[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Ophiolite]

Why are you applying it only to me and not others?

You asked me what you could do. I thought carefully and offered you the best advice I could construct without a much greater investment of time and substantially extended effort. The advice is there for anyone to consider, but it was tailored to your needs, in the context of this forum and this thread. You are, of course, free to ignore it. I think it would be foolish to do so, but that would be in line with your actions and attitude in this thread, an attitude clearly exhibited in your subsequent words:

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.

The first step for an alcoholic to deal with their problem is to recognise that he or she is an alcoholic. Your problem is much less severe or significant than that of an alcoholic, but the solution begins in the same way. I regret that you have rejected it. Good bye.

 

[stevevw]

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?

From memory when VirOptimus asked the same things I posted the link to the current site that is doing the research project on the EES which is current and always updating. Here it is again. But funny enough it says the same thing as that 5-year-old paper anyway and is only confirming the predictions. The paper maybe 5 years old but the EES has been around for some time now.
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program

Plus if you go back through my posts you will find I have been quoting the current papers as well. I have maybe linked 1 dozen or so papers besides that Royal Society one. But hey at least you and VirOptimus can say these are creationists of ID papers. So does that mean that what they say is now valid.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

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.

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.

"I, stevevw, never contradict myself, I am 100% consistent in everything I say so any misunderstanding must be your fault, not mine. But when I'm not consistent I won't admit it, I'll just explain what I really meant, so the misunderstanding is still your fault."

 

[stevevw]

No, your ”points” is not supported.

Thats the problem with your position.

The problem is even people on your side (speedwell) have acknowledged at least one of my points is correct. I said that the EES papers were saying that the SET (mainstream) view made natural selection the sole/only cause and force for adaptive evolution. People then said I was misunderstanding the EES papers. Speedwell asked for evidence and I posted quotes from the EES papers like these.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA, and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

(i) The pre-eminence of natural selection. The major directing or creative influence in evolution is natural selection, which alone explains why the properties of organisms match the properties of their environments (adaptation)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation
About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Speedwell then said in post #407 I would be more prone to believe what I said if the quotes about NS being the sole cause came from non-EES papers. So I posted more support from mainstream papers saying the same thing IE

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see ref. 17).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Since Darwin’s work, the designator “evolution” has been typically, if not exclusively, linked with the theory of natural selection as the primary cause by which such species change has occurred over historical time.
Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So despite you saying my points are not supported even your own side says they are. The funny thing is the amount of hoop-jumping I needed to do to prove this while people were saying I had no understanding. I was right all along.

I have supported my points with quotes from you, I don't understand why you keep telling lies about your motivation.

So you're saying this entire thread and every single scientific link and word that I have posted is irrelevant, doesn't hold any weight because you perceive I may be doing it because of my belief. My belief trumps the content, that is one of the biggest logical fallacies I have even come across.

How does a person's belief negate independent scientific sources? It is irrelevant whether those sources are right or wrong. It is the logical fallacy of trying to negate them based on the personal belief of who is posting them that is the fallacy that negates your argument in the first place. So despite you thinking you have supported your points you haven't according to a major logical fallacy which collapses any argument for the get-go.

 

[stevevw]

"I, stevevw, never contradict myself, I am 100% consistent in everything I say so any misunderstanding must be your fault, not mine. But when I'm not consistent I won't admit it, I'll just explain what I really meant, so the misunderstanding is still your fault."

So how about this I'll admit I have contradicted myself, made grammar and dictions errors except in your case. Does that make it better for you to finally acknowledge you were wrong in demanding such restrictive criteria on me and not accepting my clarification of what I meant when I attempted to tell you?

What you don't realize that in any exchange between people there will always be some misunderstanding. Words and even sentences, meanings can be taken the wrong way between sender and receiver. It isn't a crime to get the meaning wrong as people come from different perspectives.

But we don't just go in on the attack with preconceived assumptions that the person must have meant what you thought they meant. WE have to clarify, seek further understanding.

I attempted to give you that further understanding of my position but you rejected it and were adamant that what I meant was what you thought I meant.

So really the misunderstanding and conflict weren't caused by me. I attempted to clear it up but I can only send that message to you. If you reject it and are not willing to accept it then we have a problem.

But I can see this is not going to be resolved. So let's move on.

 

[stevevw]

You asked me what you could do. I thought carefully and offered you the best advice I could construct without a much greater investment of time and substantially extended effort. The advice is there for anyone to consider, but it was tailored to your needs, in the context of this forum and this thread. You are, of course, free to ignore it. I think it would be foolish to do so, but that would be in line with your actions and attitude in this thread, an attitude clearly exhibited in your subsequent words:
The first step for an alcoholic to deal with their problem is to recognise that he or she is an alcoholic. Your problem is much less severe or significant than that of an alcoholic, but the solution begins in the same way. I regret that you have rejected it. Goodbye.

