[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

"...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.

Didn't I just post evidence that new/novel traits can only come from random mutations and you acknowledged the sources. 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

Plus there is no other way for variations to come about for the majority of life on earth such as bacteria except by random mutations as they don't have the capacity for recombination and other sources 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.

So if this is the case then all other variation must be the mixing and loss of existing variations created by random mutations. Help me, is that correct or not. If not explain to me how novel traits that never existed before come from recombination, drift, and gene flow.

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.

I think it is. That is why it called the extended evolutionary synthesis. But thank you for bringing things back on track after it was derailed.

The EES primarily is about providing additional sources of variation for evolution that don't come from the SET sources of variations. Thus filling the gap in explanation from the SET in how life has evolved. I have already gone through this and provided ample support. But here is one to think about. Creatures provide their own variations through niche construction.

These variations are not the result of mainstream variations such as random mutations, recombination, drift, gene flow. So that is one explanation that fills the gap in explanation that the SET cannot account for. That is why the EES was developed because there are inadequacies in the explanations of evolution by the SET.

 

[stevevw]

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?

So what are you claiming is exactly wrong here. Please explain in detail.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So you are saying that this quote below is not part of the same post just under the part you highlighted above (Pun intended).

Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

If you find yourself acknowledging that the above quote is part of the same post then the question needs to be asked is that part of the same explanation. A simple yes or no will suffice. But if you want to rationalize it away by all means try.

Nice try. Your problem lies in the the actual claims you made. Your initial claim was not predicated in any way on subsequent statements and the support you provided for that initial claim did not support the claim. At that point you had failed. You made a claim, it didn't stand muster. The impression is that you do not understand.

Man up. Own it. Move on.

 

[stevevw]

Nice try. Your problem lies in the the actual claims you made. Your initial claim was not predicated in any way on subsequent statements and the support you provided for that claim did not support the claim. At that point you had failed. You made a claim, it didn't stand muster. The impression is that you do not understand.

Man up. Own it. Move on.

OK as we seem to be at loggerheads I wanted to know exactly what point you are trying to make as it seems we are seeing two completely different things. I am not standing by my claims as to what I said for no good reason as I truly believe I have not said what you claim. And obviously, you think the same. So I am beginning to think we may be talking about two different things here. Can you please clarify the point here?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK as we seem to be at loggerheads I wanted to know exactly what point you are trying to make as it seems we are seeing two completely different things. I am not standing by my claims as to what I said for no good reason as I truly believe I have not said what you claim. And obviously, you think the same. So I am beginning to think we may be talking about two different things here. Can you please clarify the point here?

Sure. You made a claim. The evidence you provided did not support that claim. Any subsequent claims are irrelevant.

 

[stevevw]

Sure. You made a claim. The evidence you provided did not support that claim. Any subsequent claims are irrelevant.

yes I understand that. But what I wanted to know is what is the claim you say I made or think I made.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

yes I understand that. But what I wanted to know is what is the claim you say I made or think I made.

I'm done repeating the same nonsense again and again. If you really don't understand then we seriously have nothing left to talk about.

 

[Speedwell]

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.

No, it doesn't "logically follow--as has already been pointed out--and you are using the term "variation" incorrectly, which doesn't help. But then you go on to claim that this process
"...will never account for how one creature or individual trait can morph from one form into another one by novel changes." {emphasis added} This is a complete non-sequitur and identical to the ignorant and baseless claim made by IDists.

 

[Ophiolite]

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.

Two distinct points:

1. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the genetic changes that are a product of mutation and the phenotypic changes that are a consequence of such mutations and the other causes of diversity. Selection acts upon the phenotype. That phenotype is a product of mutations and the processes acting upon them.
   
2. You have not demonstrated and you have not even, as far as I can see, seriously attempted to demonstrate that whatever the source of the variation that novel morphologies, for example, cannot arise. You have not demonstrated, for example, that a spinal column could not emerge from sequential mutations over time. Nor have you demonstrated this is impossible for any other existing morphology, or metabolism, or any phenotypoc expression could not so develop.

Thus, for sake of argument, I'm accepting your claim that all variation is down, ultimately to mutation. But - and this is crucial - you have not come within a country mile of showing that mutations cannot produce the variety we see in the biosphere. Yet you keep, apparently, claiming that you have.

I was 1/4 way through a response to you regarding your claim that ESS is a game changer. My argument was essentially one that to paraphrase an episode of Father Ted, this was an epistemological matter. But now you have seemingly abandoned your appeal to ESS and have reverted to what looks like an Argument from Incredulity. You've certainly rendered me incredulous.

