[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

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.

OK so you have probably misunderstood what I have said. I am basically saying that the sender of a message is the only one who knows what they meant and therefore no one should be telling them what they meant or didn't mean. If there is some confusion or misunderstanding about what was said then it is up to the sender to clarify this and not the receiver.

 

[stevevw]

No, I'm not.

But you are not honest about your motives.

How do motives matter when discussing the EES itself. How does this change the facts about the EES.

Also, you have been shown again and again that you don't 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.

Then how do you explain that even someone on your side acknowledged one of the claims I made about what the EES papers were saying which I just explained to you.

 

[VirOptimus]

How do motives matter when discussing the EES itself. How does this change the facts about the EES.

Then how do you explain that even someone on your side acknowledged one of the claims I made about what the EES papers were saying which I just explained to you.

You still haven answered my question.

 

[stevevw]

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

I am not talking about the overall thread. I am happy to engage in some banter where that is concerned, that goes with debating. I am specifically talking about the situations that have come up regarding disputes about word meaning and disputes over what my position is or is not on some specific issue.

If someone is disputing what I meant or my position and is insisting I should agree with them about what they think I meant or what my position is shouldn't I have the right to clarify what I meant and not be held to some position or meaning I have not meant or subscribed to.

 

[stevevw]

You still haven't answered my question.

And you haven't answered mine. How is that relevant to this thread. How does this relate to the validity of the EES?

 

[VirOptimus]

And you haven't answered mine. How is that relevant to this thread. How does this relate to the validity of the EES?

Tell me truthfully, why are you touting the EES, why is that important to you?

 

[Bungle_Bear]

OK so you have probably misunderstood what I have said.

Why did that happen?

I am basically saying that the sender of a message is the only one who knows what they meant and therefore no one should be telling them what they meant or didn't mean.

While others cannot tell you what you intended to communicate, they are perfectly entitled to tell you the meaning your words actually communicated.

If there is some confusion or misunderstanding about what was said then it is up to the sender to clarify this and not the receiver.

Indeed. It is also incumbent on the sender to acknowledge the reason for the confusion. That's the bit you don't seem able to grasp.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Well then people should ask to clarify if that is the case and not assume.

It takes two to tango, Steve. I have asked you numerous questions to try and find out precisely what you understand by some of the comments and quotes you've posted - most were ignored, and the few you addressed were either not answered directly or contained basic errors or misunderstandings of fundamental issues. When the errors and misunderstandings were described or explained, you didn't ask for more clarification or explanation, but either ignored them or became defensive and posted more screeds of quotes and articles.

Of course, it's entirely up to you how you discuss these things, but when you try to tell people with a solid grounding and/or experience in the subject that they're wrong, and when you do you make basic errors or show misunderstandings of fundamental issues, you should expect some push-back.

 

[stevevw]

None of that says, "natural selection will be diminished, biased, and even replaced by the EES forces".

Then you do not really appreciate what the paper is implying. If under the SET Natural selection is seen as the only mechanism for causing and directing evolution then it logically follows that including several other modes of transmission that do the same thing would then take away from natural selections role in some way whether that be biasing, diminishing, and replacing NS in different situations.

Biasing the outcome of natural selection is not biasing natural selection; any consistent change in selection pressure will 'bias' the outcome of natural selection.

But this doesn't make much difference when we are talking about natural selection directing the outcome of evolution. Also, there is evidence that natural selection's role itself is being affected by other forces that can also act as selecting forces. Therefore they are more or less replacing or reducing NS as a result IE

There is another process of potentially substantial evolutionary influence: the (constructed) environment does not just select for new variation, it also produces it, in the form of the developmental niche.
Why developmental niche construction is not selective niche construction: and why it matters

So as you can see EES forces like niche construction can not only produce nonrandom variations but also select those adaptive variations therefore taking over the role that NS would usually do and in doing so reducing it.

There's no mention of natural selection being diminished or replaced.

