[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Speedwell]

I used the word theory and realized later it wasn't the right word. But apart from this, I cannot see any misrepresentations or misunderstandings. The fact is the EES authors and not I have said this. I have reposted their exact words in plain English. There are no hidden or double meanings to what they say. You even acknowledged that their use of natural selection being a creative force was a straw man.

The fact is they have also said that according to their research mainstream literature and biologists refer to evolution narrowly based on an adaptive view of random gene change producing variations and natural selection being the sole source of adaptive variation.

So this may be a misrepresentation to you of how you see mainstream evolution but it is not how the EES author's view mainstream evolutions point of view according to their research. The EES author's view is what I based what I said on. So what you are actually saying is that you think the EES authors are misrepresenting mainstream evolution and misunderstanding things and not me because I have posted exactly what they said word for word.

Yes, we get it. What we don't get is, so what? Why is it important to you to defend the view of these authors as to what mainstream evolutionary theory is about?

If you have an issue it is with the authors. You need to dispute their claims and provide evidence that they are wrong

Why should we bother? Why are you inviting us to dispute with them about it? Why did you even bring any of this up in the first place?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, we get it. What we don't get is, so what? Why is it important to you to defend the view of these authors as to what mainstream evolutionary theory is about?

It wasn't that important in the beginning but it sort of became that way as people began to make claims about credibility, sources, and make value judgments. That pushed things into another realm of defending myself and the integrity and validity of the content linked rather than just the topic itself. As I mentioned earlier "why is there so much questioning of content and persons"?

I expected a little but not where it almost dominated the thread. The thread took a long way round to get to the point I think because of this. I would say around 30 or 35% of the thread has been about issues of credibility, semantics, and challenges to what is really being said by me and the authors. But in the end, we got there I think.

Why should we bother?

You don't have to bother about anything. I am not worried. I thought it would be an interesting topic as it ex[pands evolution into other areas like I said that don't often get discussed like social sciences and psychology which are my main focus areas.

Why are you inviting us to dispute with them about it? Why did you even bring any of this up in the first place?

It was initially a thread about the information on the EES and how that is challenging the SET. This was for anyone who wanted to be informed and have some debate. I expected some push back I didn't expect the level it has gone. I think this prevented others from coming in as it primarily became an intense debate between 2 or 3 people who challenged what I posted and linked and this dominated proceedings. Anyway, I don't know about you but it challenged me and I was doing a lot of research which has increased my knowledge. It all depends on whether you want to investigate things or not.

 

[Speedwell]

It wasn't that important in the beginning but it sort of became that way as people began to make claims about credibility, sources, and make value judgments. That pushed things into another realm of defending myself and the integrity and validity of the content linked rather than just the topic itself. As I mentioned earlier "why is there so much questioning of content and persons"?

I expected a little but not where it almost dominated the thread. The thread took a long way round to get to the point I think because of this. I would say around 30 or 35% of the thread has been about issues of credibility, semantics, and challenges to what is really being said by me and the authors. But in the end, we got there I think. You don't have to bother about anything. I am not worried. I thought it would be an interesting topic as it ex[pands evolution into other areas like I said that don't often get discussed like social sciences and psychology which are my main focus areas. It was initially a thread about the information on the EES and how that is challenging the SET. This was for anyone who wanted to be informed and have some debate. I expected some push back I didn't expect the level it has gone. I think this prevented others from coming in as it primarily became an intense debate between 2 or 3 people who challenged what I posted and linked and this dominated proceedings. Anyway, I don't know about you but it challenged me and I was doing a lot of research which has increased my knowledge. It all depends on whether you want to investigate things or not.

One of the problems you faced here is that, unbeknownst to you perhaps, those same quotes which you brought forward have been frequently used by IDists. The argument is basically that evolutionary biologists are resisting any cause for evolution beyond variation and selection because of their fear that accepting other causes might require that they accept ID and the existence of God.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I used the word theory and realized later it wasn't the right word. But apart from this, I cannot see any misrepresentations or misunderstandings. The fact is the EES authors and not I have said this. I have reposted their exact words in plain English. There are no hidden or double meanings to what they say. You even acknowledged that their use of natural selection being a creative force was a straw man.

