[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

Well, this is a perfect example of the problem. Your definition of "lack" is incomplete. It can mean what you say. but it can also mean "having nothing at all". Given that difference, which is more than a nuance, it behooves the writer to make clear which meaning he is using. If they do not do so, then any ambiguity arising is their responsibility. Such is the case with your use of "lack".

Cambridge Dictionary: The fact that something is not available or that there is not enough of it
The Free Dictionary: Deficiency or absence
Merriam-Webster: To be deficient or missing
Dictionary.com: Deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary

Those are the first four definitions I found when searching online. It is clear that your definition is one of the correct definitions. I repeat, basing your argument on only one creates ambiguity and that is down to you.

So, therefore, shouldn't it come back to the receiver to remain neutral and clarify with the sender what they meant rather than jumping to one conclusion over the other.

I also tried to clarify things by saying that a person needs to read the word in context with the rest of the post, the original paper, and what the person has said previously on this to get the proper meaning. I also clarified things in the following post. So was that enough clarification do you think.

I regret having to add this caveat, but frankly, I don't trust you not to try wriggling out of this. Your statement, quoted above, is absolute. You state that "having nothing at all", "absent", or "missing" are not acceptable definitions of lack.

I also regret it as you have once again shown how people can jump to conclusions based on predetermined biases. The fact you acknowledge that the meaning could go both ways and didn't bother to clarify things or ask what my position was and automatically assumed the negative conclusion over the other just highlights that you had already made your mind up to put a particular meaning in my head different from what I did mean and more in line with what you believe.

Here's the problem with your take on things.
First- it wasn't my word 'lack' that I used but the word was used by the EES papers which I was summarizing and they most clearly did not mean 'totally lacking any explanation'. So if you are claiming I have made this meaning then you are saying the EES papers are also claiming this. But here's an insight into how speedwell jumped to a conclusion that was based on just targeting me for whatever reason, perhaps because he too has prejudged me.

I originally said in post #661
the standard view is not accounting for what is happening and 'lacks explanatory power'.

Speedwell went on to say
If SET truly lacked explanatory power it would have been rejected long since as useless

I then tried to clear things up further by saying myself or the EES are not saying the SET completely lacks explanatory power and posted a bunch of quotes from their papers to support this IE post #667 for which the first one is the most relevant. But I will only post the most relevant ones.

Quotes from the EES papers on the differences in explanatory power between the EES and the SET

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

“We now possess a more pluralistic theory, recognizing more factors and interactions than included in the classical model and with expanded explanatory capacity” Müller and Pigliucci (2010: 276)

“The ongoing shift from a population-dynamic account to a causal-mechanistic theory of phenotypic evolution brings with it a significantly expanded explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. It has become possible to address phenomena of evolution that were untreatable by the MS” Pigliucci and Müller (2010b: 12)

“The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena” Laland et al. (2015: 9)

We have presented a general contrastive framework suitable for evaluating the goodness of scientific explanations. It is able to distinguish why and when explanations of the EES are better than prevailing SET explanations.
Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?

Speedwell said in post #673
If you say a theory "lacks explanatory power" you are saying that it has none. I was just trying to clear up an obvious discrepancy between what you claimed and what your source claims.

Yet I said the same thing as my source in summarizing it as noted above especially this quote from the paper IE.
This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with 'explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack'.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions, and predictions

This clearly shows that what I have said and what my source has said IE "lacks explanatory power" is another way of saying 'explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack'.

So I have actually said what my sources have said and my sources clearly are not saying that the SET completely lacks explanatory power.

If that didn't clear up the meaning of lack then I don't know what would. The point is if you are going to come into a conversation you need to read up on what has been said along the way and not just what has been said in the last post which will be out of context. I did clear up what the word lack meant but that still didn't seem to be good enough and now you are also jumping on the bandwagon.[/QUOTE]

 

[Bungle_Bear]

But didn't I also say that a person needs to read the word in context with the rest of the post and the original paper to get the proper meaning. So I did not make things ambiguous as you say but clearly established the word 'lacks' meaning. You obviously have not bothered to even look at the post, have you. Otherwise, you would not have written this post.
I also regret it as you have once again shown how people can jump to conclusions based on predetermined prejudices. The fact you didn't bother to go back and check things and automatically assumed this just highlights that you had already made your mind up that I had meant the word to mean something different from what I did and more in line with what you believe. Perhaps people should ask what I meant rather than jumping to conclusions.