As mentioned above you are not appreciating the implications of what the papers are saying about how the EE forces can do what NS does. If the SET claims that NS is the sole force that causes and directs adaptive evolution by being the only selecting force and the EES forces can do what NS can do then it logically follows that NS role will be reduced and diminished as a result. There is evidence that for example, niche construction also acts as a selecting force thus replacing NS or at least diminishing its role by becoming the force that determines adaptive variations instead of NS.

We suggest that niche construction occupies the middle ground between artificial and natural selection: like artificial selection, niche construction reliably generates relatively consistent features in selective environments. During artificial selection, breeders and experimentalists deliberately select for particular characteristics (high yields, pretty flowers and attractive plumage); the breeder/experimentalist imposes direction on evolution by determining which individuals reproduce. There is a predictability and consistency to the pattern of evolution that ensues—the breeder/experimentalist can anticipate with confidence that a specific favored trait will reliably increase in frequency until genetic variation is significantly depleted and can predict with some accuracy the direction of evolution. Selective breeding increases the frequency of the selected trait, frequently evoking characteristic and strong responses to selection.

The predictability and generality of artificial selection can be contrasted with the frequent unpredictability and local contingency of natural selection in natural populations without niche construction.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0147

Our study confirmed that natural selection deriving from organism-constructed sources exhibits reduced temporal and spatial variation in selection gradients, and weaker (i.e. reduced intensity of) selection, compared to non-constructed sources.
Organism-Constructed Environments are Different – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Nope. You're just repeating the same old nonsense. Also, natural selection doesn't 'come along', it is always acting.

I think I have supported each claim above. I won't go through all of them but for example

I said
“Under the SET view the source of variation is random so natural selection is regarded as the all-important and only determining factor as to which variation are adaptive and heritable. Therefore NS is seen as the driving force of evolution.”

Let’s see what the papers say.
Like the EES, the Modern Synthesis also represents a particular way to understand evolution. It primarily focuses on genes:

• new variation arises through random genetic mutation
• inheritance occurs through DNA
• natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

EES processes can't 'replace' natural selection - no natural selection means no evolution...

If the EES forces are not replacing NS then how do you explain the above quotes from papers saying they do.

Natural selection is not a theory, it's a process;

Then why do so many articles refer to it as a theory IE
The theory of natural selection was explored by 19th-century naturalist Charles Darwin. Natural selection explains how the genetic traits of a species may change over time. This may lead to speciation, the formation of a distinct new species.
Natural Selection.

conceptually different from niche construction. If there is selection, it is natural selection; it may be considered as part of a greater process, but it acts just the same.

Then how do you explain niche construction for example being said to also be a selective force that produces and selects adaptive variations.

None of that supports what you said above - in fact they explicitly say, "Causation in biological systems is reciprocal rather than linear, with natural selection and niche construction codirecting each other."

That exactly supports what I said. I said the SET takes a narrow view of the cause of evolution which is linear. Whereas the EES takes a more pluralistic view where there are a number of forces that cause and drive evolution. I have never denied NS is one of them, just that it is not the only one like the SET claims and just that the EES forces also cause and drive evolution which SET denies.

This is simply multi-generational kin selection - where altruistic actions by particular population variants with a mutant allele benefit not only their existing normative kin, but, by extension, those of future generations. By benefitting kin survival, the mutant allele (particularly recessive alleles) can persist over the generations, benefitting future generations.

Actually it is more then this, more than altruistic behaviour and more than just passing on alleles. Any behaviour or niche conditions that may provide an advantage are preserved regardless of NS, regardless of whether that specific condition of behaviour is a selective or adaptive benefit according to Natural selection ad regardless of whether it is gene-based or not which the SET restricts things too.