The fact is they have also said that according to their research mainstream literature and biologists refer to evolution narrowly based on an adaptive view of random gene change producing variations and natural selection being the sole source of adaptive variation.

So this may be a misrepresentation to you of how you see mainstream evolution but it is not how the EES author's view mainstream evolutions point of view according to their research. The EES author's view is what I based what I said on. So what you are actually saying is that you think the EES authors are misrepresenting mainstream evolution and misunderstanding things and not me because I have posted exactly what they said word for word.

I've already addressed this, and I've already told you not to put words in my mouth.

 

[stevevw]

One of the problems you faced here is that, unbeknownst to you perhaps, those same quotes which you brought forward have been frequently used by IDists. The argument is basically that evolutionary biologists are resisting any cause for evolution beyond variation and selection because of their fear that accepting other causes might require that they accept ID and the existence of God.

Well as I have pointed out a few times now I am not concerned about what makeup evolution is or becomes. It doesn't make any difference to my beliefs.

I don't believe I have used just quotes as Idist uses out of context. I think if you go over my posts you will see they are quite long and with personal commentary. I have given arguments and tried to explain as best I can why the EES should be at least considered based on its expansive view and explanatory power which seems to account for what has been discovered in recent times and what the SET finds hard to explain and account for.

 

[Speedwell]

Well as I have pointed out a few times now I am not concerned about what makeup evolution is or becomes. It doesn't make any difference to my beliefs and I am not trying to force people to accept God because of evolutions makeup. That doesn't make sense as belief in God is based on free will to choose.

I don't believe I have used just quotes as Idist uses out of context. I think if you go over my posts you will see they are quite long and with personal commentary. I have given arguments and tried to explain as best I can why the EES should be at least considered based on its expansive view and explanatory power which seems to account for what has been discovered in recent times and what the SET finds hard to explain and account for.

Of course it should be--and is being--considered. As we tried to explain to you, it is viewed favorably by all parties to this discussion. But the amount of effort you spent trying to show that mainstream evolutionary biology rejects it stunk to high heaven of ID apologetics.

 

[stevevw]

I've already addressed this, and I've already told you not to put words in my mouth.

I hope I am not putting words in your mouth by explaining this but I think I understand what you said from your explanation and appreciate your engagement in explaining that the processes are more complex and time-relevant in determining the true extent of these forces in causing evolution and that people will see things differently.

But that is not the point I was making. I said what I said based on the papers (what the authors had said and found from their research). Basically, it was about the SET having a narrow and the EES expanded that view through the additional forces of evolutionary cause regardless of your view of context and time. They gave those forces a certain status that the SET though acknowledging them wasn't prepared to do. I appreciate you are trying to explain things from your perspective that all these forces have some contribution to the evolutionary cause but in context but I don't think the authors see it that way. That's why I guess there is such rigorous debate.

My point was that I thought what I said reflected the author's view not because you think it is the correct context but because that is what they were basically claiming according to their research and view of the context. People were saying I was wrong in making the claims the authors were making.

 

[Speedwell]

I hope I am not putting words in your mouth by explaining this but I think I understand what you said from your explanation and appreciate your engagement in explaining that the processes are more complex and time-relevant in determining the true extent of these forces in causing evolution.

But that is not the point I was making. I said what I said based on the papers (what the authors had said). Basically, it was about the SET having a narrow and the EES expanded that view through the additional forces of evolutionary cause regardless of your view of context and time. I appreciate you are trying to explain things from your perspective but I don't think the authors see it that way. That's why I guess there is such rigorous debate.

My point was that I thought what I said reflected the author's view not because you think it is the correct context but because that is what they were basically claiming according to their research and view of the context. People were saying I was wrong in making the claims the authors were making.

And you were to the degree that the authors were prone, in their enthusiasm, to hyperbole. But basically all you had was an argument from authority, which is a very weak position to begin with. And even a cursory reading of any basic textbook of evolution would have shown you that SET does not assert that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I hope I am not putting words in your mouth by explaining this but I think I understand what you said from your explanation and appreciate your engagement in explaining that the processes are more complex and time-relevant in determining the true extent of these forces in causing evolution and that people will see things differently.

