[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Ah I started the thread and so have a right to contribute. But people who don't participate in the thread in an engaging way should be the ones not participating. You have made your point over and over again. I think it's clear you think I am wrong. So why continue to say the same things without elaborating.
It amuses me.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
So your only goal is to change people's minds? I.e. preach?

I posted that ages ago so thanks for the Q.E.D.
You totally misunderstood what I was saying which shows where your mind is at 'on attacking anyone who opposes your views'. I said that by posters like FrumiousBandersnatch engaging they may be able to educate others like me and perhaps change their minds. But dismissing people and not engaging achieves nothing and is against the spirit of debate.
 
Upvote 0

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
You totally misunderstood what I was saying which shows where your mind is at 'on attacking anyone who opposes your views'. I said that by posters like FrumiousBandersnatch engaging they may be able to educate others like me and perhaps change their minds.
Ok, that I see I did get wrong! Sorry.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
It maybe to you and that's probably the whole point in that people see things differently and your not including that. If you go back over my posts and search for the word ‘cause’ you will see it mentioned over and over again. That's because it is the central dispute in the debate between the SET and the EES IE ‘what causes and directs’ evolution. As mentioned many times the SET doesn’t think the EES forces are actual causes and directors of evolution whereas the EES supporters do.

Though you said the EES forces are contributors I thought that was an important distinction you were making that continued to diminish the full recognition of the EES forces as causes of evolution on par and alongside the main and often only force of SET which is NS acting on random gene change in how adaptive variation is produced. The EES makes this the central issue of difference IE

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA; and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments.

Missing pieces include how physical development influences the generation of variation (developmental bias); how the environment directly shapes organisms’ traits (plasticity); how organisms modify environments (niche construction); and how organisms transmit more than genes across generations (extra-genetic inheritance). For SET, these phenomena are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

That's because when it comes to the outcome of evolution which at the end of the day is most important the differences in how variation is produced are important as to what role NS plays in producing that adaptive and heritable variation. This is probably the crux of the matter in the differences between the SET and the EES which the papers or emphasizing. That's why the difference between contribution and the cause is important. The EES thinks the EES forces are causes of the evolutionary outcome for adaptive and heritable variation in themselves thus biasing and directing what NS does.

As I have been pointing out this is an important distinction because if the EES forces can produce already well suited, integrative and the adaptive variation that becomes heritable and is produced already fit then this more or less does the job of NS and in some occasions gene change. So the EES forces are not just contributors to adaptive and heritable variation, they cause them.

Like I said technically NS may then rubber-stamp this but the work and credit for it happening has already been done by the EES forces. This needs to be recognized and acknowledged as it changes the structure of evolution and adds new insights and scientific hypothesis and predictions.

That's another point under the EES heritable variation can be non-gene as pointed out from the papers in calling the SET causes of variation ‘gene-centric’ and why one of the EES forces is called inheritance beyond genes. The EES includes non-gene change as adaptive and heritable variations including changes to environments that is also passed on which influences phenotypes. Such as from niche construction where environmental change can lead to adaptive fit for creatures and thus passes on change.

The same with inheritance beyond genes which I have already explained including an epigenetic change which is not a change in the underlying genes but how they are expressed. The same as the developmental processes emphasized by the EES as causes of adaptive and fit variations IE

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 [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

In other-words the EES says that EES forces such as through developmental processes also meet the requirements for causes of evolution in the same way that the SET uses evolutionary cause through NS.

This shows that despite you saying that you support the EES you don’t really appreciate its full ability as a cause of adaptive and fit variation that meets the criteria for evolutionary causes and drivers. That you still see NS as the sole force in evolution as the EES papers point out. NS can be biased and directed by the EES forces because they produce certain variations as opposed to random variations that need filtering. The variation produced by the EES forces doesn’t need filtering because they are already suitable, adaptive, and fit for the environment.

That is because developmental processes don’t just produce any variation but suitable and integrated variations as a response to the environment. Also, creatures are not seen as passive participants in evolutionary change but can control their own evolution by making changes to the environment and putting themselves in positions that create adaptively and fit changes for future generations (not restricted to genes). In that sense, there is no separations between creature and environment but rather a feedback loop that works to help creatures adapt to the environment.