As shown it is the creature’s actions and the niches that are doing the selecting and this will determine adaptiveness and heritable variations according to what the creature itself requires which may not always be the same as the adaptive and fitness to environments that natural selection determines. So any conditions and behaviours that provide this adaptive benefit despite NS will be passed on if it helps the creature and future generations survive. IE

Niche construction processes can facilitate the endurance of organisms in adverse environments and it can be beneficial despite being costly due to advantages that accrue for later generations [99].
Error - Cookies Turned Off

Note that the cause here is a mutation and it is subject to natural selection.

As mentioned the EES doesn't restrict variations that provide an adaptive and survival benefit to gene-based variations such as with inheritance beyond genes.

Niche construction is the organism adapting to its environment by changing its behaviour to modify the environment. As previously explained, the difference is just a matter of viewpoint and categorization.

Niche construction is not as you describe it where an organism is adapting to its environment. As soon as you say this you are still taking the SET adaptive view which restricts all-cause to adaptive evolution by NS. Rather it is the environment being adapted to the creature (the other way around) then the creature being adapted to the environment.

This makes an important distinction. Saying the creature is adapted to its environment still makes NS the cause of that adaptation. The outside force of NS bearing down on some passive creature who is being changed to fit that environment. It overlooks any contribution from the creature itself or its developmental system that may be doing the selecting and therefore controlling its own evolution.

Under Niche construction, the creature has changed the environment to suit its needs. As I have shown above niche construction is a form of selection itself. So instead to NS doing the selecting of adaptive variations, it is the creature through the niche conditions, it has created that will suit it now and in future generations to help it adapt and survive meeting the conditions for evolution.

This is standard ecosystem interaction; nothing new here. EES simply describes it from a different perspective.

Yes and as I have just shown above that different perspective is important. It brings with it different scientific assumptions, structures and predictions for causes of evolution. Because the EES takes a more pluralistic view of the evolutionary causes. It takes into consideration other forces that cause and direct evolution and their greater influences and feedbacks besides the adaptive view through natural selection.

The difference is that the SET sees those other forces and greater influences as explanations for why adaptive evolution by natural selection is being constrained or is absent because it only sees all causes as by NS. Whereas the EES sees those EES forces causing and directing evolution and thus the greater influences are part of this expanded view as contributing to the cause of evolution.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Then you do not really appreciate what the paper is implying. If under the SET Natural selection is seen as the only mechanism for causing and directing evolution then it logically follows that including several other modes of transmission that do the same thing would then take away from natural selections role in some way whether that be biasing, diminishing, and replacing NS in different situations.

Yeah, but the SET doesn't maintain that. The SET is not biblical dogma, it has no canon - it's an explanation for evolution, a description of the processes involved.

... there is evidence that natural selection's role itself is being affected by other forces that can also act as selecting forces. Therefore they are more or less replacing or reducing NS as a result IE

There is another process of potentially substantial evolutionary influence: the (constructed) environment does not just select for new variation, it also produces it, in the form of the developmental niche.
Why developmental niche construction is not selective niche construction: and why it matters

As I said before, any natural selecting influence is, by definition, natural selection - whether it's a product of niche construction or climate change. If you don't understand this, you understand nothing.

 

[stevevw]

It takes two to tango, Steve. I have asked you numerous questions to try and find out precisely what you understand by some of the comments and quotes you've posted - most were ignored, and the few you addressed were either not answered directly or contained basic errors or misunderstandings of fundamental issues. When the errors and misunderstandings were described or explained, you didn't ask for more clarification or explanation, but either ignored them or became defensive and posted more screeds of quotes and articles.

Of course, it's entirely up to you how you discuss these things, but when you try to tell people with a solid grounding and/or experience in the subject that they're wrong, and when you do you make basic errors or show misunderstandings of fundamental issues, you should expect some push-back.

OK I thought we went through this before. I went back over the thread and tried to find those particular issues. I acknowledged that the more detailed issues were beyond my ability to discuss and understand. But from what I remember most was about basic understandings of evolution and disagreements about what certain aspects of evolution meant.

I also acknowledged that in some cases this was my ability to explain things properly (diction) but thought I accounted for this with further clarification by explaining that my understanding of the particular issues being disputed was in line with what you were saying. It wasn't so much that I didn't understand but that I was saying the same thing but in a poorly expressed and roundabout manner.