Here's the problem with your take on things.
First- it wasn't my word 'lack' that I used but the word was used by the EES papers which I was summarizing and they most clearly did not mean 'totally lacking any explanation'. So if you are claiming I have made this meaning then you are saying the EES papers are also claiming this. But here's an insight into how speedwell jumped to a conclusion that was based on just targeting me for whatever reason, perhaps because he too has prejudged me.

I originally said in post #661
the standard view is not accounting for what is happening and 'lacks explanatory power'.

Speedwell went on to say
If SET truly lacked explanatory power it would have been rejected long since as useless

I then tried to clear things up further by saying myself or the EES are not saying the SET completely lacks explanatory power and posted a bunch of quotes from their papers to support this IE post #667 for which the first one is the most relevant. But I will only post the most relevant ones.

Quotes from the EES papers on the differences in explanatory power between the EES and the SET

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

“We now possess a more pluralistic theory, recognizing more factors and interactions than included in the classical model and with expanded explanatory capacity” Müller and Pigliucci (2010: 276)

“The ongoing shift from a population-dynamic account to a causal-mechanistic theory of phenotypic evolution brings with it a significantly expanded explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. It has become possible to address phenomena of evolution that were untreatable by the MS” Pigliucci and Müller (2010b: 12)

“The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena” Laland et al. (2015: 9)

We have presented a general contrastive framework suitable for evaluating the goodness of scientific explanations. It is able to distinguish why and when explanations of the EES are better than prevailing SET explanations.
Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?

Speedwell said in post #673
If you say a theory "lacks explanatory power" you are saying that it has none. I was just trying to clear up an obvious discrepancy between what you claimed and what your source claims.

Yet I said the same thing as my source in summarizing it as noted above especially this quote from the paper IE.
This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with 'explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack'.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions, and predictions

This clearly shows that what I have said and what my source has said IE "lacks explanatory power" is another way of saying 'explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack'.

So I have actually said what my sources have said and my sources clearly are not saying that the SET completely lacks explanatory power.

If that didn't clear up the meaning of lack then I don't know what would. The point is if you are going to come into a conversation you need to read up on what has been said along the way and not just what has been said in the last post which will be out of context. I did clear up what the word lack meant but that still didn't seem to be good enough and now you are also jumping on the bandwagon.

Lots of words demonstrating you do not understand the difference between "lacks explanatory power" and "lacks certain perspectives". One is an absolute, the other is not.

 

[stevevw]

If you don't use words correctly in context, other people won't understand what you say. If you don't correctly understand words in context, you won't understand what other people say.
Context is important to meaning.

yes I agree but if I have made my position clear many times before on this matter then it is the person who is reading that post who should know better that is taking things out of context.

There is no ambiguity and no excuse for those who have been debating me in this thread. My views on this matter right through 680 plus posts so far have been consistent. If one simply does a check of my view on this matter they will see that this issue has come up time and time again with the same people who are now claiming I have a different position to the one I have stated to them consistently. I have stated my position from the beginning of this thread and even used the same quote as I did in my last post-IE

#35
This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

but also here
#37
As far as I am concerned the EES adds to evolution, gives it more explanatory power, and helps explain some of the gaps the SET could not explain.

#103
There is a recognition that adaptive evolution is too narrow a view. Just like the theory changed from Darwin's original one to the Modern Synthesis a new change is needed and therefore the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis is being proposed.

