[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[VirOptimus]

-snip- I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. -snip-

I sure dont wonder that, in fact, its crystal clear.

 

[stevevw]

Nonsense. I'll give you an opportunity to correct yourself, so that your post here is seen as a slip of the typing finger, not a genuinely held view.

In regard to our own discussion, you chose not to answer one of my questions and only partially answered the second. I warned you that would cost us both time. I'm preparing a response. Try not to die in the meantime. I hate it when people use that as a way of avoiding an argument.

Ok so to be more specific I wasn't even considering Kaufman's self-organization. I think his self-organization hypothesis is more than I was aiming to talk about so it threw me a bit of a curveball. I think this is more of an overarching view of whether life can produce order through self-organizing processes that are beyond the specifics of the EES. Whereas I was narrowing things down in explaining the EES which talks about 4 main forces that can also drive evolution which is proposed as an expansion/reconceptualization of the existing theory.

But I can see some parallels between the EES and self-organization. Kaufman talks about constraint closure in systems such as technology or economics. How technology becomes more varied and complex because the constraints of the system lead to existing the tech being rejigged which opens up adjacent possibilities for expanding the variety and complexity. The constraints and boundaries are set by the laws of physics.

But the biosphere can construct its own constraints and boundaries and doesn't work to the laws of physics in the same way as technology or economics and therefore cannot be measured or predicted through scientific reductionism. So something is at work beyond physics that is inherent in the system.

So I guess when applied to the EES these would be the ability of developmental processes which are inherent that can produce integrated and well-suited variety and complexity and the way the organism has an ability to know how to create niches which then open up more possibilities for evolutionary change. These are nonrandom and self-organizing processes that produce more opportunities to evolve and survive and thus are ordered and self-organizing.

Kauffman talks about these adjacent possibilities being created without natural selection though he mentions NS still determines what has been created as being a selective advantage. But I don't fully understand how this works. For example, he mentions how a swim bladder creates a new niche which opens up an adjacent possibility in that the niche allows for bacteria and worms to exist and inhabit that space where it wasn't there before. This has allowed the system to create new organisms that are still subject to NS.

But the fact that the system has created these new organisms means that they are not some random event and therefore these new organisms should already be well adapted and integrated into the new niche despite NS. Otherwise, why do they exist and not any other possibility? He mentions this with hearts. Why is a heart created by the system when any complex variation could have been made. So something within the system is geared towards certain outcomes and not any outcome.

If this is the case then this is similar to the EES in that the processes are non-random as well. New variations are already well suited, integrated into the system, and therefore are adaptive and will be passed on to the next generation. So NS is either diminished in its role or biased towards certain outcomes dictated by these existing EES forces. So I guess Kauffmans self-organization has some parallels when it comes to the EES.

So I think the Kauffmans approach like the EES works in parallel to NS. Though I don't think it's as straightforward as that as the role of NS may be different in different situations. Sometimes NS is diminished with the EES forces such as with development as the variety produced is already adaptive and gives a selective advantage. Sometimes it can be bypassed as with niche construction as the organism knows what needs to be created and therefore is doing the selecting itself rather than NS. NS is still a force to a greater or lesser degree but it depends on the situation. But it is not subsumed entirely by either the EES or self-organization.

 

[stevevw]

I sure don't wonder that, in fact, it's crystal clear.

Yet you never explain how. It's like someone saying I found out something that you should know and then not telling them. Why even state it in the first place. What's the point.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

Cool, let's see how you support that.....

Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a MAIN [capitalization mine] cause of diversity among organisms.

Funny, that's not what you claimed. It really is time you stopped and walked away. Attacking strawman arguments is a fool's errand. Please stop.

 

[stevevw]

Cool, let's see how you support that.....

Funny, that's not what you claimed.

And what did I claim seeing you are now putting words and thoughts into my head.

It really is time you stopped and walked away. Attacking strawman arguments is a fool's errand. Please stop.

I think it is you who is creating a straw man in trying to make out that I have said that random mutation is the only source of variation for natural selection. I have not said this and you have injected what you think I have said or meant into things.

The keyword to look for here is the word highlights. Mainstream evolution highlights random mutations and it's in most of the literature. Highlights mean it emphasizes one thing over the others. IE it emphasizes random mutations as causes of variations other than any other variation. It doesn't mean that it's the only variation but it highlights it as the most important source of variation for evolution. There is a good reason why mutations are highlighted over other variations and this doesn't seem to be realized. I have pointed this out several times on this thread.

