[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

It is beyond people not understanding me. 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.

It's what you've actually said that's the problem - no-one knows what you really meant.

I have had to correct you several times on really fundamental stuff like what natural selection is, and it's not clear to me how you could have meant something different from what you said. I've also advised you how to understand what the SET vs ESS is really about, yet you don't seem to have taken any of that on board. So in general, while you may feel you're being treated unfairly, I think you should look to yourself for the reasons - it may well be that people have become frustrated with your failure to recognise or acknowledge what they're trying to tell you.

 

[stevevw]

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.

As I said a lot of this thread has been about accusations of misrepresentation and my motives and that has derailed the thread on many occasions. Some have only come onto this thread to try and undermine it and me and have contributed zero to discussing the content of the OP which makes it hard. So the thread had never really got the chance to look beyond the initial OP to investigate things which should be a natural progression.

It has only been in the later stages of this thread by me persisting through those accusations that people are finally debating the detail for which I thank yourself and FrumiousBandersnatch mostly. As the EES papers have stated and why they are posting papers on that detail as it can open up new research areas and help us understand how evolution works better. The papers say the EES has more explanatory power and that is something they have discovered now and not just a claim about future research. It has already been well validated by science. So in that case it is good to discuss the details of their findings.

But there has been no chance of that as some have continually tried to undermine things and refuse to even entertain the idea of discussing it which is a pity as I would have thought furthering people's understanding of evolution and science is exactly what science is all about. If this was a thread on some minor scientific idea in a non-religious forum people would be discussing every detail. But unfortunately, it seems that the old science v creationism distraction keeps coming up.

 

[Speedwell]

As I said a lot of this thread has been about accusations of misrepresentation and my motives and that has derailed the thread on many occasions. Some have only come onto this thread to try and undermine it and me and have contributed zero to discussing the content of the OP which makes it hard. So the thread had never really got the chance to look beyond the initial OP to investigate things which should be a natural progression.

It has only been in the later stages of this thread by me persisting through those accusations that people are finally debating the detail for which I thank yourself and FrumiousBandersnatch mostly. As the EES papers have stated and why they are posting papers on that detail as it can open up new research areas and help us understand how evolution works better. The papers say the EES has more explanatory power and that is something they have discovered now and not just a claim about future research. It has already been well validated by science. So in that case it is good to discuss the details of their findings.

But there has been no chance of that as some have continually tried to undermine things and refuse to even entertain the idea of discussing it which is a pity as I would have thought furthering people's understanding of evolution and science is exactly what science is all about. If this was a thread on some minor scientific idea in a non-religious forum people would be discussing every detail. But unfortunately, it seems that the old science v creationism distraction keeps coming up.

Yes, but we all agreed with you at the beginning (700 posts ago) that EES was a promising new take on evolution, but that didn't seem enough for you, so the natural response was to try and find out what you were really arguing for..

 

[stevevw]

It's what you've actually said that's the problem - no-one knows what you really meant.

I have had to correct you several times on really fundamental stuff like what natural selection is, and it's not clear to me how you could have meant something different from what you said. I've also advised you how to understand what the SET vs ESS is really about, yet you don't seem to have taken any of that on board. So in general, while you may feel you're being treated unfairly, I think you should look to yourself for the reasons - it may well be that people have become frustrated with your failure to recognize or acknowledge what they're trying to tell you.

Well then people should ask to clarify if that is the case and not assume. But if they didn't know what I meant then how can they then make certain claims about what I meant. That doesn't make sense.

The last two most recent misunderstandings if you want to call it that were about a single word meaning. That is really about semantics. I tried to explain that that was not what I meant and showed the context where I clearly stated the opposite. Any independent person could see that and even the people involved acknowledge that. But still, they did not want to concede what I said. That is beyond the technical issues of papers and more about respecting others. After all, I am the one who said what I said and no one else can do my thinking.

As for the technical aspects, I can acknowledge that I don't know some of the greater details of biology and for that reason, that is why it is good to discuss the details which I appreciate you doing. That way the exchange can go back and forth where that detail can be nutted out. You give your knowledge and I pose claims from the EES papers to clarify them. But as to the basic ideas of evolution, I disagree that I have a misunderstanding. Some of the words used may be different but the concept is fairly easy to understand.

Also, there can be a genuine disagreement in some of those concepts held by some which are fair game to disagree with even those who support the standard view and have knowledge disagree. A good example off the top of my head was about whether natural selection is a creative force. I think you and others said it wasn't. I then posted some good arguments from top experts on evolutionary biology, Gould and Lewontin being a couple who said it was. So if there is a disagreement between experts then that doesn't make me wrong or misunderstanding things.

