[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

"Thought" and "think" dont cut it.

Gee that was a quick reply, like seconds after I posted. It's like you are just hanging out for my response to jump on and dismiss. That is your only contribution and reason you are even participating in this thread ah lol.

 

[Ophiolite]

Gee that was a quick reply, like seconds after I posted. It's like you are just hanging out for my response to jump on and dismiss. That is your only contribution and reason you are even participating in this thread ah lol.

Lightweight arguments, such as you used on that occasion don't require a lengthy period of study to dismiss. Your conclusion may even be valid, but if you use a flawed methodology to derive it then dismissing it is the appropriate action.

Edited to remove a superfluous "the"

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I would have thought these were the exception and not the rule. The fact is there is a narrow set of variations which doesn't seem to point to a random source. If you say that one variation from the usual 7 neck bones is evidence of randomness then why not 5 or 8 or 9 as well.

Well, I didn't say that; I was simply correcting another of your false assertions.

I think these are different as simple celled microorganisms display high levels of HGT to start with. IT seems simple life forms have a great ability to share genetic info and cooperate to help create conditions and environments that benefit them. But this may be similar to how more complex creatures work with changing environments in that there are feedbacks between environments and the way creatures can change at the cell and tissue level. Environmental pressures affect cells and tissues which can respond in ways that produce beneficial changes that help them adapt through development such as with plasticity.

That in no way answers the question, it just restates the same assertion. How do these single-celled organisms 'just learn' to cooperate to construct niches? By what mechanism do they 'just learn'? What developmental plasticity does a bacterium or a yeast have? how does that work?

IOW how do bacterial & yeast populations evolve niche construction behaviours?

If you can't plausibly explain how these things come about, your assertions are useless.

 

[stevevw]

Lightweight arguments, such as you used on that occasion don't require a lengthy period of study to dismiss. Your conclusion may even be valid, but if you use a flawed methodology to derive it then dismissing it is the appropriate action.

Edited to remove a superfluous "the"

Once again you have to go back through the history of this thread to appreciate why I have said what I said. The poster dismisses everything said regardless of what argument is presented. At least others who may disagree give some reason and argument in response.

 

[VirOptimus]

Once again you have to go back through the history of this thread to appreciate why I have said what I said. The poster dismisses everything said regardless of what argument is presented. At least others who may disagree give some reason and argument in response.

I give your posts the answers they deserve.

 

[stevevw]

I give your posts the answers they deserve.

I'm not sure about that. You posted that reply within 4 minutes of me posting it. Hardly enough time to check the references and sources validity. So I would say you have already made up your mind are dismissing things out of hand. At the least, you are making determinations without fully investigating the information posted or are making assumptions about it.

 

[VirOptimus]

I'm not sure about that. You posted that reply within 4 minutes of me posting it. Hardly enough time to check the references and sources validity. So I would say you have already made up your mind are dismissing things out of hand. At the least, you are making determinations without fully investigating the information posted or are making assumptions about it.

Or... I know the subject and you dont (as evidenced in this very thread).

 

[stevevw]

Or... I know the subject and you don't (as evidenced in this very thread).

That's your opinion. We don't know that you know more about the topic as evidenced by your replies to this thread. You have never elaborated on your posts for anyone to even know you have any knowledge, but rather only given short dismissals and jibes to my posts. What you deem as support for me not knowing the topic is your view and when a little scrutiny is put to these claims it seems that it more about a difference in a view which is what the thread is about.

As far as I know, you have only mentioned you have qualifications/knowledge in philosophy from a previous debate on morality. So it seems a little ironic that you claim you know more on a topic I have studied than I yet have no qualifications.

 

[VirOptimus]

That's your opinion. We don't know that you know more about the topic as evidenced by your replies to this thread. You have never elaborated on your posts for anyone to even know you have any knowledge, but rather only given short dismissals and jibes to my posts. What you deem as support for me not knowing the topic is your view and when a little scrutiny is put to these claims it seems that it more about a difference in a view which is what the thread is about.

As far as I know, you have only mentioned you have qualifications/knowledge in philosophy from a previous debate on morality. So it seems a little ironic that you claim you know more on a topic I have studied than I yet have no qualifications.

You havent studied it, you have on your own read and not understod the subject.

You have no real academic background wich is very evident as one reads your posts.

Its also very obvious that you are an ID proponent.

 

[Speedwell]

That's your opinion. We don't know that you know more about the topic as evidenced by your replies to this thread. You have never elaborated on your posts for anyone to even know you have any knowledge, but rather only given short dismissals and jibes to my posts. What you deem as support for me not knowing the topic is your view and when a little scrutiny is put to these claims it seems that it more about a difference in a view which is what the thread is about.

As far as I know, you have only mentioned you have qualifications/knowledge in philosophy from a previous debate on morality. So it seems a little ironic that you claim you know more on a topic I have studied than I yet have no qualifications.

Who do you mean by "we?"

