[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Speedwell]

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.

Here is a good example (one among many) where your language is confusing us. Natural selection does not cause variation. Natural selection selects variation. Variation comes into existence first, then natural selection selects. Natural selection does not cause variation. Variation has other causes: mutation, genetic drift, recombination, etc. Natural selection does not cause variation.

Neither FrumiousBandersnatch nor anyone else here nor any evolutionary biologist believes that natural selection is a cause of variation. Because it's not.

 

[Ophiolite]

Here is a good example (one among many) where your language is confusing us. Natural selection does not cause variation. Natural selection selects variation. Variation comes into existence first, then natural selection selects. Natural selection does not cause variation. Variation has other causes: mutation, genetic drift, recombination, etc. Natural selection does not cause variation.

Neither FrumiousBandersnatch nor anyone else here nor any evolutionary biologist believes that natural selection is a cause of variation. Because it's not.

I wonder if @stevevw may have meant something as follows. First his statement, then my interpretation.

As posted: "even you promote only NS as the only cause of all adaptive variations."

As interpreted: "even you promote only NS as the only means by which variations that are adapted to the current environment can be chosen."

The interpretation is clumsy, but it makes some sense. I offer stevevw the opportunity to confirm or deny, but fear his response will only introduce more confusion.

 

[VirOptimus]

I wonder if @stevevw may have meant something as follows. First his statement, then my interpretation.

As posted: "even you promote only NS as the only cause of all adaptive variations."

As interpreted: "even you promote only NS as the only means by which variations that are adapted to the current environment can be chosen."

The interpretation is clumsy, but it makes some sense. I offer stevevw the opportunity to confirm or deny, but fear his response will only introduce more confusion.

He is to ignorant about science to understand basic biology.

 

[Speedwell]

I wonder if @stevevw may have meant something as follows. First his statement, then my interpretation.

As posted: "even you promote only NS as the only cause of all adaptive variations."

As interpreted: "even you promote only NS as the only means by which variations that are adapted to the current environment can be chosen."

The interpretation is clumsy, but it makes some sense. I offer stevevw the opportunity to confirm or deny, but fear his response will only introduce more confusion.

Yes, I think you are right, because the source he appears to be using to support that statement--his favorite Nature article--says, "...natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation..."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I wouldn't say someone like Michael Lynch has an unscientific attitude.

Let me be quite clear. Treating scientific theories as dogma is 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

He only says the literature is "permeated with dogmatic statements". That's his opinion; if he's factually correct, then they are unscientific statements. If not, he's mistaken or exaggerating for rhetorical effect.

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?

I've already explained this. The EES view is of higher-level emergent processes - which nevertheless involve basic mutational variation and natural selection.

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.

If you understand it, just answer the question - how could natural selection possibly be the 'sole cause' of evolution? what does that even mean?

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.

Of course it doesn't overlook those things - mutation, drift, and gene flow are foundational in SET. You seem to have no understanding of it at all.

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.

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.

You're not making sense now - either quote me, or refrain from claims about what I have said.

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.

So we see that they're using their own custom continuum between 'artificial' and 'natural' selection and defining the more complex emergent processes such as niche construction as being to some degree 'artificial' - which is fine, for those people who understand what they're doing. But there is no clear dividing line between what is and what is not niche construction - consider symbiosis - so the distinction is itself an artificial one that is context-dependent. IOW its just contextual semantic convenience - the selection process itself is identical to that commonly called 'natural selection'.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Yes, I think you are right, because the source he appears to be using to support that statement--his favorite Nature article--says, "...natural selection is the sole cause of adaptation..."

This is a recurrent theme - he reads some article and takes all the content literally, making no allowance for the greater context or interpretation because he has no experience or background in the subject - and he's impermeable to explanation.

 

[stevevw]

Why did that happen?

Who knows why there is a misunderstanding. It doesn't just happen in black and white terms. I already explained the dynamics of communication between two people. It could be technical issues where one person doesn't understand the tech, or it could be people talking about two different things which they have not clarified yet (not on the same page of what is being discussed), it could be cultural, it could be because a personal perspective on the topic is different, it could be misrepresenting the other person position.

The idea is to continually seek clarification of the messages sent to and forth until there is some agreed understanding between the sender and the receiver. I said to the receiver that they probably misunderstood what I said after sending the message. That was the first step in clarification. So I then tried to clarify what I said in a more precise way.

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

But how do we tell the meanings that the other person is attributing to the sender's words is the correct one.

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.

I disagree and like I said I will acknowledge when I have contributed to any confusion and have shown that I am willing to do so with those links to previous posts showing where I have. But I not going to take responsibility for a misunderstanding that I have not caused. If I send a message and it is misunderstood by the receiver and then I clarify that message and the receiver still doesn't accept it whose responsibility is that.

What if they do understand the message but then still refuse to accept it whose responsibility is that. What can the sender do about that. Why should the sender take any responsibility if this happens. It is no case of a disagreement rather than a lack of anyone understanding. That is also what happens you know. You cannot blame everything on a person's understanding.