But that is not the point I was making. I said what I said based on the papers (what the authors had said and found from their research). Basically, it was about the SET having a narrow and the EES expanded that view through the additional forces of evolutionary cause regardless of your view of context and time. They gave those forces a certain status that the SET though acknowledging them wasn't prepared to do. I appreciate you are trying to explain things from your perspective that all these forces have some contribution to the evolutionary cause but in context but I don't think the authors see it that way. That's why I guess there is such rigorous debate.

My point was that I thought what I said reflected the author's view not because you think it is the correct context but because that is what they were basically claiming according to their research and view of the context. People were saying I was wrong in making the claims the authors were making.

Some of the claims you made were wrong, and you misinterpreted what some of the articles you quoted were saying, as explained at the time.

Speedwell's answer, #388 above, sums up the rest concisely.

 

[stevevw]

And you were to the degree that the authors were prone, in their enthusiasm, to hyperbole.

Are you saying the authors engaged in hyperbole in the papers I presented from them.

But basically all you had was an argument from authority, which is a very weak position to begin with.

How is it an argument from authority when as I stated the authors supplied scientific verification for what they were saying from their research. That is not an argument from authority. It is verified science and therefore you need to provide counter-evidence to refute what they have shown.

And even a cursory reading of any basic textbook of evolution would have shown you that SET does not assert that natural selection is the sole mechanism of evolution.

Yet the authors based what they said on their research of the mainstream literature. Who am I to believe you are a professed layperson or qualified scientists who have presented a researched scientific paper with evidence to support their claims.

As I mentioned the authors reply to the claim that the mainstream (SET) literature and the view do not take a narrow view was that despite the claim that they have kept up with the changes form other disciplines and incorporating any new findings they still hold to the basic idea of gene change and natural selection determining the adaptive variation at the end of the day. Though other influences are included they are not seen as actual evolutionary causes. I think I have stated this several times.

It's one thing to give some verbal recognition and attribute minor significance. It's another to acknowledge the EES forces as actual causes. That is what they are specifying as to how the SET still only applies the adaptive view as the cause of evolution.

So tell me is this a true reflection of how mainstream evolution (SET) views evolution.

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

 

[Speedwell]

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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

A description which has been oversimplified for rhetorical purposes, not intended to be an exact scientific description of SET, as the context of the paper shows. But even so, it only describes natural selection as a cause of adaptation, not a sole cause of evolution as you claimed.

 

[stevevw]

Some of the claims you made were wrong, and you misinterpreted what some of the articles you quoted were saying, as explained at the time.

The claims I made were

* That mainstream (SET) took a narrow view of evolution IE (random gene change produces variation and natural selection determines adaptive variation).
* That the EES expands the causes of evolution by providing additional causes of adaptive variation and not just NS.
* That this can bias and direct natural selection and thus direct evolution.

Simple as that and I have provided ample support for this.

Speedwell's answer, #388 above, sums up the rest concisely.

These are unsupported assertions as shown in my reply to Speedwell. The authors have no engaged in hyper bowl and Speedwell hasn't backed up that claim. It's not an argument from authority as it doesn't rely on their credentials alone but also the scientific research they provided with the papers. Speedwell can make the claim that mainstream evolution doesn't just hold a narrow view but unlike the papers, he hasn't provided any support.

 

[Speedwell]

The claims I made were

* That mainstream (SET) took a narrow view of evolution IE (random gene change produces variation and natural selection determines adaptive variation).
* That the EES expands the causes of evolution by providing additional causes of adaptive variation and not just NS.
* That this can bias and direct natural selection and thus direct evolution.

Simple as that and I have provided ample support for this.

These are unsupported assertions as shown in my reply to Speedwell. The authors have no engaged in hyper bowl and Speedwell hasn't backed up that claim. It's not an argument from authority as it doesn't rely on their credentials alone but also the scientific research they provided with the papers. Speedwell can make the claim that mainstream evolution doesn't just hold a narrow view but unlike the papers, he hasn't provided any support.