What I find to be a distraction is that people keep trying to focus o something I may or may not have got right and don't address the point. The point I was making which you haven't addressed in that mainstream evolution view seems to only mention mutations and NS and overlook or at the very least diminish the EES forces.

So we end up spending more time on these distractions and side issues that are not relevant. It makes me begin to wonder if this is not some purposeful ploy to derail the thread. I would say more time has been spent on distractions than the topic itself.

 

[Speedwell]

But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

The mainstream view is that natural selection does not act on random mutation. It acts on randomly distributed variation is the phenotype. This randomly distributed variation is brought about by various causal factors including but not limited to random mutations.

Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms.

Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

Heritable variation comes from random mutations. Random mutations are the initial cause of new heritable traits. For example, a rabbit can't choose to have a different fur color. Rather, a genetic mutation causes a difference in fur color, which may help that rabbit hide better in its environment. Natural selection acts on existing heritable variation. Natural selection needs some starting material, and that starting material is heritable variation.
Evolution and natural selection review (article) | Khan Academy

As these papers clearly explain.

If you follow the above it states that natural selection acts on heritable variations for evolution to occur and heritable variations come from random mutations. I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. Therefore natural selection acts on random mutations.

Yes, those articles show that natural selection and acts on heritable variations and that random mutation is one of the contributors to heritable variation--which is what I was trying to explain to you. Yet you conclude the opposite. You disagree with my explanation and post several articles that support my position and conclude that I am wrong... and I'm the one who doesn't understand evolution???

 

[Speedwell]

And what did I claim seeing you are now putting words and thoughts into my head. I think it is you who is creating a straw man in trying to make out that I have said that random mutation is the only source of variation for natural selection. I have not said this and you have injected what you think I have said or meant into things.

No, you made the claim that "mainstream evolution" asserts that natural selection acts on random mutations, which is false. Mainstream evolution makes no such claim. It claims that natural selection acts on heritable, randomly distributed variation which is contributed to by random mutation along with other causes.

The keyword to look for here is the word highlights. Mainstream evolution highlights random mutations and it's in most of the literature. Highlights mean it emphasizes one thing over the others. IE it emphasizes random mutations as causes of variations other than any other variation. It doesn't mean that it's the only variation but it highlights it as the most important source of variation for evolution. There is a good reason why mutations are highlighted over other variations and this doesn't seem to be realized. I have pointed this out several times on this thread.

What's the good reason? I must have missed it.

What I find to be a distraction is that people keep trying to focus o something I may or may not have got right and don't address the point. The point I was making which you haven't addressed in that mainstream evolution view seems to only mention mutations and NS and overlook or at the very least diminish the EES forces.

Which is a picayune point to be spending all the effort you have spent to make.

So we end up spending more time on these distractions and side issues that are not relevant. It makes me begin to wonder if this is not some purposeful ploy to derail the thread. I would say more time has been spent on distractions than the topic itself.

The time has been spent trying to point out to you that your understanding of the subject is so poor that you are in no position to make a judgment call about how much emphasis should or should not be given to EES.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And what did I claim seeing you are now putting words and thoughts into my head. I think it is you who is creating a straw man in trying to make out that I have said that random mutation is the only source of variation for natural selection. I have not said this and you have injected what you think I have said or meant into things.

The keyword to look for here is the word highlights. Mainstream evolution highlights random mutations and it's in most of the literature. Highlights mean it emphasizes one thing over the others. IE it emphasizes random mutations as causes of variations other than any other variation. It doesn't mean that it's the only variation but it highlights it as the most important source of variation for evolution. There is a good reason why mutations are highlighted over other variations and this doesn't seem to be realized. I have pointed this out several times on this thread.

What I find to be a distraction is that people keep trying to focus o something I may or may not have got right and don't address the point. The point I was making which you haven't addressed in that mainstream evolution view seems to only mention mutations and NS and overlook or at the very least diminish the EES forces.

So we end up spending more time on these distractions and side issues that are not relevant. It makes me begin to wonder if this is not some purposeful ploy to derail the thread. I would say more time has been spent on distractions than the topic itself.

Clearly you don't even understand your own words. Perhaps that explains why you don't understand others.

Here's what we see: Stevew makes a claim. One or more posters point out the errors of the claim. Stevew repeats the claim, other posters point out the error in different ways. At no point does Stevew accept he has it wrong but insists that he alone is correct and every other poster is misled. The arrogance and hubris on display is quite astounding.