#105
Why when it expands our understanding of how evolution works. Thus, this adds explanatory power and can address the issues that the SET lacks. The influences in the EES are given the same power for evolutionary causes as NS, if not more in some cases. Therefore, the SET will try to explain these non-biological influences in an evolutionary adaptive way which doesn’t fit well and that is why more and more question marks are being raised with the MS in its explanatory power

#136
Now as time has gone by we are understanding better the role these other EES forces play and how they can influence evolutionary change and how they can account for that missing explanations. This doesn't reject the adaptive view it just determines what is responsible for causing evolution.

#171
Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above.

#385
I have given arguments and tried to explain as best I can why the EES should be at least considered based on its expansive view and explanatory power which seems to account for what has been discovered in recent times and what the SET finds hard to explain and account for.

Not once in this entire thread have I said that the SET has absolutely no explanatory power. It is clear I have said that it does have explanations about evolution but that these are lacking or don't account for everything we have discovered and that the EES offers a more expansive and pluralistic explanation. If people are not aware of this by now then they are not reading the posts and have no excuse.

I even explained to speedwell my position on this a number of times before in this thread and he seemed perfectly OK when I used the word lack. Now he wants to try and claim I have a completely different position on this. That just exposes an inconsistent application of the rules of debating.

I also gave the word 'lack' added clarity in the post after the one speedwell made his claim to ensure people understood my position. I could not have been more clear on my position. But still, some wanted to persist that I meant something I didn't. Why I don't know. Can you tell me?

 

[stevevw]

Lots of words demonstrating you do not understand the difference between "lacks explanatory power" and "lacks certain perspectives". One is absolute, the other is not.

back for a second bite. Humm not interested as you have already shown once how you got things wrong. But please don't tell me you have been sitting around in the background watching and waiting to jump in on me. That would be a pity. It would be good if you could contribute something constrcutive.

 

[stevevw]

I was just trying to clear up an obvious discrepancy between what you claimed and what your source claims. Then you say it's just semantics and I'm just being nit-picky. On the other hand, for all I know, it was a rhetorical ploy. Such trickery is commonly attempted by creationists--how do I know you aren't trying it too unless I call you on it?

But you know my position on this speedwell as we have discussed between ourselves earlier in this post. Why would I go against my own position on this that I have consistently held for 680 posts to try and make some creationist ploy. Wouldnt the fact that I contradicted my position be more of a problem than some creationist's ploy. Why would I tear down my own position to do that. That is undermining my position not bolstering it. Think it through.

The thread was going well after the last derailing and I was hoping it would stay that way. You haven't even addressed the posts which I would have thought were important. It seems it has now got to a point where even when I do make my position clear it still doesn't matter. People just want to apply meanings and words to me that I have not said or meant. Rather than even clarify things that I thought would be the right thing to do you are trying to force me into some position that doesn't represent me.

 

[Speedwell]

back for a second bite. Humm not interested as you have already shown once how you got things wrong. But please don't tell me you have been sitting around in the background watching and waiting to jump in on me. That would be a pity. It would be good if you could contribute something constrcutive.

Do you? Mostly you spend too much time in reacting to serious questions and criticism as attacks and, if we misunderstand you, proving that it was our fault, not yours. Are you sure you're ready for this level of play?

 

[Speedwell]

But you know my position on this speedwell as we have discussed between ourselves earlier in this post. Why would I go against my own position on this that I have consistently held for 680 posts to try and make some creationist ploy. Wouldnt the fact that I contradicted my position be more of a problem than some creationist's ploy. Why would I tear down my own position to do that. That is undermining my position not bolstering it. Think it through.

The thread was going well after the last derailing and I was hoping it would stay that way. You haven't even addressed the posts which I would have thought were important. It seems it has now got to a point where even when I do make my position clear it still doesn't matter. People just want to apply meanings and words to me that I have not said or meant. Rather than even clarify things that I thought would be the right thing to do you are trying to force me into some position that doesn't represent me.

Or, you could just say something to the effect of, "No, I see how you might take it that way, but it's not what I meant."