 

[Ophiolite]

Two distinct points:

1. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the genetic changes that are a product of mutation and the phenotypic changes that are a consequence of such mutations and the other causes of diversity. Selection acts upon the phenotype. That phenotype is a product of mutations and the processes acting upon them.
   
2. You have not demonstrated and you have not even, as far as I can see, seriously attempted to demonstrate that whatever the source of the variation that novel morphologies, for example, cannot arise. You have not demonstrated, for example, that a spinal column could not emerge from sequential mutations over time. Nor have you demonstrated this is impossible for any other existing morphology, or metabolism, or any phenotypoc expression could not so develop.

Thus, for sake of argument, I'm accepting your claim that all variation is down, ultimately to mutation. But - and this is crucial - you have not come within a country mile of showing that mutations cannot produce the variety we see in the biosphere. Yet you keep, apparently, claiming that you have.

I was 1/4 way through a response to you regarding your claim that ESS is a game changer. My argument was essentially one that to paraphrase an episode of Father Ted, this was an epistemological matter. But now you have seemingly abandoned your appeal to ESS and have reverted to what looks like an Argument from Incredulity. You've certainly rendered me incredulous.

Edit: I'm basically saying, in a much more long winded way, what @Speedwell said above.

 

[Speedwell]

Edit: I'm basically saying, in a much more long winded way, what @Speedwell said above.

your post was much clearer than mine, but I doubt it will do any good.

 

[stevevw]

I'm done repeating the same nonsense again and again. If you really don't understand then we seriously have nothing left to talk about.

OK taking away the contentious word meaning (highlight) from what I understand you claim that I said that all variations under the mainstream evolution view are only produced by random mutations. Is that correct?

 

[Speedwell]

OK taking away the contentious word meaning (highlight) from what I understand you claim that I said that all variations under the mainstream evolution view are only produced by random mutations. Is that correct?

Yes, you did make that claim but you appear to have backed off from it since. Keep in mind that mutations happen to the genome but variation appears in the phenotype--and there is not always a direct relationship between the two.

 

[stevevw]

Two distinct points:

1. You seem to be unable to distinguish between the genetic changes that are a product of mutation and the phenotypic changes that are a consequence of such mutations and the other causes of diversity.

How is that so. I stated clearly that the only way new transitional variations that allow organisms to modify from one form to another can come about through random mutations. I also provided ample evidence for this. That is a clear distinction from other variations that only modify the existing changes made by mutations.

Selection acts upon the phenotype. That phenotype is a product of mutations and the processes acting upon them.

What do you mean by the processes acting upon variation?

You have not demonstrated and you have not even, as far as I can see, seriously attempted to demonstrate that whatever the source of the variation that novel morphologies, for example, cannot arise.

I haven’t said that the morphing of novel variations/traits cannot arise. I have said according to the mainstream view the morphing of novel variations/traits can only arise through random mutations and I provided ample support for this from mainstream evolution IE

Heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.

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

2. You have not demonstrated, for example, that a spinal column could not emerge from sequential mutations over time. Nor have you demonstrated this is impossible for any other existing morphology, or metabolism, or any phenotypic expression could not so develop.

But I haven’t disputed that and in fact, I am acknowledging that this is how mainstream evolution explains things. When an explanation is given for the evolution of one form to another transitions are held up for the different and new shapes for each stage such as skulls of pelvises of an ape morphing into a human. The mechanism for producing those stages is said to be by random mutations. There are a number of differences between the original ancestors and today's creatures that were not there in the ancestors. According to evolution theory, there is no other process that can account for those changes other than mutations as shown above.

Thus, for sake of argument, I'm accepting your claim that all variation is down, ultimately to mutation. But - and this is crucial - you have not come within a country mile of showing that mutations cannot produce the variety we see in the biosphere. Yet you keep, apparently, claiming that you have.

Wait a minute your own said has claimed that random mutations cannot account for all variations so why would I even try to prove that. I don't need to as mainstream evolution already supports that view. IE they say that recombination, drift, and gene flow also produce variations.

So I am not sure where you are coming from with this. But that is not my argument in this thread. It has been derailed into what exactly is variation according to the mainstream view. My argument is about how the EES forces can provide variations other than the mainstream sources that can better account for what we see besides the narrow gene-centric and adaptive mainstream view.