Just stop.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Kauffman talks about these adjacent possibilities being created without natural selection though he mentions NS still determines what has been created as being a selective advantage. But I don't fully understand how this works. For example, he mentions how a swim bladder creates a new niche which opens up an adjacent possibility in that the niche allows for bacteria and worms to exist and inhabit that space where it wasn't there before. This has allowed the system to create new organisms that are still subject to NS.

But the fact that the system has created these new organisms means that they are not some random event and therefore these new organisms should already be well adapted and integrated into the new niche despite NS. Otherwise, why do they exist and not any other possibility?

Oh good grief.. The system doesn't directly create those organisms, it provides a niche to which they can become adapted via various sources of phenotypic variation (including random mutation), with natural selection determining which variants fit the niche best. It's not despite NS, it's because NS.

 

[stevevw]

The mainstream view is that natural selection does not act on random mutation. It acts on randomly distributed variation is the phenotype. This randomly distributed variation is brought about by various causal factors including but not limited to random mutations.

Yes, those articles show that natural selection and acts on heritable variations and that random mutation is one of the contributors to heritable variation--which is what I was trying to explain to you. Yet you conclude the opposite. You disagree with my explanation and post several articles that support my position and conclude that I am wrong... and I'm the one who doesn't understand evolution???

Then how do you explain the following

The idea of evolution by natural selection, first described by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, requires differential survival due to some individuals having greater evolutionary fitness. Whether that fitness is affected by genetic disorders, venomous saliva, or enlarged offspring, heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Every part of our body is controlled by molecules, so you have to explain on a molecular level. That is the real mechanism of evolution, how molecules change. They change through mutation.
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution

Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation.

Without variation (which arises from mutations of DNA molecules to produce new alleles) natural selection would have nothing on which to act.

All genetic variation in the population is generated by mutation.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Not just that bacteria which makes up the majority of life on earth and can only provide variation through random mutation. So you discount most of life with that view of variation.

Asexual organisms or organisms, such as bacteria, that very seldom undergo sexual recombination do not have this source of variation, so new mutations are the only way in which a change in gene combinations can be achieved.
Sources of variation - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf.

I am not discounting that other sources of variation occur. I am saying that for mainstream evolution random mutations is the ultimate source that supplies new variations. After all how else do we get from a simple life to complex life, from simple eyes to complex eyes, evolve wings, limbs for land, mammals that swim, apes to humans, etc? New features had to be evolved and mutation is the only way to initially produce those variations. All else is just mixing what already has been produced by random mutations. Thats according to mainstream evolution that is.

 

[stevevw]

Clearly you don't even understand your own words. Perhaps that explains why you don't understand others.

Here's what we see: Stevew makes a claim. One or more posters point out the errors of the claim. Stevew repeats the claim, other posters point out the error in different ways. At no point does Stevew accept he has it wrong but insists that he alone is correct and every other poster is misled. The arrogance and hubris on display is quite astounding.

Just stop.

So what's the claim you and others think I made about variations.

 

[Speedwell]

Then how do you explain the following

The idea of evolution by natural selection, first described by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace, requires differential survival due to some individuals having greater evolutionary fitness. Whether that fitness is affected by genetic disorders, venomous saliva, or enlarged offspring, heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Every part of our body is controlled by molecules, so you have to explain on a molecular level. That is the real mechanism of evolution, how molecules change. They change through mutation.
Mutation, Not Natural Selection, Drives Evolution

Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation.

Without variation (which arises from mutations of DNA molecules to produce new alleles) natural selection would have nothing on which to act.

All genetic variation in the population is generated by mutation.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Not just that bacteria which makes up the majority of life on earth and can only provide variation through random mutation. So you discount most of life with that view of variation.

Asexual organisms or organisms, such as bacteria, that very seldom undergo sexual recombination do not have this source of variation, so new mutations are the only way in which a change in gene combinations can be achieved.
Sources of variation - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf.

I am not discounting that other sources of variation occur. I am saying that for mainstream evolution random mutations is the ultimate source that supplies new variations. After all how else do we get from a simple life to complex life, from simple eyes to complex eyes, evolve wings, limbs for land, mammals that swim, apes to humans, etc? New features had to be evolved and mutation is the only way to initially produce those variations. All else is just mixing what already has been produced by random mutations. That's according to mainstream evolution that is.

Well, that's not really a scientific source, but it's not bad. But your claim was that natural selection acted directly on mutations--a claim which I am glad to see you backing away from. Maybe you can learn something about evolution after all.
But I would really like to see you explain another statement you made,

The keyword to look for here is the word highlights. Mainstream evolution highlights random mutations and it's in most of the literature. Highlights mean it emphasizes one thing over the others. IE it emphasizes random mutations as causes of variations other than any other variation. It doesn't mean that it's the only variation but it highlights it as the most important source of variation for evolution. There is a good reason why mutations are highlighted over other variations and this doesn't seem to be realized. I have pointed this out several times on this thread.