I also explained that in some cases there was a difference in the view of certain aspects of evolution that did not come down to one particular understanding or explanation IE whether natural selection is a creative force, whether NS is the main cause of evolution. In my opinion, you may have been expressing your view and I was expressing mine but we both thought we were correct on this. I tried to show from the support that there was more than one explanation or view.

I think most of the issues have been around communication problems which I admitted sometimes caused by my lack of diction but I also clarified further to clear up any misunderstandings. But I think also because we were sometimes talking about the same thing but in different ways. Yes, it takes two and therefore because the topic is more complex than usual it does take a lot of exchanges and disputes about the meaning and explanations and personal views.

I keep coming back to the basic claim I originally made that the SET/mainstream view of evolution only seen natural selection as the main cause of adaptive evolution. I was told I misunderstood evolution. I said this is what the EES papers and mainstream evolution seem to be saying and I backed that up with evidence. Now that may have come down to what we were actually talking about and the different perspectives on what evolution and whether it was simplified.

But technically I was correct and that is exactly how the EES papers also explained it. So though I was the target claiming I was misunderstanding things it was not I who claimed this but the EES papers and that took some time to be established and where at least one person agreed with me. But it is a good example of how these issues of misunderstandings are not just one-sided and I could show you many the same. So you are right it does take 2 to tango.

I liken this difference to exactly what the EES are saying with how even the experts are getting into disputes about meanings and what is evolution and what is not with the debate on the differences between the EES and the SET.

 

[Ophiolite]

I am basically saying that the sender of a message is the only one who knows what they meant and therefore no one should be telling them what they meant or didn't mean.

While this is generally true and is reflected in the second item in my signature line there are two important caveats. (On reflection they may be different perspectives of the same one. I'll let you decide.)

• Many messages contain sub-text, implications, nuances, subtleties that may be more important than the superficial message. The author of the text may not be conscious of these, but they are discernible to the reader.
• I read an exchange between two literary gentlemen on the meaning of an essay. One declared primacy of understanding, since they were the author. The other replied contemptuously, "Please don't be so foolish as to imagine that any author fully understands what they have written."

If there is some confusion or misunderstanding about what was said then it is up to the sender to clarify this and not the receiver.

Precisely so. When you were first challenged this was your basic response. I paraphrase it as it was read by me, and so far as I am able to tell, by all those other members who have complained to you:
"No. That's not what I said. I didn't say that at all. You are misinterpreting me. I clearly said XYZ, not ABC."
All of your subsequent posts where you seek to clarify your meaning have the same tenor. That is what many (and I suspect, all) of us are complaining about. Why? Because this is what you should have posted.
"No. My apologies. I have not been clear. You have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me try to get my point across with slightly different words and emphasis. Let me know if that makes more sense."

In case I have not made myself clear, allow me to point out the essential difference between the two:

• In the first case, the style you used, you seek to excuse yourself and place a substantial portion of the blame on the reader. We clearly misinterpreted you. You did not say what we say you did. You wriggle and you whine.
• In the second case you accept full responsibility. You have not been clear. You accept that your words convey a meaning different from what you intended. Your words are responsible for that, not some corrupted interpretation by your readers.

But in post after post after post you stick with style one and continue to argue that "I didn't say that". Tough. As far as everyone else is concerned you did say that and until you use style two and accept responsibility (which means stop with the excuses) then this roller coaster of nonsense will continue.

 

[stevevw]

Yeah, but the SET doesn't maintain that. The SET is not biblical dogma, it has no canon - it's a an explanation for evolution, a description of the processes involved.

See this is a good example of the difference in opinion and view. The EES papers even mention how there is a widespread dogma of what is the cause of adaptive evolution in the mainstream and that is that natural selection is the sole cause.