Overall I can take on board your advice so thank you. But I hope in those specific examples I gave and have been addressing lately you will recognize that there is a degree of unfair scrutiny and restrictive practices being applied to me which would not be applied to others in similar situations. After all, it was you who acknowledged this. You even said that the word I used in your example could be taken both ways.

So in fairness, it is up to both and not just me to work together to clarify things and not just assume which is what has been happening. Do you agree it takes 2 people to communicate a clear message that is understandable. One to send the other to receive. I can try to make my message as clear as I can considering my diction problem. But the receiver also has an obligation to clarify that the message they think they have is the correct one as well and not just assume that.

Each person has their own perception which can be influenced by biases. So clarifying what the message is will be important if we are to remain neutral. But if one party especially the receiver is deciding what the message is and not allowing the sender a chance to have their say and clarify then that is unfair and biased as it is giving the receiver control of what is said when it is the sender's message. So to be fair your advice also applies to everyone in this thread. In fact, they reflect the guidelines of good debating.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

So how about this I'll admit I have contradicted myself, made grammar and dictions errors except in your case.

Cool, if it makes you feel better. But since I didn't say you'd contradicted yourself or made an error in grammar or diction it's not really relevant.

 

[VirOptimus]

The problem is even people on your side (speedwell) have acknowledged at least one of my points is correct. I said that the EES papers were saying that the SET (mainstream) view made natural selection the sole/only cause and force for adaptive evolution. People then said I was misunderstanding the EES papers. Speedwell asked for evidence and I posted quotes from the EES papers like these.

The story that SET tells is simple: new variation arises through random genetic mutation; inheritance occurs through DNA, and natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

(i) The pre-eminence of natural selection. The major directing or creative influence in evolution is natural selection, which alone explains why the properties of organisms match the properties of their environments (adaptation)
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation
About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Speedwell then said in post #407 I would be more prone to believe what I said if the quotes about NS being the sole cause came from non-EES papers. So I posted more support from mainstream papers saying the same thing IE

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see ref. 17).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Since Darwin’s work, the designator “evolution” has been typically, if not exclusively, linked with the theory of natural selection as the primary cause by which such species change has occurred over historical time.
Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

So despite you saying my points are not supported even your own side says they are. The funny thing is the amount of hoop-jumping I needed to do to prove this while people were saying I had no understanding. I was right all along.

So you're saying this entire thread and every single scientific link and word that I have posted is irrelevant, doesn't hold any weight because you perceive I may be doing it because of my belief. My belief trumps the content, that is one of the biggest logical fallacies I have even come across.

How does a person's belief negate independent scientific sources? It is irrelevant whether those sources are right or wrong. It is the logical fallacy of trying to negate them based on the personal belief of who is posting them that is the fallacy that negates your argument in the first place. So despite you thinking you have supported your points you haven't according to a major logical fallacy which collapses any argument for the get-go.

Yes, your ”points” are irrelevant because you are arguing religion, not science.

The EES is not irrelevant, but you are not arguing that. You dont even understand it, or biology. You just want to insert god into science as my quotes show and your own signature also says.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, your ”points” are irrelevant because you are arguing religion, not science.

The EES is not irrelevant, but you are not arguing that. You dont even understand it, or biology. You just want to insert god into science as my quotes show and your own signature also says.

So are you saying anyone who alludes to God cannot comment in science threads because they are only doing it because of their religious beliefs. Your entire contribution to this thread has been one big Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Ad Hominem
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

 

[VirOptimus]

So are you saying anyone who alludes to God cannot comment in science threads because they are only doing it because of their religious beliefs.

So:s law.

 

[VirOptimus]

So are you saying anyone who alludes to God cannot comment in science threads because they are only doing it because of their religious beliefs. Your entire contribution to this thread has been one big Ad Hominem logical fallacy.

Ad Hominem
This fallacy occurs when, instead of addressing someone's argument or position, you irrelevantly attack the person or some aspect of the person who is making the argument. The fallacious attack can also be direct to membership in a group or institution.

No its not and I have supported my points.

Its clear for everyone to see.

Ill add logical fallacies to the things you are ignorant about.

 

[stevevw]

Cool, if it makes you feel better. But since I didn't say you'd contradicted yourself or made an error in grammar or diction it's not really relevant.

I don't think any of what you said was relevant to what happened.

 

[stevevw]

No its not and I have supported my points.

Its clear for everyone to see.

Ill add logical fallacies to the things you are ignorant about.