I was 1/4 way through a response to you regarding your claim that ESS is a game-changer. My argument was essentially one that to paraphrase an episode of Father Ted, this was an epistemological matter. But now you have seemingly abandoned your appeal to ESS and have reverted to what looks like an Argument from Incredulity. You've certainly rendered me incredulous.

No I haven’t abandoned my argument for the support of the EES. The thread was derailed into debates about what is the exact view of mainstream evolution regarding what are variations. I am happy to stick to the OP and get things back on track.

 

[Speedwell]

1. How is that so. I stated clearly that the only way new transitional variations that allow organisms to modify from one form to another can come about through random mutations. I also provided ample evidence for this. That is a clear distinction from other variations that only modify the existing changes made by mutations. What do you mean by the processes acting upon variation?
   I haven’t said that the morphing of novel variations/traits cannot arise. I have said according to the mainstream view the morphing of novel variations/traits can only arise through random mutations and I provided ample support for this from mainstream evolution IE
   
   Heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.
   
   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
   But I haven’t disputed that and in fact, I am acknowledging that this is how mainstream evolution explains things. When an explanation is given for the evolution of one form to another transitions are held up for the different and new shapes for each stage such as skulls of pelvises of an ape morphing into a human. The mechanism for producing those stages is said to be by random mutations. There are a number of differences between the original ancestors and today's creatures that were not there in the ancestors. According to evolution theory, there is no other process that can account for those changes other than mutations as shown above.

Wait a minute your own said has claimed that random mutations cannot account for all variations so why would I even try to prove that. I don't need to as mainstream evolution already supports that view. IE they say that recombination, drift, and gene flow also produce variations.

So I am not sure where you are coming from with this. But that is not my argument in this thread. It has been derailed into what exactly is variation according to the mainstream view. My argument is about how the EES forces can provide variations other than the mainstream sources that can better account for what we see besides the narrow gene-centric and adaptive mainstream view.

No I haven’t abandoned my argument for the support of the EES. The thread was derailed into debates about what is the exact view of mainstream evolution regarding what are variations. I am happy to stick to the OP and get things back on track.

EES really doesn't need your support. It's doing just fine without it.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, you did make that claim but you appear to have backed off from it since. Keep in mind that mutations happen to the genome but variation appears in the phenotype--and there is not always a direct relationship between the two.

So with that claim are you saying I denied that there are no other possible sources for variation under the mainstream evolution view such as recombination, drift, and gene flow. As that is what Bungle_Bear is claiming.

Considering that the conversation was between us and you can go back and be fair about revising it in context I will ask you to think about it and reflect back on what was said in post 520 and get back to me.

Especially consider my comments on how mainstream evolution focuses on random mutations as the source of NOVEL/NEW variations that have never been produced previously rather than other sources like recombinations that produce variations of existing mutational changes. In fact, I have said this to you on many occasions and I can find them if you want so you cannot deny it. And if it was such a contentious issue like Bungle_Bear has pointed then why didn't you say something. I would say that is because you didn't see any issue.

You know as well as I do that I was merely making the distinction between novel variation by random mutations and other variations mentioned by the mainstream view and not making any claim that the mainstream view only thinks that there is one source for all possible variations that have ever been produced being random mutations. Do you see the distinction?

But if you still think that I made this claim then support it? Show me where I claimed that all variations (with the emphasis on ALL) are the product of random mutations. That means that I have not acknowledged any other source of variations and claim that every single variation that has ever come about is from random mutations. Can you support your claim without taking my comments out of context as Bungle_Bear did?

I would say 'no you can't' and unlike Bungle_Bear you should acknowledge that.

 

[stevevw]

EES really doesn't need your support. It's doing just fine without it.

Here we go again. Then why all this resistance to it. Why is there a dispute between the two views? Why do those supporting the SET say there is no need for the EES and why do those supporting the EES say that the EES takes a narrow view and doesn't recognize the EES forces as actual causal mechanisms of evolution.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So with that claim are you saying I denied that there are no other possible sources for variation under the mainstream evolution view such as recombination, drift, and gene flow. As that is what Bungle_Bear is claiming.

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand either your own words of the words of others. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's dishonest and unhelpful.

 

[stevevw]

You have demonstrated repeatedly that you do not understand either your own words of the words of others. Please do not put words in my mouth. It's dishonest and unhelpful.

So you didn't claim that I was saying that the mainstream evolution view is that random mutations are the only source for all variations and there are no other sources such as recombination available for NS.

 

[stevevw]

double post