This is all included in the papers and that is why I stated that overall the differences between the EES and the SET can be seen as the SET taking a programmed view (creatures are programmed through DNA to adapt) as opposed to a constructive and reciprocal process that includes a wide pluralistic process placing the creature itself at the center for evolutionary change IE

This interpretation is also based on a fundamentally different account of the role of genes in development and evolution. In the EES, genes are not causally privileged as programs or blueprints that control and dictate phenotypic outcomes, but are rather parts of the systemic dynamics of interactions that mobilize self-organizing processes in the evolution of development and entire life cycles. This represents a shift from a programmed to a constructive role of developmental processes in evolution.

In fact, the conceptual change associated with the EES is largely a change in the perceived relationship between genes and development: a shift from a programmed to a constructive view of development. Although genes are fundamental to development and heredity, they are not causally privileged in either of these processes [9,129,130].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
I understand what the EES is saying and I don't see natural selection as the 'sole force' in evolution - my last post should have made that clear. Since you persist in telling me what I think despite repeated requests to not do so, I'm not going to continue this.

Understanding the fundamentals is what matters. I've made it as simple as I can for you. If you still want to take opinion articles by outspoken workers in the field as indicating some kind of war for the soul of evolution, knock yourself out.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
What is the difference between saying 'evolution' and the 'theory of evolution'. Aren't they the same thing. The theory of evolution is what people this evolution actually is.
Evolution is what happens in the world. The theory of evolution is the explanation for it. They are qualitatively different things :doh:
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Evolution is what happens in the world. The theory of evolution is an explanation for it. They are qualitatively different things :doh:
Yes I agree, I think I realize this considering the amount of debate and disagreement there is sometimes with scientific theories especially evolution. But theories are very much intertwined with what happens in the world. They affect and inform the way people live out there in the world and are used to justify actions. In fact, the evolutionary principle of Natural selection is used in other areas besides biology.

But this was all a side issue on semantics that derailed the thread from the point I was making anyway. It doesn't matter if its ToE or not as it was about the influence belief has on scientific thinking theory or not. What people believe affects the way they see the ToE as theories are changing and often debated. Theistic evolutionists may loosely support the ToE as it stands but will make adjustments according to their faith in how they believe their God intervened. The point is their thinking about the science/evolution is influenced by their theism.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I understand what the EES is saying and I don't see natural selection as the 'sole force' in evolution - my last post should have made that clear. Since you persist in telling me what I think despite repeated requests to not do so, I'm not going to continue this.

Understanding the fundamentals is what matters. I've made it as simple as I can for you. If you still want to take opinion articles by outspoken workers in the field as indicating some kind of war for the soul of evolution, knock yourself out.
But I am not making out like there is some war for the soul of evolution. Just pointing out some important differences between the EES and the SET. Now that is you doing my thinking. Us humans are funny beings, aren't we?

I haven't based what I said on opinion pieces, 99% of what I posted comes from peer-reviewed science. It seems unfair that the one small quote I linked from some article is being used as the basis for everything said. Even though the quotes from the scientists were correct. Or are you saying the papers I posted are opinion pieces? I'm not sure.

I wasn't trying to tell you what you think. If you read carefully what I said I said I was pointing out the language being used as it made an important distinction between contributor and cause and that this was a big factor in the EES papers in saying that the language being used in mainstream science is still based around the traditionalists view of adaptive evolution through NS only being given all the credit.

Plus it is not just about acknowledging that NS is not the sole cause of evolution. It is also the recognition of what the other causes the EES claim which from what I understand many have not recognized them as actual causes of evolution even though they have verified scientific support. Forces like niche construction are seen separately and not an integrated part of evolution that causes adaptive and heritable change. How inheritance beyond genes like cultural influences are not included in evolutionary causes because they are not part of biological evolution as the genetic influences are hard to determine.

But the EES sees evolutionary causes beyond the genetics to how behavior through cultural transmissions can provide an adaptive fit. How certain lifestyles caused by culture or social influences can influence the expression of genes without changing the underlying gene itself. Epigenetics is still not recognized as a cause of evolution despite the strong evidence now. So it is also recognizing the EES forces as causes of evolution in their own rights.