See you want me to take responsibility for all exchanges that end up with some misunderstanding when it may not even be about the misunderstanding. But what I also have never seen is anyone apart from me acknowledged their responsibility for contributing to any misunderstanding if there is. It seems to be always my responsibility.

Tell me how do we determine who is responsible for a misunderstanding.

 

[Ophiolite]

If I send a message and it is misunderstood by the receiver and then I clarify that message and the receiver still doesn't accept it whose responsibility is that.

In most cases, perhaps all, in this thread the responsibility is still yours because your clarifications are inept and further obfuscate rather than clarify. This you continue to deny and so the interminable excuses continue.

 

[Speedwell]

Who knows why there is a misunderstanding. It doesn't just happen in black and white terms. I already explained the dynamics of communication between two people. It could be technical issues where one person doesn't understand the tech, or it could be people talking about two different things which they have not clarified yet (not on the same page of what is being discussed), it could be cultural, it could be because a personal perspective on the topic is different, it could be misrepresenting the other person position.

The idea is to continually seek clarification of the messages sent to and forth until there is some agreed understanding between the sender and the receiver. I said to the receiver that they probably misunderstood what I said after sending the message. That was the first step in clarification. So I then tried to clarify what I said in a more precise way.

But how do we tell the meanings that the other person is attributing to the sender's words is the correct one.

I disagree and like I said I will acknowledge when I have contributed to any confusion and have shown that I am willing to do so with those links to previous posts showing where I have. But I not going to take responsibility for a misunderstanding that I have not caused. If I send a message and it is misunderstood by the receiver and then I clarify that message and the receiver still doesn't accept it whose responsibility is that.

What if they do understand the message but then still refuse to accept it whose responsibility is that. What can the sender do about that. Why should the sender take any responsibility if this happens. It is no case of a disagreement rather than a lack of anyone understanding. That is also what happens you know. You cannot blame everything on a person's understanding.

See you want me to take responsibility for all exchanges that end up with some misunderstanding when it may not even be about the misunderstanding. But what I also have never seen is anyone apart from me acknowledged their responsibility for contributing to any misunderstanding if there is. It seems to be always my responsibility.

Tell me how do we determine who is responsible for a misunderstanding.

I gave you an example. I think you have conflated "adaptive variation" with "adaptation." I'm not attacking you, or blaming you for anything, I just want to know what your response is.

 

[stevevw]

I gave you an example. I think you have conflated "adaptive variation" with "adaptation." I'm not attacking you or blaming you for anything, I just want to know what your response is.

Here is an example of a misunderstanding that needs further clarification and it's not just my responsibility. In this case, people are talking about different things and therefore it needs to be clarified what is happening.

You are responding to a conversation that I was having with Bungle_Bear who was stepping into and referring to a conversation that I was having with Ophiolite. So you are thinking it was about our conversation. So you will have to let me know again what you are exactly referring to. Can you at least give me the post number so I can refresh myself on the topic?

 

[stevevw]

In most cases, perhaps all, in this thread the responsibility is still yours because your clarifications are inept and further obfuscate rather than clarify. This you continue to deny and so the interminable excuses continue.

OK well you have come along recently into this thread so I cannot see how you can confidently say in most cases. But I won't go into any defense of myself on this as I know it upsets you. So I will turn the cards back on you. So can you give me an example of this for me to better understand.

 

[Speedwell]

Here is an example of a misunderstanding that needs further clarification and it's not just my responsibility. In this case, people are talking about different things and therefore it needs to be clarified what is happening.

You are responding to a conversation that I was having with Bungle_Bear who was stepping into and referring to a conversation that I was having with Ophiolite. So you are thinking it was about our conversation. So you will have to let me know again what you are exactly referring to. Can you at least give me the post number so I can refresh myself on the topic?

In post #760 addressed to FrumiousBandersnatch you said:

"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."

Natural selection does not cause variation. FrumiousBandersnatch is not promoting natural selection as the only cause of variation. No one is promoting natural selection as the only cause of variation. Your sources don't say that anyone is promoting natural selection as the only source of variation.

The closest thing to it in your sources that I can find is in that Nature article you are so found of in which EES proponents describe SET as promoting natural selection as the only source of adaptation.

Which is why I am suggesting that you may have conflated the two terms.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Who knows why there is a misunderstanding. It doesn't just happen in black and white terms. I already explained the dynamics of communication between two people. It could be technical issues where one person doesn't understand the tech, or it could be people talking about two different things which they have not clarified yet (not on the same page of what is being discussed), it could be cultural, it could be because a personal perspective on the topic is different, it could be misrepresenting the other person position.

The idea is to continually seek clarification of the messages sent to and forth until there is some agreed understanding between the sender and the receiver. I said to the receiver that they probably misunderstood what I said after sending the message. That was the first step in clarification. So I then tried to clarify what I said in a more precise way.

But how do we tell the meanings that the other person is attributing to the sender's words is the correct one.

I disagree and like I said I will acknowledge when I have contributed to any confusion and have shown that I am willing to do so with those links to previous posts showing where I have. But I not going to take responsibility for a misunderstanding that I have not caused. If I send a message and it is misunderstood by the receiver and then I clarify that message and the receiver still doesn't accept it whose responsibility is that.

