Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
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.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.
How do motives matter when discussing the EES itself. How does this change the facts about the EES.No, I'm not.
But you are not honest about your motives.
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.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.
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.
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.That is really hilarious, Steve. You have posted more words in this thread by far than the rest of us put together.
And you haven't answered mine. How is that relevant to this thread. How does this relate to the validity of the EES?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?
Why did that happen?OK so you have probably misunderstood what I have said.
While others cannot tell you what you intended to communicate, they are perfectly entitled to tell you the meaning your words actually communicated.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.
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.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.
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.Well then people should ask to clarify if that is the case and not assume.
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.None of that says, "natural selection will be diminished, biased, and even replaced by the EES forces".
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 IEBiasing the outcome of natural selection is not biasing natural selection; any consistent change in selection pressure will 'bias' the outcome of natural selection.
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.There's no mention of natural selection being diminished or replaced.
I think I have supported each claim above. I won't go through all of them but for exampleNope. You're just repeating the same old nonsense. Also, natural selection doesn't 'come along', it is always acting.
If the EES forces are not replacing NS then how do you explain the above quotes from papers saying they do.EES processes can't 'replace' natural selection - no natural selection means no evolution...
Then why do so many articles refer to it as a theory IENatural selection is not a theory, it's a process;
Then how do you explain niche construction for example being said to also be a selective force that produces and selects adaptive variations.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.
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.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."
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.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.
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.Note that the cause here is a mutation and it is subject to natural selection.
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.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.
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.This is standard ecosystem interaction; nothing new here. EES simply describes it from a different perspective.
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.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.
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.... 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
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.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.
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.)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.
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: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.
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.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.
Then what do they mean that niche construction as a force is both producing the adaptive variation and selecting it.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.
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 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.
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."
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:
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."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:
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?
- 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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
I'm not saying my opinion is the only right one, I'm trying to give you the bigger picture.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.
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.Then what do they mean that niche construction as a force is both producing the adaptive variation and selecting it.
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.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.
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.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.
- 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.
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.
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.
- 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.
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.
He will post the same wall of text again and again and again....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.
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 introductionSome individuals treating their interpretation of a theory as dogma simply reflects an unscientific attitude on their part
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.- 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.
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.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.
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.I'm not saying my opinion is the only right one, I'm trying to give you the bigger picture.
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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?