VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Again, just repeating things doesnt make you right, it only shows your inability to understand. Everything has been answered upthread.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
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
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.
Upvote
0
He accepts evolution, but also believes in God. His position is that evolution occurs, but he thinks that God provided the spark that first set life into motion. From there, he believes that it was a purely naturalistic process, but God knew what the outcome would be, that it would lead to humans. I've asked him why God would use such a process if he knew what the end result would be and he could have just snapped his fingers and gotten that end result, but he says he isn't able to answer that, as he doesn't understand why God does things the way that he does.