So I am coming up against on the one side your view and opinion which you claim to be the only right one and what I see repeated in mainstream literature itself. No wonder people get confused and there are claims of misrepresentation and misunderstandings. I even supported this many times with links from both the EES papers and mainstream ones. IE

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, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

The majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37].
In a condensed form, these tenets are as follows: (viii) natural selection represents the only directional factor in evolution.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Adaptationists see natural selection as the only and all-powerful force that can overcome any constraint to species' traits.
The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later - ScienceDirect

But Michael Lynch a top evolutionary biologist in population genetics tells it the best

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

Yes other influences are mentioned such as drift and gene flow but we are talking about core assumptions and tenets IE

Core assumptions of the classical MS
(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

As I said before, any natural selecting influence is, by definition, natural selection - whether it's a product of niche construction or climate change. If you don't understand this, you understand nothing.

Then what do they mean that niche construction as a force is both producing the adaptive variation and selecting it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I keep coming back to the basic claim I originally made that the SET/mainstream view of evolution only seen natural selection as the main cause of adaptive evolution. I was told I misunderstood evolution. I said this is what the EES papers and mainstream evolution seem to be saying and I backed that up with evidence.

Problem is, the view of SET and its differences from EES that you've posted here is a radically simplified cartoon in monochrome. As you've repeatedly been told, it really isn't like that. The quotes and articles you've posted are oversimplifying and exaggerating to make a point.

 

[stevevw]

While this is generally true and is reflected in the second item in my signature line there are two important caveats. (On reflection they may be different perspectives of the same one. I'll let you decide.)

• Many messages contain sub-text, implications, nuances, subtleties that may be more important than the superficial message. The author of the text may not be conscious of these, but they are discernible to the reader.
• I read an exchange between two literary gentlemen on the meaning of an essay. One declared primacy of understanding since they were the author. The other replied contemptuously, "Please don't be so foolish as to imagine that any author fully understands what they have written."

• Ok I can see your point. That's why it's important to have a further discussion to clarify things. Exchange perspectives of meaning. But I think this is also dependent on what is being discussed. Entire writings are different to perhaps single claims or positions which may only convey a single message and meaning.

Precisely so. When you were first challenged this was your basic response. I paraphrase it as it was read by me, and so far as I am able to tell, by all those other members who have complained to you:

"No. That's not what I said. I didn't say that at all. You are misinterpreting me. I clearly said XYZ, not ABC."
All of your subsequent posts where you seek to clarify your meaning have the same tenor. That is what many (and I suspect, all) of us are complaining about. Why? Because this is what you should have posted.
"No. My apologies. I have not been clear. You have misunderstood what I was trying to say. Let me try to get my point across with slightly different words and emphasis. Let me know if that makes more sense."

But you miss out on a very important point. The receiver attacked my position. If you are talking about being neutral and using the correct language for these exchanges then it doesn't just apply to the sender. If a receiver attacks a position then they are taking a particular stance and are not being neutral. An attack on someone is going to put the sender on the defense. You even acknowledged this when you said that the receiver seemed to be taking a restrictive approach that is not usually made which to me is another way of saying they are not being neutral or fair. What concerns me is that you did not acknowledge this and are only focusing on my part.

In case I have not made myself clear, allow me to point out the essential difference between the two:

• In the first case, the style you used, you seek to excuse yourself and place a substantial portion of the blame on the reader. We clearly misinterpreted you. You did not say what we say you did. You wriggle and you whine.

So what if the receiver is obviously wrong, they have jumped to a conclusion and the evidence for my position in saying that the receiver was wrong is clearly there for all to see. Does that make a difference?

If the receiver attacked the sender and it was glaringly obvious that the receiver had chosen to ignore certain important information which would have helped them see that the sender was right is it not the right of the sender to defend their position and point out the receiver has jumped to a conclusion and is being unfair. Why should the sender have to admit any wrong or cause of misunderstanding. Isn't it the receiver's responsibility then for causing the misunderstanding because they ignored important information.