What's the good reason? I must have missed it.

 

[stevevw]

Well, that's not really a scientific source, but it's not bad. But your claim was that natural selection acted directly on mutations--a claim which I am glad to see you backing away from. Maybe you can learn something about evolution after all.

Funny I cannot remember claiming that. I only made the claim that according to mainstream evolutionary view mutation change is regarded as the important source of variation and once again I think I have supported this. I have only spoken about natural selection acting on variation but have linked that variation to mutational changes as an important source of producing that variation.

In fact if anything it is other people who are emphasizing mutations and NS with the gene-centric view of how variation is produced in saying that all variation is based on genetic changes. I am saying that this view is narrow and excludes other sources of the variation that the EES emphasizes. That is why I was pointing out that trying to include other mainstream sources of variation like recombination or drift are really irrelevant anyway as they are still only about gene-based variations which still exclude the EES sources of variations such as niche construction and inheritance beyond genes which are not always gene-based. That is why I was emphasizing random mutations in the first place if you remember and things seem to have gotten off track.

But I would really like to see you explain another statement you made,
What's the good reason? I must have missed it.

Well according to mainstream view such as common descent all life evolved from a simple universal common ancestor. So there has been a great evolution of individual features and entire body forms transitioning from one to another (simple to complex and an arrangement of new variations that were not there, to begin with.

The only way for this to happen is through random mutation. This is the go-to explanation for how evolution is primarily explained and how these body forms and individual features came about. Therefore there is a good reason why evolution uses mutational changes to explain evolutionary variation as it relates to the core Darwinian tenet of evolution 'Descent with Modification', the gradual evolution of one form to another.

This cannot happen any other way except by random mutation as the links I supplied support. All other variation change under the mainstream view is really about the mixing and loss of existing variation created by mutational changes and will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes.

 

[Speedwell]

...and will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes.

At last. Why didn't you just come out with that at the beginning? It would have saved us all a lot of time.

 

[VirOptimus]

Funny I cannot remember claiming that. I only made the claim that according to mainstream evolutionary view mutation change is regarded as the important source of variation and once again I think I have supported this. I have only spoken about natural selection acting on variation but have linked that variation to mutational changes as an important source of producing that variation.

In fact if anything it is other people who are emphasizing mutations and NS with the gene-centric view of how variation is produced in saying that all variation is based on genetic changes. I am saying that this view is narrow and excludes other sources of the variation that the EES emphasizes. That is why I was pointing out that trying to include other mainstream sources of variation like recombination or drift are really irrelevant anyway as they are still only about gene-based variations which still exclude the EES sources of variations such as niche construction and inheritance beyond genes which are not always gene-based. That is why I was emphasizing random mutations in the first place if you remember and things seem to have gotten off track.

Well according to mainstream view such as common descent all life evolved from a simple universal common ancestor. So there has been a great evolution of individual features and entire body forms transitioning from one to another (simple to complex and an arrangement of new variations that were not there, to begin with.

The only way for this to happen is through random mutation. This is the go-to explanation for how evolution is primarily explained and how these body forms and individual features came about. Therefore there is a good reason why evolution uses mutational changes to explain evolutionary variation as it relates to the core Darwinian tenet of evolution 'Descent with Modification', the gradual evolution of one form to another.

This cannot happen any other way except by random mutation as the links I supplied support. All other variation change under the mainstream view is really about the mixing and loss of existing variation created by mutational changes and will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes.

So.. ID/creationism then.

 

[Ophiolite]

All other variation change under the mainstream view is really about the mixing and loss of existing variation created by mutational changes and will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What makes you think it does?

 

[stevevw]

Your conclusion doesn't follow from your premise. What makes you think it does?

What do you mean. That is primarily the main tenet of evolution according to the mainstream view. If it doesn't follow then we can basically kiss evolution theory goodbye.

 

[stevevw]

So.. ID/creationism then.

lol I have just basically explained the core of mainstream evolution and you call it ID/creationism. So who is not understanding things?

 

[stevevw]

At last. Why didn't you just come out with that at the beginning? It would have saved us all a lot of time.

What do you mean. I have been basically saying that for some time now.

 

[VirOptimus]

lol I have just basically explained the core of mainstream evolution and you call it ID/creationism. So who is not understanding things?

No you havent. And you use creationism/ID language and arguments.