Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It amuses me.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.
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.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.
Ok, that I see I did get wrong! Sorry.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.
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.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 [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
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
Evolution is what happens in the world. The theory of evolution is the explanation for it. They are qualitatively different thingsWhat 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.
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.Evolution is what happens in the world. The theory of evolution is an explanation for it. They are qualitatively different things
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 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.
So why did you ask, "What is the difference between saying 'evolution' and the 'theory of evolution'. Aren't they the same thing..." ?Yes I agree, I think I realize this considering the amount of debate and disagreement there is sometimes with scientific theories especially evolution.
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.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.
I wish I could say the same.Thank you for engaging and helping me understand things better, it has been good and interesting debating with you.
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.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.
To be clear, what I actually said was:...I mean I know you say you acknowledge the EES forces are causes...
I didn't say that, and it is not the case.I'm sorry you didn't get anything out of the thread...
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.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.
You interpretation of the written word fails again. That is not what I wrote.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.
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?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.
Again, that's not what I said. You seem quite unable to read a post without distorting it into something else.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.
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.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?
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 IEAgain, 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.
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.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
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.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 [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
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 opinionI 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.
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.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.
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.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.Are you saying the authors are making a straw man argument about natural selection being the sole creative force in evolution.
In what sense is this qualitatively different from co-evolution or competitive evolution (evolutionary 'arms race')?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.
'No' to all of the above. The process is not teleological, and that last paragraph is beyond incoherent.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.
And around we go...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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?