 

[Bungle_Bear]

back for a second bite. Humm not interested as you have already shown once how you got things wrong. But please don't tell me you have been sitting around in the background watching and waiting to jump in on me. That would be a pity. It would be good if you could contribute something constrcutive.

Nah, we already demonstrated your linguistic challenges. I'm not interested in another long winded string of denial from you. However, you might like to think through what I said. It's in line with every other poster here - and once again the only person who cannot see it is you.

Bye bye.

 

[stevevw]

Nah, we already demonstrated your linguistic challenges. I'm not interested in another long-winded string of denial from you. However, you might like to think through what I said. It's in line with every other poster here - and once again the only person who cannot see it is you.

Bye bye.

Then why are you still buying into this. You did not do anything of the sort. I showed you how you were wrong in the previous exchange and you even acknowledged this by saying that my evidence though it supported what I said came after your claim so, therefore, was irrelevant. I then showed you it came before your claim by post numbers. Simple evidence that cannot be refuted. I can see you won't let it go.

As for this situation you are caught making false claims again. Everyone is not in line with what you say. Speedwell gave some reason that he was testing me because he thought I was making some creationist's claim which just shows he was motivated by some preconceived bias. Ophiolite said the word 'Lack' could mean both what I said it meant with was 'lacked something' or could mean 'completely lacks something' so there was no definite meaning either way and I respect that honesty.

So it is not definitely as you claim others are in line with you that I meant one particular meaning which happens to contradict what I said. Now you have added another meaning which I am not sure even applies. Not sure what you mean by "lacks certain perspectives". Are you sure your not reading something else into things as I cannot see how the quote I posted meant that?

But never the less what I am saying is despite the lack of clarity on the word initially, I clarified what I meant in the following post. That should have settled it. That clarification was in line with the view I have maintained throughout this thread. Things should have ended there. The fact that you want to carry it on only shows you don't respect my word when I say that I clarified things.

 

[stevevw]

It's a pity half of this thread is about side issues that have nothing to do with the OP. Anyway back to the relevant and good stuff. I will have to reply to FrumiousBandersnatch earlier post on the content which I was enjoying later as I have been side tracked

 

[stevevw]

Or, you could just say something to the effect of, "No, I see how you might take it that way, but it's not what I meant."

Another good point, but it's not as if someone is misunderstanding things in a normal way. If someone was taking a neutral position and misunderstood things and made the wrong conclusions then yes you could remain neutral and see the other person's point of view. But that is not what is happening. People are not being neutral but are making allegations and assertions of misrepresentation and ulterior motives along with the claims of wrong meanings. So it's more than just wrong meanings.

That is what throws people on the defensive when people attack your integrity. The point is I do clarify after people make those claims that this is not what I meant but people still don't accept that which tells me somehow that no matter what I would have said nothing was going to change their minds. But anyway perhaps both sides need to take a step back and consider the other person's point of view and not prejudge what they are thinking and meaning.

 

[Speedwell]

It's a pity half of this thread is about side issues that have nothing to do with the OP. Anyway back to the relevant and good stuff. I will have to reply to FrumiousBandersnatch earlier post on the content which I was enjoying later as I have been side tracked

Good. I think it would be best if you started entirely over.


Try to use fewer words.

 

[Ophiolite]

It's a pity half of this thread is about side issues that have nothing to do with the OP.

Yes, it is a serious pity that, as @Speedwell recently pointed out concisely and perceptively, that you spend most of your time whining (my word choice, not Speedwell's. He has more class.) about how you have been misunderstood and how it wasn't your fault.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

yes I agree but if I have made my position clear many times before on this matter then it is the person who is reading that post who should know better that is taking things out of context.

So, everyone else is wrong because they don't understand you - is that what you're saying?

 

[stevevw]

So, everyone else is wrong because they don't understand you - is that what you're saying?

No I am not saying that and if I am wrong I will acknowledge that. I have posted several links showing when I have admitted being wrong and showing that I understand the dynamics of engaging in debates where there is banter back and forth and that communication and clarification is important even for those who can express themselves well.