That comes down to a difference of opinion which there seems to be some scope for in evolution. That has happened on a number of occasions in this thread.

Another example is that Natural selection is said to be the sole cause and driving force of evolution which the EES papers claimed the SET took that view. You and others said I was wrong and misunderstood things. Then I showed speedwell that this was what the EES was saying and then further supported that with mainstream papers.

Also with random mutations which is a good example of a misunderstanding of what my claim was rather than about whether random mutations are the only cause of variation. I stated it was the only cause of variations for new variations that were never there and therefore the fundamental and only source that NS relied upon. I backed this with many links that clearly supported what I said.

So some of that so-called misunderstanding has been a difference in opinion which may even be held by experts. If that's the case then there is no clear 'one definite right answer' and you may be expressing more of an opinion.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, but we all agreed with you at the beginning (700 posts ago) that EES was a promising new take on evolution, but that didn't seem enough for you, so the natural response was to try and find out what you were really arguing for.

No that's another misrepresentation and everyone did not agree. I seem to remember someone even dismissing things before they even agreed. Also saying that it is a promising new take shows that you didn't really understand things as some of the research findings have already validated its findings. So it is relevant now. That in itself indicated to me that despite you saying that you agreed that was a token gesture and not an informed one. So therefore further discussion was warranted.

But even if everyone did agree that the EES promising insights the usual progression then if everyone has a neutral position on things is to discuss the details to see if everyone really does agree and share views and information. As I mentioned in the previous post that did not happen and the thread has taken the long path to get there.

What you are saying when you say you agreed that the EES was promising and then dismissed discussing it to talk about my motives is actually acknowledging that you had predetermined biases about the sources before any content was discussed and that it was almost guaranteed to be sabotaged from the start based on those biases and assumptions. So you have just supported what I said that the thread took a long way to eventually begin to talk about the details which was a normal progression due to people's personal biases.

 

[stevevw]

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.

No people took a biased position from the beginning. This thread and I haven't really had a chance.

I have read the post where the claims have been made on different occasions. Let's look at the last one where you seem to forget the claim was about a single work IE "lack" and even you said that it could be taken as I meant it or taken as what the accuser claimed. So that in itself seems to show that it would be unfair and silly just to accept the accuser's view and admit I am wrong. To me, this shows that you have little time to even put into practice your own advice in taking the time to read and understand the other person's view IE my take on things.

The point is I clarified the meaning of the word with added support from several posts after the claims showing that I meant the word "lack" to mean the "SET lacks explanatory power" and not "completely lacked any explanatory power" as speedwell claimed. But even that did not seem to be accepted and others jumped in who were not even part of the conversation.

So why shouldn't your same advice be applied to those who are refusing to acknowledge the truth in this particular matter? Why are you applying it only to me and not others? That seems biased and only shows I was right that people have taken a biased position and no matter what I say I am wrong.

 

[Speedwell]

No that's another misrepresentation and everyone did not agree. I seem to remember someone even dismissing things before they even agreed. Also saying that it is a promising new take shows that you didn't really understand things as some of the research findings have already validated its findings. So it is relevant now. That in itself indicated to me that despite you saying that you agreed that was a token gesture and not an informed one. So therefore further discussion was warranted.

You can accuse me of insincerity and bias if you want, but the fact is, EES is not news. That Royal Society article you are so fond of is five years old--a bit long in the tooth for a science article--I read it when it first came out. Do you have anything newer to talk about? What is the view of EES today?

 

[stevevw]

Here we are again for every one post on the OP content 5 or 6 are on side issues. This is really out of balance.

 

[Speedwell]

Here we are again for every one post on the OP content 5 or 6 are on side issues. This is really out of balance.

You think a consideration of the current state of EES is a "side issue?"

 

[VirOptimus]

As I said a lot of this thread has been about accusations of misrepresentation and my motives and that has derailed the thread on many occasions. Some have only come onto this thread to try and undermine it and me and have contributed zero to discussing the content of the OP which makes it hard. So the thread had never really got the chance to look beyond the initial OP to investigate things which should be a natural progression.

It has only been in the later stages of this thread by me persisting through those accusations that people are finally debating the detail for which I thank yourself and FrumiousBandersnatch mostly. As the EES papers have stated and why they are posting papers on that detail as it can open up new research areas and help us understand how evolution works better. The papers say the EES has more explanatory power and that is something they have discovered now and not just a claim about future research. It has already been well validated by science. So in that case it is good to discuss the details of their findings.