• In the second case you accept full responsibility. You have not been clear. You accept that your words convey a meaning different from what you intended. Your words are responsible for that, not some corrupted interpretation by your readers.

  Like I said what if the sender has been clear and it is the receiver who has ignored certain information in the original message that should have been read and included which caused the receiver to misinterpret things. Why should the sender take full responsibility when it wasn't their fault. Have you accounted for this scenario. It seems that because you are only accounting for the one-sided view you are not considering other possibilities which seem unfair and as though you are assuming it is the sender's fault.

But in post after post after post you stick with style one and continue to argue that "I didn't say that". Tough. As far as everyone else is concerned you did say that and until you use style two and accept responsibility (which means stop with the excuses) then this roller coaster of nonsense will continue.

Look I will take responsibility and I have when it is needed if I have not explained myself and I have posted evidence showing me admitting I have problems with diction and that this can lead to misunderstandings. But in the last situation, I am talking about this was not my fault. Even you acknowledge that the receiver was being unfair.

There was obvious evidence that showed I was correct. The receiver singled out a particular word and attached his meaning to it. He did not go back and read the post containing that word more than once which clearly showed that it meant what I said it meant.

They attacked me on it rather than seeking clarification which put me on the defensive and was not willing to accept that evidence. They even admitted that the evidence did support what I said but that it was said afterward. I posted evidence showing it was said in the same post but they still refused to acknowledge this. It was as simple as that.

Do your self a favor and check the post 520 yourself. See whether I meant 'only highlight' to mean 'mainstream evolution claims random mutations are the only way to produce variations'. Or whether it meant that it highlights random mutations above other ways variations can be produced. You be the judge. I only highlight this situation as an example of what I am talking about so that perhaps you will see things from the other side.

Sometimes it is the receiver who is at fault. But what concerns me is that you did not even consider this to be a possibility and just assumed it is always the sender's fault when it comes to me.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

See this is a good example of the difference in opinion and view. The EES papers even mention how there is a widespread dogma of what is the cause of adaptive evolution in the mainstream and that is that natural selection is the sole cause.

Some individuals treating their interpretation of a theory as dogma simply reflects an unscientific attitude on their part - but I suspect the claims of widespread dogma are, as I mentioned, exaggerations for rhetorical effect - I never met anyone in the field who thought so simplistically.

As I said before, you should think it through for yourself - how could natural selection possibly be the 'sole cause' of evolution? what does that even mean?
E.T.A I'm sure I asked you this before and got no response - I'm happy to be corrected.

So I am coming up against on the one side your view and opinion which you claim to be the only right one and what I see repeated in mainstream literature itself.

I'm not saying my opinion is the only right one, I'm trying to give you the bigger picture.

Then what do they mean that niche construction as a force is both producing the adaptive variation and selecting it.

It just means that they think the variation and natural selection resulting from niche construction behaviours can be seen as forming a recognisable pattern of interactions that are sufficiently distinct from other patterns of evolution to be productively considered as a category or subject in its own right.

 

[stevevw]

Problem is, the view of SET and its differences from EES that you've posted here is a radically simplified cartoon in monochrome. As you've repeatedly been told, it really isn't like that. The quotes and articles you've posted are oversimplifying and exaggerating to make a point.

I realize that and acknowledged that. The problem is as I said the papers are claiming these are the core assumptions and tenets. They are only highlighting this as though it's a representation of the core principles of the SET. They post this as a summary of the entire paper. Is that not usually a representation of what they are pointing out. Why would both the EES and the SET post such summaries? Summaries are usually a good representation of what the entire paper is saying.

One of the quotes that stated natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation is from a stand-alone table of the core assumptions and predictions of the EES compared to the SET. Why would they produce such a table to be read in isolation if they didn't intend for it to mean exactly what it said? This basic meaning is repeated throughout the literature. Besides, why do they also say with those so-called simplified explanations that the SET is actually being dogmatic and restricting their view of evolution?