But anyway it is good you agree that NS is not the sole force in evolution and therefore we can end in agreement on this. Thank you for engaging and helping me understand things better, it has been good and interesting debating with you.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Yes I agree, I think I realize this considering the amount of debate and disagreement there is sometimes with scientific theories especially evolution.
So why did you ask, "What is the difference between saying 'evolution' and the 'theory of evolution'. Aren't they the same thing..." ?

Don't answer that, it was rhetorical. I'm not interested.
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
But anyway it is good you agree that NS is not the sole force in evolution and therefore we can end in agreement on this.
That's like saying it's good that I agree that bottles must have an inside and an outside... kind of sums this thread up.

Thank you for engaging and helping me understand things better, it has been good and interesting debating with you.
I wish I could say the same.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
That's like saying it's good that I agree that bottles must have an inside and an outside... kind of sums this thread up.
Fair enough its's how you feel but the thread was not just for you as not everyone knows about the EES like they do about the inside and outside of a bottle. I think it's significant as it is a rare thing that people who support the SET acknowledge as you have that there are other forces on par with NS and I am not talking about acknowledging the more accepted influences of drift and recombination.

I don't think in the time I have been on CF or in my research apart from the recent EES project seen any recognition of the EES forces as actual causes of evolution that direct natural selection. In doing a search for the extended evolutionary synthesis and then the individual forces on this Forum I only found about 3 brief mentions of these apart from myself out of 1,000's of posts which says something about its lack of recognition. Though these influences are recognized in other ways they are not really given any status as evolutionary causes which was my only reason for this thread.

I mean I know you say you acknowledge the EES forces are causes but it appears according to the papers that mainstream evolution doesn't and that's why I began this thread. Otherwise, why would the papers say that the SET doesn't recognize these forces as actual causes IE

For SET, these phenomena (EES forces my emphasis) are just outcomes of evolution. For the EES, they are also causes.

This is at the crux of the matter and was a common and repeated point throughout the papers so I cannot have misinterpreted this even if you think I was not understanding the papers and differences. I appreciate you thinking its a simplification of things but I tried to explain this and as you say sometimes on these forums people have to simplify things.

But it seems from my understanding that you think all I have said is based on an unsupported opinion piece. That is why I guess I have been insistent on sticking to what the papers have said. I may not completely understand biology as you do but I know enough to understand the basic differences being pointed out here. My post #294 summarized what I am pointing out fairly well I thought and this reflects exactly what the papers are broadly pointing out.

I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of the thread but considering that this topic is rarely spoken about and acknowledged it perhaps can help others understand the topic more.

Regards
Steve
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
...I mean I know you say you acknowledge the EES forces are causes...
To be clear, what I actually said was:

"I'm not saying they should not be seen as 'evolutionary causes' in their own right. I just think that narrow causal view is a not a helpful way to think of evolution. The 'cause' of evolution is heritable variation in populations combined with natural selection.

There are various ways by which variation and its interactions with natural selection can occur, and various levels of complexity of these processes can be considered over various timescales. Consequently, there are many ways to view and categorise these processes. They're all 'causal' by the fact of participating in the causal sequences that lead to evolution, but it's not a particularly useful or constructive description.
"​

I suspect that's how the non-EES community sees it too.

I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of the thread...
I didn't say that, and it is not the case.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
To be clear, what I actually said was:

"I'm not saying they should not be seen as 'evolutionary causes' in their own right. I just think that narrow causal view is a not a helpful way to think of evolution. The 'cause' of evolution is heritable variation in populations combined with natural selection.

There are various ways by which variation and its interactions with natural selection can occur, and various levels of complexity of these processes can be considered over various timescales. Consequently, there are many ways to view and categorise these processes. They're all 'causal' by the fact of participating in the causal sequences that lead to evolution, but it's not a particularly useful or constructive description.
"​

I suspect that's how the non-EES community sees it too.
I am interested to understand why you say that viewing evolution 'causes' as emphasized by the EES narrows the causal view of evolution which is unhelpful. Rather than actually expanding the view and adding more explanatory power as the EES claim which I would have thought was more helpful.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
I am interested to understand why you say that viewing evolution causes as emphasized by the EES narrows the causal view of evolution which is unhelpful. Rather than actually expanding the view and adding more explanatory power as the EES claim which I would have thought was more helpful.
You interpretation of the written word fails again. That is not what I wrote.