But there has been no chance of that as some have continually tried to undermine things and refuse to even entertain the idea of discussing it which is a pity as I would have thought furthering people's understanding of evolution and science is exactly what science is all about. If this was a thread on some minor scientific idea in a non-religious forum people would be discussing every detail. But unfortunately, it seems that the old science v creationism distraction keeps coming up.

Your true motives has been shown by quotes.

Also, the fact that you used an article from Discovery Institute shows your true colours.

There is zero chance of you being an honest poster.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Here we are again for every one post on the OP content 5 or 6 are on side issues. This is really out of balance.

Notice how most posters have accepted errors, particularly where it comes to understanding your poorly expressed meaning. Can you point to a single post where you have conceded you made a mistake or expressed your view badly? You could avoid most of this nonsense if you stop whinging and admit when you get things wrong.

 

[stevevw]

Your true motives has been shown by quotes.

Also, the fact that you used an article from Discovery Institute shows your true colours.

There is zero chance of you being an honest poster.

As I said to speedwell I did not know that article was from the Discovery Institute so that shows my lack of knowledge about This. Plus it was 1 in 100 sources I have that are not from creationists or Idist sources. So does the fact that 99% are from mainstream sources mean anything to you. Or have you set your mind on twisting what I have said with religion no matter what. Talk about holding people to high and restrictive criteria. You would not have this biased approach if it was someone who was citing stuff you agreed with.

 

[VirOptimus]

As I said to speedwell I did not know that article was from the Discovery Institute so that shows my lack of knowledge about This. Plus it was 1 in 100 sources I have that are not from creationists or Idist sources. So does the fact that 99% are from mainstream sources mean anything to you. Or have you set your mind on twisting what I have said with religion no matter what. Talk about holding people to high and restrictive criteria. You would not have this biased approach if it was someone who was citing stuff you agreed with.

Agree has nothing to do with it. Science is about facts and data.

I have presented several quotes from you showing this is a religious issue for you.

Using a article from DI is a sure sign of the real motives, your protests are lacking.

 

[stevevw]

Notice how most posters have accepted errors, particularly where it comes to understanding your poorly expressed meaning

The acknowledgement that I may have diction problems is not admitting they are wrong. It is actually saying that I am the cause of any misunderstanding and I have acknowledged that throughout this post. IE
#162
Maybe that is the problem, one of communication. I am not good at grammar.
#587
Never said I was the best at grammar.

But that has little to do with the types of wrongs I am being accused of and no one has admitted they are wrong in these matters. They have said I am wrong on every occasion despite me showing that this cannot be the case. For me to be 100% wrong all the time is unreal so how about addressing that inconsistency. Most of the time, as I showed in the previous post the matter at hand, has no exact right or wrong answer and is a matter of opinion, IE natural selection and creativity or Natural selection is the sole cause of evolution. So there are good answers on both sides.

Or it's a miscommunication problem by the sender or misunderstanding by the receiver that's not related to a person's communication style IE word semantics or when two people are referring to different things and have not clarified that yet which can cause people to assume they are wrong rather than a case of misunderstanding. Sometimes it is associated with misrepresentations which are about honesty. But these are not really about being right or wrong on the science but rather issues that need further clarification. Sometimes there may be no consensus and even the science is inconclusive.

But the point is this all requires further interaction and it may seem like there is banter to and fro and people are not accepting things but this has to happen to establish what is really being said and the facts. Like I said it is not a matter of right and wrong. Unfortunately from what I have experienced this has not been the case. I am being accused of wrong in these matters automatically and even when I do clarify things some still don't accept that as though I am wrong no matter what. I suspect this is because they believe I have ulterior motives about religion and therefore claiming misrepresentations. But that is not my intention.

Can you point to a single post where you have conceded you made a mistake or expressed your view badly?

Yes several times IE the above examples about my grammar and diction style. Plus here

In post #205 the poster said my link for support was not supporting what I said. I acknowledged this and said
I realize that this is a wrong assumption.
So I had acknowledged being wrong with a link before and am not afraid to do so if that is the case.

I even explain that I am not just automatically saying I am wrong when I do happen to but I am trying to understand and engage with the person as to why they are saying what they say. IE #243
I am honestly trying to clarify and then understand the disagreements and not just claim to be right for no good reason. I am engaging "unlike you" so that I can better understanding why someone has said I am wrong.

and where I don't just say I am not wrong but ask people to explain how they think I am wrong. Post #241
how you see the disagreement so please help me so I can understand exactly where I have got things wrong.