They seem to be supporting the fact of what I and the EES papers are saying that the SET takes a narrow view of evolution by only highlighting those particular assumptions and tenets. Why would Michael Lynch who is a well respected evolutionary biologist who seems to know what he is talking about for example say this

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

 

[Ophiolite]

• Ok I can see your point. That's why it's important to have a further discussion to clarify things. Exchange perspectives of meaning. But I think this is also dependent on what is being discussed. Entire writings are different to perhaps single claims or positions which may only convey a single message and meaning.

But you miss out on a very important point. The receiver attacked my position. If you are talking about being neutral and using the correct language for these exchanges then it doesn't just apply to the sender. If a receiver attacks a position then they are taking a particular stance and are not being neutral. An attack on someone is going to put the sender on the defense. You even acknowledged this when you said that the receiver seemed to be taking a restrictive approach that is not usually made which to me is another way of saying they are not being neutral or fair. What concerns me is that you did not acknowledge this and are only focusing on my part.

So what if the receiver is obviously wrong, they have jumped to a conclusion and the evidence for my position in saying that the receiver was wrong is clearly there for all to see. Does that make a difference?

If the receiver attacked the sender and it was glaringly obvious that the receiver had chosen to ignore certain important information which would have helped them see that the sender was right is it not the right of the sender to defend their position and point out the receiver has jumped to a conclusion and is being unfair. Why should the sender have to admit any wrong or cause of misunderstanding. Isn't it the receiver's responsibility then for causing the misunderstanding because they ignored important information.

• Like I said what if the sender has been clear and it is the receiver who has ignored certain information in the original message that should have been read and included which caused the receiver to misinterpret things. Why should the sender take full responsibility when it wasn't their fault. Have you accounted for this scenario. It seems that because you are only accounting for the one-sided view you are not considering other possibilities which seem unfair and as though you are assuming it is the sender's fault.

Look I will take responsibility and I have when it is needed if I have not explained myself and I have posted evidence showing me admitting I have problems with diction and that this can lead to misunderstandings. But in the last situation, I am talking about this was not my fault. Even you acknowledge that the receiver was being unfair.

There was obvious evidence that showed I was correct. The receiver singled out a particular word and attached his meaning to it. He did not go back and read the post containing that word more than once which clearly showed that it meant what I said it meant.

They attacked me on it rather than seeking clarification which put me on the defensive and was not willing to accept that evidence. They even admitted that the evidence did support what I said but that it was said afterward. I posted evidence showing it was said in the same post but they still refused to acknowledge this. It was as simple as that.

Do your self a favor and check the post 520 yourself. See whether I meant 'only highlight' to mean 'mainstream evolution claims random mutations are the only way to produce variations'. Or whether it meant that it highlights random mutations above other ways variations can be produced. You be the judge. I only highlight this situation as an example of what I am talking about so that perhaps you will see things from the other side.

Sometimes it is the receiver who is at fault. But what concerns me is that you did not even consider this to be a possibility and just assumed it is always the sender's fault when it comes to me.

You claim to accept responsibility for how you have been misunderstood, but then launch into a tirade of excuses and finger pointing and whining and avoidance.

I have to withdraw from this discussion or I shall find myself making some comments upon your character, attitude and mental health that would be extremely unbecoming. You have one action open to you that is honourable: in regard to who said what, when and why, just SHUT UP.

 

[VirOptimus]

You claim to accept responsibility for how you have been misunderstood, but then launch into a tirade of excuses and finger pointing and whining and avoidance.

I have to withdraw from this discussion or I shall find myself making some comments upon your character, attitude and mental health that would be extremely unbecoming. You have one action open to you that is honourable: in regard to who said what, when and why, just SHUT UP.

He will post the same wall of text again and again and again....