 

[stevevw]

Who do you mean by "we?"

The people on this thread as there is no reference at all to anyone about what qualifications VirOptimus has. No elaboration on what has been said so who knows. If you have some info then please elaborate because I haven't been able to even establish that. Like I said there is no engagement in the thread at all. At least you have told us you are a layperson on the topic.

The ironic thing is VirOptimus is happy enough to accept your comment despite that but not mine. This seems bias like I said. Like you asked me why do I persist in pushing the EES. I ask the same question why would someone persist in not engaging and just having a go at the person. It's not really constructive. What's the point. It seems like there is some other personal reason besides a noble cause of seeking the truth or educating others to save them from the crazy IDists or creationists lol.

 

[stevevw]

You havent studied it, you have on your own read and not understood the subject. You have no real academic background wich is very evident as one reads your posts.

See here's another unsupported assertion that you just throw out there. Study means "the devotion of time and attention to gaining knowledge of an academic subject, especially by means of books". Electronic books and journals are the same things.

So according to that definition, I have been studying the topics for many years. So I cannot believe that after so many years of studying the topics that I haven't picked up any knowledge. I have studied and passed at a tertiary level so I do have a brain capable of understanding things at least at the basic and intermediate level.

Here's the thing. I made certain claims based on what the papers said. There was a dispute about what I was posting at first and people said I was misunderstanding the topic. Then when I persisted and got into the detail it was established that the papers were saying what I said IE I claimed that mainstream evolution (SET) only viewed evolutionary cause narrowly taking an 'adaptive and selective' view. I provided ample support and even one poster agreed with me. It has been more a case of miscommunication. I am relaying what the papers have said and they definitely support the claims I made.

It's also very obvious that you are an ID proponent.

Well that is another unfounded assertion. You make that assumption based on what. If I support evolution then how can I also be an IDist. That's a contradiction. But nevertheless, as I have stated before how does that make the EES wrong or irrelevant. That is a logical fallacy.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here's the thing. I made certain claims based on what the papers said. There was a dispute about what I was posting at first and people said I was misunderstanding the topic. Then when I persisted and got into the detail it was established that the papers were saying what I said IE I claimed that mainstream evolution (SET) only viewed evolutionary cause narrowly taking an 'adaptive and selective' view.

This seems to me the root of the problem.

A core principle of evolutionary theory lies in the importance of natural selection. You appear to argue from this that "the core principle of evolutionary theory lies in the pre-eminence of natural selection to the practical exclusion of all other mechanisms". This is a strawman. Perhaps it is not one you actually ascribe to, but that is the impression I have formed and it seems to recognised by other members also.

The fact is that since its introduction by Darwin and Wallace, evolutionary theory has always had important elements in play other than natural selection. The advances in our understanding of evolution have arisen from the tensions those different viewpoints created and the work that was done to resolve the tensions.

As long as you appear to take the simplistic (and ultimately incorrect) view that natural selection is the only important mechanism contemplated by the consensus of practicing biologists, then you are going to be attacked for a lack of understanding.

Debate and conflict and disagreement are the lifeblood of scientific advance, but they work a lot better if we are debating something that is real, rather than imagined.

 

[Speedwell]

The people on this thread as there is no reference at all to anyone about what qualifications VirOptimus has. No elaboration on what has been said so who knows. If you have some info then please elaborate because I haven't been able to even establish that. Like I said there is no engagement in the thread at all. At least you have told us you are a layperson on the topic.

VirOptimus has been posting here and in the creation/evolution forum for fifteen years. During that time he has demonstrated a firm grasp of the science we are debating to the satisfaction of laymen like me and apparently to the actual scientists who post here as well. In addition he is a logical and articulate debater. I don't know what his formal academic qualifications are and don't particularly care, as his posts are readily acceptable at face value.

The ironic thing is VirOptimus is happy enough to accept your comment despite that but not mine. This seems bias like I said. Like you asked me why do I persist in pushing the EES. I ask the same question why would someone persist in not engaging and just having a go at the person. It's not really constructive. What's the point. It seems like there is some other personal reason besides a noble cause of seeking the truth or educating others to save them from the crazy IDists or creationists lol.

Because there are serious gaps in your knowledge of the subject at hand which you refuse to acknowledge and which makes discussion tiresome and unproductive.

 

[Speedwell]

See here's another unsupported assertion that you just throw out there. Study means "the devotion of time and attention to gaining knowledge of an academic subject, especially by means of books". Electronic books and journals are the same things.

So according to that definition, I have been studying the topics for many years. So I cannot believe that after so many years of studying the topics that I haven't picked up any knowledge. I have studied and passed at a tertiary level so I do have a brain capable of understanding things at least at the basic and intermediate level.

So you are claiming a post-secondary qualification in evolutionary biology?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So you are claiming a post-secondary qualification in evolutionary biology?

I think those 'many years of study' demonstrate that you can't learn the fundamental principles of a subject by reading pop-sci articles and technical papers online.