Cite the research from their papers which proves that mainstream evolutionary theory asserts that natural selection is the only cause of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

A description which has been oversimplified for rhetorical purposes, not intended to be an exact scientific description of SET, as the context of the paper shows.

So you saying the words the authors used in stating how the SET takes a narrow view were only words. They didn't really mean what they said.

EES papers have oversimplified the SET view of evolution.

OK then can you tell me what they really meant by this from various papers saying the same thing. Are they all oversimplifying things?

As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Why does even the comparison of the main differences in the core structure, predictions, and assumptions of the SET with the EES also state the same thing?

classical MS core assumptions

(i) The pre-eminence of natural selection. The major directing or creative influence in evolution is natural selection, which alone explains why the properties of organisms match the properties of their environments (adaptation)

(ii) Genetic inheritance. Genes constitute the only general inheritance system. Acquired characters are not inherited
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

But even so, it only describes natural selection as a cause of adaptation, not a sole cause of evolution as you claimed.

Oh yes it does. It is stated throughout every paper. It just stated that in the section I linked above 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.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

This paper even explains why the EES thinks it is wrong to attribute all evolutionary causes to NS if you read it.

Attributing all causal significance to natural selection, by treating earthworm soil-processing as solely proximate causes, linearizes causation, and thereby fails to capture the reciprocal nature of causation in evolution.

It also mentions the core assumptions of the MS or SET with the two most relevant here being
(iii) inheritance is genetic;
(iv) natural selection is the sole explanation for adaptation;
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

The claims I made were

* That mainstream (SET) took a narrow view of evolution IE (random gene change produces variation and natural selection determines adaptive variation).
* That the EES expands the causes of evolution by providing additional causes of adaptive variation and not just NS.
* That this can bias and direct natural selection and thus direct evolution.

Simple as that and I have provided ample support for this.

You can select, trim, refine, and rephrase your claims all you like, but it doesn't make them correct, and the history of the thread shows the errors, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and even plain gibberish that you've been pulled up on. It's all there in plain text.

These are unsupported assertions as shown in my reply to Speedwell. The authors have no engaged in hyper bowl and Speedwell hasn't backed up that claim. It's not an argument from authority as it doesn't rely on their credentials alone but also the scientific research they provided with the papers. Speedwell can make the claim that mainstream evolution doesn't just hold a narrow view but unlike the papers, he hasn't provided any support.

'hyper bowl' - lol! good one... As Speedwell said, anyone with a grounding in the basics of mainstream evolutionary theory knows this stuff. We've been telling you all the way through what the context of those articles was. The research they cite is known to everyone in the field. There's a reason it takes 3-4 years to graduate; it's not a multiple choice quiz with 'Natural selection' as the correct answer to 'What is the sole cause of evolution?'

 

[stevevw]

You can select, trim, refine, and rephrase your claims all you like, but it doesn't make them correct, and the history of the thread shows the errors, misinterpretations, misunderstandings, and even plain gibberish that you've been pulled up on. It's all there in plain text.

You see I am going off what the authors of the EES papers have said. What I have posted is basically the main differences they have pointed out between the SET and the EES. They summarize this in the table they include with the differences in structure, assumptions, and predictions between the EES and the SET. Those summaries according to the papers are a true representation of each view and though a summary is a true representation. I have only repeated this in what I have said.

I agree that evolution is more complex. But they are not talking about that. They are talking about the broad structure and assumptions. It is well known that the SET is defined as evolution by natural selection. So you may say it is wrong but who am I to believe you or the authors who state this?

Even you have said when I claimed that I have never seen anyone on this forum talk about the EES. You said people make a more generalized representation of evolution. This seems to be good enough for you but not for me in describing the broad structure of the SET.

'hyper bowl' - lol! good one... As Speedwell said, anyone with a grounding in the basics of mainstream evolutionary theory knows this stuff. We've been telling you all the way through what the context of those articles was. The research they cite is known to everyone in the field. There's a reason it takes 3-4 years to graduate; it's not a multiple choice quiz with 'Natural selection' as the correct answer to 'What is the sole cause of evolution?'