Of course, if you have already decided that everything I do is ignorant then I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
But you are not understanding an Ad Hominem. It doesn't matter what a person says or declares it is the fact that you are not checking the content to discover whether it really is irrelevant, unsupported, or invalid that makes it a logical fallacy. So far in this thread, you have not engaged in even responding to the content but rather have dismissed it based on the person or their associations. The fact that you have not made an argument against the content itself to dismiss it makes a logical fallacy.

 

[VirOptimus]

Of course, if you have already decided that everything I do is ignorant then I wouldn't expect anything less from you.
But you are not understanding an Ad Hominem. It doesn't matter what a person says or declares it is the fact that you are not checking the content to discover whether it really is irrelevant, unsupported, or invalid that makes it a logical fallacy. So far in this thread, you have not engaged in even responding to the content but rather have dismissed it based on the person or their associations. The fact that you don't know the content and have not tested it is the point.

Nope.

Tell the truth, why do you think EES opens up for god?

 

[stevevw]

Nope.

Tell the truth, why do you think EES opens up for god?

That has nothing to do with this thread and I'm not going to introduce something that is irrelevant. You cannot seem to understand that people can hold two different positions at the same time and not let either be confused or mixed. They can do science without bringing God into it. Despite my beliefs, this thread is about the science of the EES as compared to the SET. That is it and no other outside topics and views that have nothing to do with this should come into it. If we start introducing belief into this thread it will completely derail it and bring in stuff that is totally irrelevant. As you can see I have not mentioned God, creationism, ID, or any religion in this thread.

I am sure some of the scientists that do genetics or biology have beliefs and personally think that these topics reveal God in different ways. But they keep that separate from the science. What you are actually doing is denying anyone with a belief to discuss scientific topics. That is all you have done in this thread by trying to introduce an unrelated topic religion. In fact, you have mentioned religion more than anyone. The only reason you are doing this is to try and discredit me and in doing so discredit anything I say. But that's a logical fallacy like I said.

A good example of your tact and unsupported assertions were just exposed. You said I didn't understand what an ad hominem logical fallacy was and I show that it was actually you who doesn't know. This only shows how you just throw unsupported assertions out there in the hope of discrediting people.

 

[VirOptimus]

That has nothing to do with this thread and I'm not going to introduce something that is irrelevant. You cannot seem to understand that people can hold two different positions at the same time and not let either be confused or mixed. They can do science without bringing God into it. Despite my beliefs, this thread is about the science of the EES as compared to the SET. That is it and no other outside topics and views that have nothing to do with this should come into it. If we start introducing belief into this thread it will completely derail it and bring in stuff that is totally irrelevant. As you can see I have not mentioned God, creationism, ID, or any religion in this thread.

I am sure some of the scientists that do genetics or biology have beliefs and personally think that these topics reveal God in different ways. But they keep that separate from the science. What you are actually doing is denying anyone with a belief to discuss scientific topics. That is all you have done in this thread by trying to introduce an unrelated topic religion. In fact, you have mentioned religion more than anyone. The only reason you are doing this is to try and discredit me and in doing so discredit anything I say. But that's a logical fallacy like I said.

A good example of your tact and unsupported assertions were just exposed. You said I didn't understand what an ad hominem logical fallacy was and I show that it was actually you who doesn't know. This only shows how you just throw unsupported assertions out there in the hope of discrediting people.

No, your posts discredit you.

And you refusing to answer reveals your true motives.

 

[Ophiolite]

But if one party especially the receiver is deciding what the message is and not allowing the sender a chance to have their say and clarify then that is unfair and biased as it is giving the receiver control of what is said when it is the sender's message.

And you don't see what's wrong with this statement, do you? When you do, and post accordingly, people may stop jumping all over you. I've done my bit; so have others. The ball is in your court.

 

[Speedwell]

....and not allowing the sender a chance to have their say....

That is really hilarious, Steve. You have posted more words in this thread by far than the rest of us put together.

 

[stevevw]

No, your posts discredit you.

And you refusing to answer reveals your true motives.

I told you that this thread is not the place for discussing topics related to religion. Here the ridiculous demands you are placing on me. You ignore my post about the actual topic which is on the EES a scientific topic and yet the only topic you want to discuss with me is an unrelated topic on religion. That shows you are being unreasonable.

 

[VirOptimus]

I told you that this thread is not the place for discussing topics related to religion. Here the ridiculous demands you are placing on me. You ignore my post about the actual topic which is on the EES a scientific topic and yet the only topic you want to discuss with me is an unrelated topic on religion. That shows you are being unreasonable.

No, I'm not.

But you are not honest about your motives.

Also, you have been shown again and again that you dont understand the topic but you just keep posting the same wall of text posts with the same discredited "points". There is no point in discussing science with you as that is not what you are posting about, its all about your religious beliefs which you for some reason cant confess.