 

[stevevw]

Religion has no place in science. Most TE:s dont let their religion inform their scientific understanding so thats a non-issue.

They do not include god(s) in the ToE.

I don't think you understand theistic evolution. If theistic evolution doesn't include God then why call it theistic evolution. Why not just evolution. Where does God come in, what role does he play? God has to be included as theism means belief in God. The meaning according to Wikipedia is Theistic evolution, theistic evolutionism, evolutionary creationism, or God-guided evolution. Supporters of theistic evolution generally harmonize evolutionary thought with belief in God
Theistic evolution - Wikipedia.

The idea of theistic evolution takes a number of views to reconcile evolution with a belief in a creator God, injecting God somewhere, somehow into evolution. Whether that be as the creator of the universal common ancestor, intervening with small steps with increases in complexity of life along the way that work with evolution, installing the blueprint or codes of life that evolution uses, etc. Even saying that God uses evolution to create life is still taking a teleological view of evolution.

So theistic evolution very much includes God and slants the view of evolution towards God as a creator in some way. It uses the best of both worlds. So millions of people who support theistic evolution according to you cannot comment on evolution because their view of evolution (the science) is influenced by their belief. Yet many atheistic supporters of evolution point to evolutionary theists as examples of how widely supported evolution is. You cant have your cake and eat it too.

The point is people can have both a belief in God while also accepting evolution.