I have already explained why I think viewing evolution in terms of multiple causes is unhelpful - you just quoted it. If you don't understand it, ask specific questions.
 
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
You interpretation of the written word fails again. That is not what I wrote.

I have already explained why I think viewing evolution in terms of multiple causes is unhelpful - you just quoted it. If you don't understand it, ask specific questions.
OK so why do you think viewing evolution through the different ways variations interact with natural selection over varying time scales and complexities is not a very useful or constructive way to describe evolution. Why do you think this narrows causal view is not a helpful way to view evolution. Why do you call it a narrow casual view?
 
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
OK so why do you think viewing evolution through the different ways variations interact with natural selection over varying time scales and complexities is not a very useful or constructive way to describe evolution.
Again, that's not what I said. You seem quite unable to read a post without distorting it into something else.

Why do you think this narrows causal view is not a helpful way to view evolution. Why do you call it a narrow casual view?
Because evolution is a continuous process - a number of complex causal sequences interacting - where these EES 'forces' are all occurring to varying extents over varying timescales, and whose very presence is dependent on prior evolutionary processes. As I said before, every part of the process is 'causal' in as much as it's part of the whole sequence, and none of those forces 'cause' evolution (changes in gene frequency in the population) in isolation; that's why I prefer to call them contributors.

It's fine to identify some of the conceptually different ways variation, including heritable variation, can be generated as part of the evolutionary process, but they're all interacting in that process, so the conceptual boundaries are arbitrary.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Again, that's not what I said. You seem quite unable to read a post without distorting it into something else.


Because evolution is a continuous process - a number of complex causal sequences interacting - where these EES 'forces' are all occurring to varying extents over varying timescales, and whose very presence is dependent on prior evolutionary processes. As I said before, every part of the process is 'causal' in as much as it's part of the whole sequence, and none of those forces 'cause' evolution (changes in gene frequency in the population) in isolation; that's why I prefer to call them contributors.
Then what do you think this quote from the EES papers means in attributing developmental processes as causes of evolution that meet the 3 Lewontin's conditions for evolution by natural selection. It seems to me they are saying that developmental processes as EES forces do meet the conditions for evolution as causes in the same way that adaptive evolution by natural selection does. Therefore the generation of adaptive variation does not come from NS alone IE

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 [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

It's fine to identify some of the conceptually different ways variation, including heritable variation, can be generated as part of the evolutionary process, but they're all interacting in that process, so the conceptual boundaries are arbitrary
But I think the EES papers are saying the research is defining those boundaries better. That even if there may be some conceptual boundaries that perhaps because of that arbitrariness in the past at least SET only really privileged the traditionalist's view of adaptive evolution by gene change in producing all variation and being sifted by Natural selection only.

Now they are distinguishing how these EES forces can be evolutionary causes in their own right but also how they interact with the other processes as well. That is also what the grant they got was meant to do and for which they are now finding the evidence.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Then what do you think this quote from the EES papers means in attributing developmental processes as causes of evolution that meet the 3 Lewontin's conditions for evolution by natural selection. It seems to me they are saying that developmental processes as EES forces do meet the conditions for evolution as causes in the same way that adaptive evolution by natural selection does. Therefore the generation of adaptive variation does not come from NS alone IE

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 [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
I don't really have a problem with that quote. They're identifying those processes as causes of heritable variation. But, as they make explicitly clear, those processes play contributory roles in providing the material conditions in which (on which) natural selection acts - which is what I said previously.

In my view, their emphasis on natural selection as no longer the 'sole creative force' is a straw man. They simply want emergent processes to be acknowledged as causes of heritable variation in addition to 'simple' mutation; the role of natural selection hasn't changed at all, it never was creative, it has, by definition, always been selective - it selects from the creativity of the various sources of heritable variation; i.e. mutation and the higher-level emergent processes.

To be fair, I think it's a more question of different timescales (as I said previously) than an equivocation of 'creative'. The processes that generate heritable variation are the initial creative 'forces', but the accumulation of repeated cycles of heritable variation and natural selection generate a different creativity on a longer timescale.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

stevevw

inquisitive
Nov 4, 2013
12,572
949
Brisbane Qld Australia
✟243,871.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
I don't really have a problem with that quote. They're identifying those processes as causes of heritable variation. But, as they make explicitly clear, those processes play contributory roles in providing the material conditions in which (on which) natural selection acts - which is what I said previously.

In my view, their emphasis on natural selection as no longer the 'sole creative force' is a straw man.
Are you saying the authors are making a straw man argument about natural selection being the sole creative force in evolution. That they are not intending to mean that the EES forces can replace NS's role. Or are you just summarizing that this is what they mean and that it is actually about the creation of variation in your opinion
They simply want emergent processes to be acknowledged as causes of heritable variation in addition to 'simple' mutation; the role of natural selection hasn't changed at all, it never was creative, it has, by definition, always been selective - it selects from the creativity of the various sources of heritable variation; i.e. mutation and the higher-level emergent processes.
But isn't the EES papers point that under the SET view (at least in most of the literature) that natural selection role is made more prominent because it is seen as the only factor that selects (determines) those variations that are fit and functional because variation is random. In that sense, it is the sole creator of the adaptive fit.

Whereas the EES is emphasizing that the EES forces are not just about producing any variety but functional and fit variety before NS even gets involved. So in that sense, it is doing both jobs of the SET process in producing variation but not just any variation but an adaptive variation (adaptive fit) that NS would be selecting out anyway (so sort of doing NS job). I think that is why they make the point that NS is not the only process that can select for fit, functional, and adaptive variation. Even though technically NS is the rubber-stamping those variations it is sort of superfluous in a way because that has already been determined by the EES forces.

To be fair, I think it's a more question of different timescales (as I said previously) than an equivocation of 'creative'. The processes that generate heritable variation are the initial creative 'forces', but the accumulation of repeated cycles of heritable variation and natural selection generate different creativity on a longer timescale.
Yes but I think the issue for the EES is what type of variation is being produced (non-random variation). For example under niche construction, the creature itself can create adaptive variation by changing the environment, and then the environment also becomes part of the heritable process in that the changed environment produces fit and functional variations as well that can be passed on.

Rather than under the SET, where the creature is being changed and that variation change is random and therefore having to be selected by NS to determine its adaptive fit to an environment.

In that sense, the creature itself knows best what variation will and won't be beneficial for an adaptive fit and future survival and reproduction. It is in tune with its environment rather than being seen as a separate entity that needs to be matched to the environment for an adaptive fit by NS as with the SET.

In that sense, NS is not the only determining factor of what variations meet all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection. The creature has produced (created) and selected the variation that is fit, functional, and adaptive rather than NS. Though as said technically NS still rubberstamps what already meets the requirements for evolutionary cause.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
Are you saying the authors are making a straw man argument about natural selection being the sole creative force in evolution.
Yes.

Yes but I think the issue for the EES is what type of variation is being produced (non-random variation). For example under niche construction, the creature itself can create adaptive variation by changing the environment, and then the environment also becomes part of the heritable process in that the changed environment produces fit and functional variations as well that can be passed on.
In what sense is this qualitatively different from co-evolution or competitive evolution (evolutionary 'arms race')?

In that sense, the creature itself knows best what variation will and won't be beneficial for an adaptive fit and future survival and reproduction. It is in tune with its environment rather than being seen as a separate entity that needs to be matched to the environment for an adaptive fit by NS as with the SET.

In that sense, NS is not the only determining factor of what variations meet all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection. The creature has produced (created) and selected the variation that is fit, functional, and adaptive rather than NS. Though as said technically NS still rubberstamps what already meets the requirements for evolutionary cause.
'No' to all of the above. The process is not teleological, and that last paragraph is beyond incoherent.

I'm afraid there's no more to be said.
 
  • Optimistic
Reactions: VirOptimus
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

VirOptimus

A nihilist who cares.
Aug 24, 2005
6,814
4,421
53
✟250,677.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Yes.

In what sense is this qualitatively different from co-evolution or competitive evolution (evolutionary 'arms race')?


'No' to all of the above. The process is not teleological, and that last paragraph is beyond incoherent.

I'm afraid there's no more to be said.
And around we go...
 
Upvote 0