A lot of this right and wrong has been about opinions and even some of the so called facts are divided when it comes to evolution so there is no definite right or wrong and therefore no one should have to admit they are wrong but rather there should be a vigorous debate but without accusations and personal attacks.

It's not hard for me to admit I am wrong about my diction as I have had it all my life. But like I said even when I clarify what I mean in clear plain language some people still don't accept that. So it's not just about word meaning, is it? They still insist I meant something else when I didn't which to me is more about a preconceived idea of what I am saying.

When I post something like the last post about how the EES offers more explanatory power and the SET lacks explanatory power there was more time spent on debating what the word 'lack' meant rather than about the actual point. In fact, because the post got sidetracked on this issue the point was not addressed at all. That's because some persisted in saying I didn't mean what I mean regardless of how much I tried to show that this was not the case. That tells me it is more than just word meanings.

So the debate about word meaning is trumping the content. This is happening a lot and maybe I do get some word meanings wrong. But like I said rather than people clarifying what I mean they turn that into some creationists conspiracy about using certain words with a double meaning to promote creationism. I think that's a bit extreme and totally off-topic.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, it is a serious pity that, as @Speedwell recently pointed out concisely and perceptively, that you spend most of your time whining (my word choice, not Speedwell's. He has more class.) about how you have been misunderstood and how it wasn't your fault.

So what do you think I should do when people make claims I meant something else when I didn't. What should I do when people make unsubstantiated claims. Just accept this and go along.

 

[stevevw]

Good. I think it would be best if you started entirely over.


Try to use fewer words.

No I never meant that when I said I needed to respond to FrumiousBandersnatch. I was talking about his post maybe 20 odd posts ago on the actual content. We were actually getting into the core of differences between the EES and the SET which is where the thread should be at. By getting into a more detailed debate people can understand better the reasoning behind the claims and then make up their minds. But if we keep getting sidetracked it's never going to get there.

 

[stevevw]

Do you? Mostly you spend too much time in reacting to serious questions and criticism as attacks and, if we misunderstand you, proving that it was our fault, not yours. Are you sure you're ready for this level of play?

See I don't see it that way. When I dispute something said or if someone claims a misunderstanding I like to challenge that to see if that's the case. That is not complaining. The only complaining I am doing is when people claim misrepresentation or question my integrity. If that is done persistently I think it is rightly justified to complain in a thread if it is unjustified as that is not in the spirit of debate.

Like some have persistently said the only reason I am posting anything is to promote my belief. This is not only a logical fallacy but unjustified. When done persistently it becomes a bit annoying so of course, anyone would complain. That doesn't mean people should not express their views and I am not saying they shouldn't. But there is a difference between pointing it out once or twice and persistently doing it or that the only contribution in the thread is to tear down someone and undermine their integrity which has happened.

But still, despite that, I have hung in there so even though you think I have complained it is not enough to deter me completely despite saying I am ready. So long as the debate is fair and honest I then bring it on.

 

[Speedwell]

Like some have persistently said the only reason I am posting anything is to promote my belief.

So why are you posting? The relative importance of EES vs. SET is a subject of moderate interest but not earthshaking consequence and will in any case eventually be resolved by working scientists, not us. The amount of effort you are putting into this subject seems disproportionate to its worth, which is why some of us might suspect you of a further motive of some kind.

 

[Ophiolite]

So what do you think I should do when people make claims I meant something else when I didn't. What should I do when people make unsubstantiated claims. Just accept this and go along.

I think you should accept that you have been ambiguous, or obscure, or contradictory regardless of how well you feel you have done. Then, instead of fruitlessly arguing that what you have written was clear, do this:

• Read carefully the complaints made by other members about your writing within a specific post.
• Read the post and their complaints multiple times until you have some appreciation for their objections.
• Rewrite your post seeking to avoid the errors present in the original
• Do not, ever, seek to defend your original within the rewrite.
• Be patient. You have built a suspect reputation over the course of 35 pages. You cannot expect to correct it with one, or even a dozen posts, but continue to work on clarity, accepting complaints, and things will change.