 

[stevevw]

This seems to me the root of the problem.

A core principle of evolutionary theory lies in the importance of natural selection. You appear to argue from this that "the core principle of evolutionary theory lies in the pre-eminence of natural selection to the practical exclusion of all other mechanisms". This is a strawman. Perhaps it is not one you actually ascribe to, but that is the impression I have formed and it seems to recognised by other members also.

The fact is that since its introduction by Darwin and Wallace, evolutionary theory has always had important elements in play other than natural selection. The advances in our understanding of evolution have arisen from the tensions those different viewpoints created and the work that was done to resolve the tensions.

As long as you appear to take the simplistic (and ultimately incorrect) view that natural selection is the only important mechanism contemplated by the consensus of practicing biologists, then you are going to be attacked for a lack of understanding.

Debate and conflict and disagreement are the lifeblood of scientific advance, but they work a lot better if we are debating something that is real, rather than imagined.

Ok so you are re-stating the same disputes others have made and I went through that with them. Here's the problem with what you say. The EES papers state that despite the claims that mainstream evolution is incorporating the forces the EES emphasize they are not really implementing those forces as far as them being actual causes of evolution on par with natural selection.

I went through this with Speedwell. At first, people said I didn't understand the papers because as you say it was a strawman argument and I wasn't really appreciating that mainstream evolution was already incorporating these additional forces. Therefore I didn't understand the papers. I showed that despite yours and others' claims that the papers were saying that this was the case despite those claims of already including the EES force. That there was a difference between giving acknowledgment and actually recognizing and including these forces into the theory.

The issue is that though mainstream evolution acknowledges and may include those EES forces perhaps by other names they still determine that they are produced by adaptive/selective evolution (natural selection NS) and only explain why the sole cause NS is either constrained or absent on the occasions that don't follow the adaptive/selective process. This still relegates the EES forces to contributors and not actual causes like NS and therefore is still not fully recognizing the EES.

In addition, I went through this with speedwell where he acknowledges the EES papers were claiming that mainstream evolution views NS as the sole cause of evolution. He was skeptical of this claim because it came from EES papers who may have some bias and asked for mainstream support. I gave him that support which shows that even the mainstream evolutionary view regards NS as the sole cause of evolutionary change. I think I linked that for you a couple of posts back.

The thing is the type of thinking is still based on a gradualist and adaptive cause. Evolutionary change, the building of creatures from simple to complex, new species, and features are explained in adaptive terms. Change has to be tint and gradual where existing forms are mutated into slight variations that NS acts on to determine a selective advantage. Variation only stems from genetic changes.

This excludes how creatures develop and influence change to environments or how they behave and the influence this has on their offspring and the environment is regarded as secondary and not actual causes of evolution like random mutation and NS. Under the EES variation can stem from non-genetic sources and selective advantage can come from developmental processes and the creature itself.

 

[stevevw]

I think those 'many years of study' demonstrate that you can't learn the fundamental principles of a subject by reading pop-sci articles and technical papers online.

How have I misunderstood the fundamentals of the theory rather than you being the one who misunderstood things. Give me an example of where I have misunderstood the basics.

 

[Ophiolite]

The issue is that though mainstream evolution acknowledges and may include those EES forces perhaps by other names they still determine that they are produced by adaptive/selective evolution (natural selection NS) and only explain why the sole cause NS is either constrained or absent on the occasions that don't follow the adaptive/selective process.

In order to save both of us some time your answer to these questions would be helpful.

• Are you arguing that Kaufman's approach subsumes natural selection, acts in parallel to it, is subsumbed by it, or other?
• Other than Kaufman's self organisation are there any other major concepts you think I/we are ignoring?

 

[stevevw]

VirOptimus has been posting here and in the creation/evolution forum for fifteen years. During that time he has demonstrated a firm grasp of the science we are debating to the satisfaction of laymen like me and apparently to the actual scientists who post here as well. In addition he is a logical and articulate debater. I don't know what his formal academic qualifications are and don't particularly care, as his posts are readily accepted at face value.

Well of course you're going to say that. He is supporting your position. That is not an independent qualification. The problem is he is the one claiming that I don't have formal knowledge. Therefore it should apply to all. Otherwise, how do we know that you are just being biased?

Because there are serious gaps in your knowledge of the subject at hand which you refuse to acknowledge and which makes discussion tiresome and unproductive.

Then show me where those gaps are. As far as I have seen you have misunderstood things yourself. We have just gone through one example where you claimed the EES was not supporting what I was misunderstanding what the EES said. That it really wasn't a case that the EES or anyone was saying that mainstream evolutionary view was narrow.

I showed you that I was correct and then you asked for more evidence from non-EES papers and I also provided that. So the claims were wrong that I misunderstood things. Sometimes claiming that someone misunderstands things is a way of trying to discredit opposing views because the assumption is they must be wrong because my view is correct. But anyone can live under a misinformed view even non-religious people lol.