Then why do the authors keep referring to natural selection like it’s the sole cause of evolution according to the SET despite there obviously being more to evolution. Why despite explaining the process of evolution in more detail according to the SET do they still bring it back to NS being the sole cause as a broad description of the SET view?

Better still can you explain what they mean here form the paper which I think sums up things well?

For biologists schooled in population genetic or quantitative genetic thinking, the starting point for evolutionary analyses is the selection pressures [94]. Leaving aside cases where the source of selection is another organism, environmental change has been treated as a ‘background condition’ (e.g. [88]; table 2). On this perspective, termites evolve to become adapted to the mounds they construct in a manner no different from how organisms adapt to frequent volcanic eruptions. Because niche-constructing activities are seen as proximate sources of variation, they are typically treated as ‘extended phenotypes' [87] that evolve because they enhance inclusive fitness.

We suggest that structuring evolutionary explanations around processes that directly change genotype frequencies is responsible for these interpretations. A widely accepted definition of evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, which, to many evolutionary biologists, restricts evolutionary processes to those that directly change gene frequencies—natural selection, drift, gene flow and mutation. Phenomena such as developmental bias or niche construction do not directly change gene frequencies, and hence are not viewed as causes of evolutionary processes.

Contemporary evolutionary biology textbooks support this interpretation (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). Only selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation are consistently described as evolutionary processes, and coverage of developmental bias, plasticity, inclusive inheritance, and niche construction is at best modest (e.g. [95]) and, more commonly, absent [96,97]. What coverage does occur is typically given the traditional interpretation outlined above.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

So in the above view of the SET, the EES authors are explaining in more detail the standard evolutionary process and comparing how the EES forces such as niche construction, developmental bias, plasticity, inclusive inheritance are viewed by the SET as non-evolutionary causes, background processes that are still explained as part of the adaptive view such as part of the extended phenotypes which still adhere to the adaptive view. But not as independent evolutionary causes. So though the EES forces are acknowledged they are still confined within the SET view of evolution as explanations why evolution doesn't always follow the adaptive view of gene change and NS.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Even you have said when I claimed that I have never seen anyone on this forum talk about the EES. You said people make a more generalized representation of evolution. This seems to be good enough for you but not for me in describing the broad structure of the SET.

Please don't make up incoherent nonsense about me. If you want to quote me, do so (but not out of context).

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I thought the leader from last week's New Scientist (Issue #3301) focusing on evolution was pertinent to the thread:

"... we should resist the temptation to think that evolution is carved in tablets of stone. The radical but irresistible ideas put forward by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1859 remain the core of the theory, yet it has constantly accommodated new knowledge. This happened most conspicuously about a century ago, when the new science of genetics was melded with natural selection to create what became known as the “modern synthesis”.​

Today, we are arguably in the midst of another upgrade. Over the past 30 years, discoveries in developmental biology, epigenetics and elsewhere have needed to be brought under the wing of evolution. As our special report on Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature shows, they largely have been. Only hindsight will be able to judge whether what emerges is Evolution 3.0, or merely Modern Synthesis 1.1. If nothing else, the flurry of activity is proof that evolution – and hence biological science – is a vibrant, living-and-breathing entity still in its prime."
[My bolding]
​

'Nuff said.

 

[stevevw]

Please don't make up incoherent nonsense about me. If you want to quote me, do so (but not out of context).

So you didn't say this back in post #50.

In my response to saying I have never read anyone mentioning the EES forces on Christian Forums your response was

FrumiousBandersnatch said
When people explain the fundamentals of evolution on a forum like CF, they have to generalise and simplify; so they describe basic principles.

I did the same thing repeating what the papers said and was criticized that I was simplifying things and not understanding evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you didn't say this back in post #50.

I don't deny what I actually said - I just asked you to quote me instead of putting words in my mouth - because your interpretations are demonstrably poor.

The incoherent nonsense was this: "Even you have said when I claimed that I have never seen anyone on this forum talk about the EES."