 

[stevevw]

Some individuals treating their interpretation of a theory as dogma simply reflects an unscientific attitude on their part

I wouldn't say someone like Michael Lynch has an unscientific attitude. I think he actually meant what he said if you read his paper. The entire paper is about dispelling the myth that evolution equates to natural selection. IE from the introduction

The vast majority of biologists engaged in evolutionary studies interpret virtually every aspect of biodiversity in adaptive terms. This narrow view of evolution has become untenable in light of recent observations from genomic sequencing and population-genetic theory.
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

- but I suspect the claims of widespread dogma are, as I mentioned, exaggerations for rhetorical effect - I never met anyone in the field who thought so simplistically.

You can only go by what is in the literature and it seems that it is commonplace to only focus on natural selection as the only force that causes adaptive evolution. You may not personally have met many people like that but if the mainstream literature is permeated with this view it must be a reflection of what mainstream evolution thinks. Otherwise why even paint that picture with the language as it would be misleading and if anyone is at fault it is a mainstream view for causing that misunderstanding.

I mean the EES papers certainly pull no punches as to what mainstream view is. They are as clear as day as to what it is. They explain the mainstream view as something simple that needs no further explanation. Why would they do that IE

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, the process by which organisms become well-suited to their environments.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

As I said before, you should think it through for yourself - how could natural selection possibly be the 'sole cause' of evolution? what does that even mean?
E.T.A I'm sure I asked you this before and got no response - I'm happy to be corrected.

I am thinking it through for myself and have explained why the mainstream view is seen as only based on natural selection as the sole cause of adaptive evolution. It's because it actually is promoted as the only real cause. Just like it overlooks the EES forces it also overlooks everything else including other influences mentioned as contributing processes like mutation, drift, and gene flow.

The description above of the EES is a good representation of the mainstream view. It makes new variations coming from random mutations and it makes only natural selection as the only cause of adaptive evolution. Even you have argued that NS is the only cause that accounts for the variations that we see that help creatures adapt even the behaviours such as niche constructions you say are the result of NS.

I'm not saying my opinion is the only right one, I'm trying to give you the bigger picture.

But as mentioned even you promote only NS as the only cause of all adaptive variations. So you are supporting what the papers are saying.

It just means that they think the variation and natural selection resulting from niche construction behaviours can be seen as forming a recognisable pattern of interactions that are sufficiently distinct from other patterns of evolution to be productively considered as a category or subject in its own right.

In other words niche construction can also be seen as a selective force similar to natural selection. They even spell that out when they say that niche construction as a selective force sits somewhere in between artificial selection and natural selection.

We suggest that niche construction occupies the middle ground between artificial and natural selection: like artificial selection, niche construction reliably generates relatively consistent features in selective environments. During artificial selection, breeders and experimentalists deliberately select for particular characteristics (high yields, pretty flowers and attractive plumage); the breeder/experimentalist imposes direction on evolution by determining which individuals reproduce. There is a predictability and consistency to the pattern of evolution that ensues—the breeder/experimentalist can anticipate with confidence that a specific favoured trait will reliably increase in frequency until genetic variation is significantly depleted and can predict with some accuracy the direction of evolution. Selective breeding increases the frequency of the selected trait, frequently evoking characteristic and strong responses to selection.

The predictability and generality of artificial selection can be contrasted with the frequent unpredictability and local contingency of natural selection in natural populations without niche construction.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rsfs.2016.0147

So niche construction is partly a natural selective force in that it is a part of nature but it also has elements of artificial selection in that it is the creature itself who is doing the selecting just like a human does the artificial selecting in say dog breeding.

The difference is with niche construction as compared to artificial selection with dog breeding is that with the creature doing the selecting they are working more with nature and know what is required to be most suited to their needs for adaption and survival better than say a human doing artificial selecting. Therefore the selecting of certain behaviours, variations and niche conditions by creatures will more likely provide fitness advantages for the creature and its offspring which meets the requirements for adaptive evolution just like natural selection can.

niche construction will be systematically biased towards environmental changes that are well suited to the constructor’s phenotype, or that of its descendants, and enhance the constructor’s, or its descendant’s, fitness
About the EES – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis