[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[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 are quite astounding.

Just stop.

I think you should read previous posts if you are going to come into a thread and make claims about what I have said and not said or claimed. I have acknowledged other sources of variation throughout the thread if you check. For example, here I acknowledge that random mutations are viewed as the main source of variation just like the link you highlighted said.

#507
As far as the source of evolution is concerned and that is what we are talking about I cannot understand why you are only focusing on random variation when according to the theory random mutations is the main source of variation.

Here I acknowledge recombination as a source of variation under the mainstream view.

#466
As far as recombination only shuffling existing variations which does not add anything new. As opposed to mutations being the only source that adds new variations.

Those I engaged with when acknowledging these additional sources of variation didn't mention anything about me only claiming that random mutations are the only source of variation for mainstream evolution. As I said I was pointing out how the mainstream view highlighted and made random mutations the main source of variation and for good reason according to that view.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you should read previous posts if you are going to come into a thread and make claims about what I have said and not said or claimed. I have acknowledged other sources of variation throughout the thread if you check. For example, here I acknowledge that random mutations are viewed as the main source of variation just like the link you highlighted said.

#507
As far as the source of evolution is concerned and that is what we are talking about I cannot understand why you are only focusing on random variation when according to the theory random mutations is the main source of variation.

Here I acknowledge recombination as a source of variation under the mainstream view.

#466
As far as recombination only shuffling existing variations which does not add anything new. As opposed to mutations being the only source that adds new variations.

Those I engaged with when acknowledging these additional sources of variation didn't mention anything about me only claiming that random mutations are the only source of variation for mainstream evolution. As I said I was pointing out how the mainstream view highlighted and made random mutations the main source of variation and for good reason according to that view.

As I said, you do not understand your own words. Despite your claim to the contrary, your actual statement was not that mutation is a main source (which the articles you quoted said), your claim was that it was the only source highlighted. There is a difference in meaning which you obviously do not understand.

I stand by my assessment.

 

[stevevw]

As I said, you do not understand your own words.

And you have not understood my views on this matter despite what you think I have said by not verifying that this was the case

Despite your claim to the contrary, your actual statement was not that mutation is the main source (which the articles you quoted said), your claim was that it was the only source highlighted. There is a difference in meaning which you obviously do not understand.

I stand by my assessment.

Yes the difference in meaning which is 'the only source highlighted as opposed to other sources'. Why would I need to highlight a source if it's the only source? I would therefore say "it is the only source" full stop. Here's the problem with your thinking. I have made other quotes on this matter as linked in the previous post which shows that I have not made out that random mutations are the only source of variation and have acknowledged the other variations by the mainstream evolution.

So you have not done your homework in checking the rest of my quotes in this thread to ensure that what you think I have said is the case and not just a matter of semantics or wording.

Regardless of how you want to frame this specific quote by me, your implication was that I was only saying that random mutations are the only source of variation period on this thread by saying that everyone has pointed this out in previous posts. As I have shown with my other quotes on this matter that is not the case.

Quote-mining me on a specific quote of mine out of context from the rest of my posts is not a true representation of my views and therefore is a misrepresentation and therefore my claim stands. Anyway this a silly game of semantics and regardless of what you think that is not my position as I have shown.

 

[stevevw]

No you haven't. And you use creationism/ID language and arguments.

OK let's be clear about what I said

* 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.

* The only way for this to happen is through random mutation.

* 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.

* 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 you saying the above is creationist/ID language. Creationism and ID never supports random mutation as the cause of new variations that have produced life or language like common descent or descent with modification which are classical tenets from Darwin's theory. I think you must this stock standard automatic response about everything I say regardless of even looking to see what it is that it must be all creationists/IDist even if it supports mainstream evolution theory.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

And you have not understood my views on this matter despite what you think I have said by not verifying that this was the case Yes the difference in meaning which is 'the only source highlighted as opposed to other sources'. Why would I need to highlight a source if it's the only source? I would therefore say "it is the only source" full stop. Here's the problem with your thinking. I have made other quotes on this matter as linked in the previous post which shows that I have not made out that random mutations are the only source of variation and have acknowledged the other variations by the mainstream evolution.

So you have not done your homework in checking the rest of my quotes in this thread to ensure that what you think I have said is the case and not just a matter of semantics or wording.

Regardless of how you want to frame this specific quote by me, your implication was that I was only saying that random mutations are the only source of variation period on this thread by saying that everyone has pointed this out in previous posts. As I have shown with my other quotes on this matter that is not the case.

Quote-mining me on a specific quote of mine out of context from the rest of my posts is not a true representation of my views and therefore is a misrepresentation and therefore my claim stands. Anyway this a silly game of semantics and regardless of what you think that is not my position as I have shown.

You may rant and rail as much as you like, but your words are already out there, and the evidence indicates you lack understanding. You cannot change that fact, no matter how inconvenient it may be.

I notice that you have changed tack recently to accommodate a different line of argument, and others have acknowledged this. Perhaps that would be a more fruitful line to take than trying to deny your previous errors.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

This was your premise:
"All other variation change under the mainstream view is really about the mixing and loss of existing variation created by mutational changes."

This was your conclusion:
"[it] will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The conclusion is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

 

[VirOptimus]

-snip-
* 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.
-snip-

The above is ID language and not part of the ToE.

 

[Speedwell]

"...will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes." Yes it can, and does. EES is an exciting new field of evolutionary research that may prove fruitful, but it is not intended to fill the gap you think you see in SET.

 

[stevevw]

You may rant and rail as much as you like, but your words are already out there, and the evidence indicates you lack understanding. You cannot change that fact, no matter how inconvenient it may be.

You only see what you want to see. You said I didn't say that random mutations are the main source of evolution. Then I linked a quote from me stating exactly that IE

Steve said in post
#507
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

So how do you reconcile these comments from me with your claim?

I notice that you have changed tack recently to accommodate a different line of argument, and others have acknowledged this. Perhaps that would be a more fruitful line to take than trying to deny your previous errors.

I don't understand what you mean by changed tact.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

You only see what you want to see.

Here's a thing - when I quote you directly I am providing the evidence that I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what you wrote. If you make an error, that's what gets played back to you. Other posters do the same. Why do you think that is? I'll answer for you - it's because you make mistakes, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

You said I didn't say that random mutations are the main source of evolution. Then I linked a quote from me stating exactly that IE

Steve said in post
#507

according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

I really don't care what you said in that post. In the post I quoted you made a different claim. Apparently you can't even be consistent in the claims you make.

So how do you reconcile these comments from me with your claim?

Simple - you lack understanding. It's what I, and others, have been telling you for days now.

 

[stevevw]

This was your premise:
"All other variation change under the mainstream view is really about the mixing and loss of existing variation created by mutational changes."

This was your conclusion:
"[it] will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes."

The conclusion does not follow from the premise. The conclusion is nothing more than an unsupported assertion.

That just doesn't make sense when I also posted evidence for what I said. In fact, it is a logical conclusion because how else can you even explain how this can happen apart from random mutations. Did you not read it IE

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

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

Bacteria make up the majority of life on earth and can only provide variation through random mutation.
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.

Therefore if the only way creatures are able to evolve novel variations that were not there in the first place is by random mutation then it logically follows that all other variation mentioned by evolution such as recombination, drift, and gene flow is going to be about working on the novel variation produced by random mutations. Thus it also logically follows that all other variation apart from novel variation produced by random mutation is the mixing, recombination, and loss of variation created by random mutations.

 

[stevevw]

Here's a thing - when I quote you directly I am providing the evidence that I am not seeing what I want to see, I am seeing what you wrote.

No you are seeing what you think I said by refusing to compare this with what I have actually said in context.

If you make an error, that's what gets played back to you. Other posters do the same. Why do you think that is? I'll answer for you - it's because you make mistakes, but for some reason you refuse to acknowledge this fact.

It is only regarded as an error because you have made it one according to you.

I really don't care what you said in that post.

Yes I know and that's the problem. You have decided that I am wrong regardless of any other evidence that puts my position and meaning on this in context. You decided to home in on one quote and then twist it and then reject all else. In court this would be thrown out.

In the post, I quoted you made a different claim. Apparently, you can't even be consistent in the claims you make.

Its only inconsistent because you have twisted my words and meaning. In truth, it is very consistent with my position on this throughout the entire thread. But then you don't want to know about truth as it gets in the way of the picture you want to paint of me.

Simple - you lack understanding. It's what I, and others, have been telling you for days now.

OK so I went back and checked post #520 where you pulled out the quote below to try and say that I was claiming that the mainstream evolution view only say random mutations are the only source of variation and there are no other sources for variation at all IE

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

I said that the word HIGHLIGHT means that it is highlighting random mutations as opposed to other variations thus is not denying that there are other sources of variations. You rejected this and stuck to your own twisting of my words and rejected any evidence I posted showing my true position and context.

Then guess what I found which shows my quote about HIGHLIGHT was exactly what I said.

Steve said in the same post #520 just under the quote you highlighted above

This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

(and you can't say you don't care and reject this quote as it is directly below the one you used to discredit me).

So this shows that I did acknowledge that mainstream evolutionary view included other sources of variations and that the word I used 'HIGHLIGHT' or 'ONLY HIGHLIGHT' was about singling out random mutations from all other variations rather than saying it was the only variation.

In fact, if you read the entire post which you should have done you will see the proper context for what I was talking about. That was that the only way for novel/new variation to come about that were not there previously is by random mutations as opposed to other variations like recombination which only mix/vary existing variations. So I am acknowledging all variation but highlighting random mutations as the only way that new variations such as a fin becoming a limb can happen. Perhaps that is what you were getting confused about.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No you are seeing what you think I said by refusing to compare this with what I have actually said in context. It is only regarded as an error because you have made it one according to you.

Yes I know and that's the problem. You have decided that I am wrong regardless of any other evidence that puts my position and meaning on this in context. You decided to home in on one quote and then twist it and then reject all else. In court this would be thrown out. Its only inconsistent because you have twisted my words and meaning. In truth, it is very consistent with my position on this throughout the entire thread. But then you don't want to know about truth as it gets in the way of the picture you want to paint of me.

OK so I went back and checked post #520 where you pulled out the quote below to try and say that I was claiming that the mainstream evolution view only say random mutations are the only source of variation and there are no other sources for variation at all IE

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

I said that the word HIGHLIGHT means that it is highlighting random mutations as opposed to other variations thus is not denying that there are other sources of variations. You rejected this and stuck to your own twisting of my words and rejected any evidence I posted showing my true position and context.

If you want context, what you actually claimed was "...only highlights". You have picked on the word "highlights" but ignored the word "only". I get that you're struggling, but it's really time to accept you made an erroneous claim and got called on it.

The rest of your rant is irrelevant. Own the mistake and move on.

 

[VirOptimus]

If you want context, what you actually claimed was "...only highlights". You have picked on the word "highlights" but ignored the word "only". I get that you're struggling, but it's really time to accept you made an erroneous claim and got called on it.

The rest of your rant is irrelevant. Own the mistake and move on.

No he wont, he will again post how he is correct.

 

[stevevw]

If you want context, what you actually claimed was "...only highlights". You have picked on the word "highlights" but ignored the word "only". I get that you're struggling, but it's really time to accept you made an erroneous claim and got called on it.

The rest of your rant is irrelevant. Own the mistake and move on.

There is no mistake to own up to. Let's read the entire section together in context.

But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.
Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

If you want me to spell it out simpler for you then here

the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation. Other sources of variation are not highlighted

Could that be more clearer? Does that seem like someone not acknowledging other sources of variation and making random mutations the only possible source? As you can see it clearly shows I am highlighting random mutations above other sources of variations.

 

[stevevw]

No he won't, he will again post how he is correct.

I think it is now plain to see that you just jump in on the back of others regardless of the truth just to try and undermine me. If not then answer the same questions posed to Bungle_Bear. Am I acknowledging that there are other sources of variations that are possible by saying
Other sources of variation are not highlighted.

 

[VirOptimus]

I think it is now plain to see that you just jump in on the back of others regardless of the truth just to try and undermine me. If not then answer the same questions posed to Bungle_Bear. Am I acknowledging that there are other sources of variations that are possible by saying
Other sources of variation are not highlighted.

I dont need to do anything, your doing just fine undermining yourself.

 

[stevevw]

I don't need to do anything, your doing just fine undermining yourself.

Well thankyou I knew you would acknowledge that my claim was correct.

 

[stevevw]

The above is ID language and not part of the ToE.

It isn't the language that is important but whether the claim about evolution is correct or not that is the most relevant. So you may say it is creationists or ID language but since when did they support random mutations as the process for producing new forms of life on earth. I thought they use God himself or intelligent design processes. I don't think random mutations fit their beliefs.

Steve now defending classic Darwinism against a supporter of Darwinism. How ironic lol.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is no mistake to own up to. Let's read the entire section together in context.

But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.
Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

If you want me to spell it out simpler for you then here

the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation. Other sources of variation are not highlighted

Wow. If you insist on digging deeper then let's look at an honest replay. You know how you like to accuse me of seeing what I want to see rather than what you actually wrote? Let's play!

Here are the actual words from your post (as of the timestamp on this post):
"But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable"

It would appear that you're claiming your post says something different. Are you sure you want to stick to that claim?

Could that be more clearer?

No, your linguistic challenges are clear enough.

Does that seem like someone not acknowledging other sources of variation and making random mutations the only possible source? As you can see it clearly shows I am highlighting random mutations above other sources of variations.

Meh, the scientists say you're wrong, the linguists say you're wrong, the philosophers say you're wrong. The only person supporting you is you.

Goodbye