The point is on this topic there are different views and it is not always about someone being right or wrong. That is why I will dispute the notion of being wrong sometimes because there is no wrong.

You could avoid most of this nonsense if you stop whinging and admit when you get things wrong.

As shown I do admit to being wrong when needed but that it is not always about being right or wrong. On the occasions I have engaged with you I am certainly not going to admit I am wrong based on your word and your personal opinion and on an issue that has not right and wrong but is about clarifying things. I am the one who said what I said in that post with that word "highlight" so I am the one who only knows my position on that issue.

I clarified several times that what you claimed was not my position and that you have misunderstood things. But you didn't care and didn't listen and wanted to persist that I meant something else and that you knew better than me about what I was thinking and meant. If I was to just give up and go along with you then I am denying who I am and my own views on the matter over what was a case of semantics which I clarified anyway. That would be absolutely ridiculous and denying peoples the right to express their views.

All you needed to do was just acknowledge that you thought I meant something but when I clarified that with you this allowed you to understood my position better and realized that is not what I meant.

So let's see if you can apply your own advice in this matter and you admit that you were wrong to persist and not listen to me trying to explain that that was not what I said even if you initially thought that was the case.

 

[stevevw]

Agree has nothing to do with it. Science is about facts and data.

I have presented several quotes from you showing this is a religious issue for you.

Using an article from DI is a sure sign of the real motives, your protests are lacking.

So what about the 99% of nonreligious articles do they make any difference at all.

 

[VirOptimus]

So what about the 99% of nonreligious articles do they make any difference at all.

For you? No, its very evident that you either dont understand or misuse them.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So let's see if you can apply your own advice in this matter and you admit that you were wrong to persist and not listen to me trying to explain that that was not what I said even if you initially thought that was the case.

We already had that conversation. I said I was prepared to accept I had misunderstood if you were prepared to admit you had expressed yourself poorly. Your response was a very strident "I accept no responsibility. The fault is entirely yours."

That is the point many posters have been trying to make - you take no responsibility for your poor choice of words until pushed to a ridiculous point.

 

[stevevw]

We already had that conversation. I said I was prepared to accept I had misunderstood if you were prepared to admit you had expressed yourself poorly. Your response was very strident "I accept no responsibility. The fault is entirely yours."

But that compromise came well after you put me through a lot of scrutinies to the point that someone else said you were going overboard and that people would not usually be treated to such tight examination. It came even after I clarified my position and you still rejected it and held me to your imagined version of what I said. At that point, you should not have had any excuse to not understand. So this idea of some tradeoff of me admitting I cannot express myself as the cause of this incident is untrue.

It should not have even got to that point and you should have accepted my clarification which would and should have cleared things up. I should not have had to make some token admission of poorly expressing myself because I had properly expressed myself with that additional information that let's face it you should have read and accepted in the first place. You only perceived it as poorly expressed because you rejected the rest of what I said in that post remember. That tradeoff was your way of weaning out of apologizing for subjecting me to such a rigid and unfair examination.

That is the point many posters have been trying to make - you take no responsibility for your poor choice of words until pushed to a ridiculous point.

Wait a minute you attacked me by claiming I meant something I didn't. You caused your own misunderstanding by not checking the original post where the word came from which clearly showed I was correct. When I showed you that post you said I DONT CARE what that post said remember.

Let me ask you is that fair. Is that something you would do to others say that you don't care when I tried to clarify things. That just means I had no chance to defend myself and you had it in for me no matter what.

 

[stevevw]

For you? No, its very evident that you either dont understand or misuse them.

There you go my point is supported. I don't understand anything in this thread. I have written comprehensive commentary and even others have acknowledged I understand at least some of it. The EES papers even state some conflicting stuff and are fairly easy to understand as being opposed to the SET in certain ways without my added words. But according to VirOptimus, I understand nothing and the EES papers are not saying anything that may conflict with the SET even if a layperson can understand they do.

So are you saying the EES completely agrees with the SET view?

 

[VirOptimus]

There you go my point is supported. I don't understand anything in this thread. I have written comprehensive commentary and even others have acknowledged I understand at least some of it. The EES papers even state some conflicting stuff and are fairly easy to understand as being opposed to the SET in certain ways without my added words. But according to VirOptimus, I understand nothing and the EES papers are not saying anything that may conflict with the SET even if a layperson can understand they do.

So are you saying the EES completely agrees with the SET view?

No, your ”points” is not supported.

Thats the problem with your position.

I have supported my points with quotes from you, I dont understand why you keep telling lies about your motivation.