What if they do understand the message but then still refuse to accept it whose responsibility is that. What can the sender do about that. Why should the sender take any responsibility if this happens. It is no case of a disagreement rather than a lack of anyone understanding. That is also what happens you know. You cannot blame everything on a person's understanding.

See you want me to take responsibility for all exchanges that end up with some misunderstanding when it may not even be about the misunderstanding. But what I also have never seen is anyone apart from me acknowledged their responsibility for contributing to any misunderstanding if there is. It seems to be always my responsibility.

Tell me how do we determine who is responsible for a misunderstanding.

If all you have is denial you shouldn't be surprised that people don't take you seriously.

 

[stevevw]

Here is a good example (one among many) where your language is confusing us. Natural selection does not cause variation. Natural selection selects variation. Variation comes into existence first, then natural selection selects. Natural selection does not cause variation. Variation has other causes: mutation, genetic drift, recombination, etc. Natural selection does not cause variation.

Neither FrumiousBandersnatch nor anyone else here nor any evolutionary biologist believes that natural selection is a cause of variation. Because it's not.

You left out an important word that gives important context. I think you will find I usually say natural selection causes adaptive variation or adaptive evolution. The variation presented to NS is not adaptive and it is NS which causes that variation to become adaptive. If we check the meaning of 'cause' it states
Verb
make something happen.

Isn't that exactly what NS is doing, making adaptive variations happen.

Here is one of the supports I presented in this thread for NS being a cause of adaptive variations but not just a cause but the 'sole cause'. It states that developmental processes play a major role in 'causing' adaptive phenotypic variation and thus the burden of causing those adaptive phenotypic variations doesn't rest with natural selection alone.

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

In other words, the cause of adaptive phenotypic variation does not rest with NS alone.

It uses the word 'creativity' of adaptive variations. Isn't creating and causing similar in that they are implying NS creates or causes something.

I also used the word 'create' in this thread if you remember IE NS creates adaptive variations. I supported that with several mainstream links from prominent evolutionary biologists like Gould.

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Stephen Jay Gould on Natural Selection

I explained all this during this thread if you remember as to why natural selection may not cause the original variation but it can be seen as causing or creating the adaptive variations that were originally not there and the mainstream evolutionary view agrees with me. Therefore NS is causing or creating those adaptive variations compared to any variant being produced by mutation or the EES forces IE

While Razeto-Barry and Frick grant that natural selection cannot explain the origin of traits that arise by a single mutation, they argue that it can explain the occurrence of sequences of phenotypic changes that would otherwise be wildly unlikely to occur without selection operating to cause the spread of the changes prior to the final one in the sequence.
Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The theory of evolution by natural selection, as developed by Darwin, holds that natural selection results in favorable, heritable traits becoming more common in subsequent populations and, over time, is the creative force even in macroevolutionary changes, such as the development of new species, higher taxa, and major new designs.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Natural_selection

Thus as many mainstream evolutionary biologists believe natural selection is a creative or causal force for adaptive variations. At the very least what we have here is a divided opinion/view as to using the word cause or create to describe the way NS is responsible for adaptive variants that were not there in the first place.

But what always seems to happen is that a few have a different view and make out I am wrong or have misunderstood things. Yet as we can see how I see things is also a mainstream view. So rather than be wrong or misunderstand things it is more of a case of differing views and no one is wrong.

 

[stevevw]

If all you have is denial you shouldn't be surprised that people don't take you seriously.

But I have more than denial. You seem to just ignore anything I say, just like you did for our little exchange which clearly showed you ignored and denied important information that clarified things. So I will ask you as well

How do we tell the meanings that the other person (the receiver) is attributing to the sender's words is the correct one?

What if the receiver does understand the message but then still refuses to accept it whose responsibility is that?

What can the sender do about that?

Why should the sender take any responsibility if this happens?

 

[stevevw]

In post #760 addressed to FrumiousBandersnatch you said:

"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."

Natural selection does not cause variation. FrumiousBandersnatch is not promoting natural selection as the only cause of variation. No one is promoting natural selection as the only cause of variation. Your sources don't say that anyone is promoting natural selection as the only source of variation.

But it seems they do according to the previous post where I linked the support for this to you.

The closest thing to it in your sources that I can find is in that Nature article you are so fond of in which EES proponents describe SET as promoting natural selection as the only source of adaptation.

Ah no there are plenty of links showing that NS is said to be a cause or creates adaptive variations.

Which is why I am suggesting that you may have conflated the two terms.

Ah no one again. As I said this is a good example of how we have two different views on this and there is no one right answer. You and FrumiousBandersnatch have chosen to only include your view and rejected mine and many other mainstream sources as being wrong.

This is a good example of how people are saying I am misunderstanding things and yet if I am then all the mainstream sources are also misunderstanding things. Like I said there is no right and wrong but rather it is about people's views.

In fact, the view that NS causes or creates adaptive variation seems more likely the better view as the adaptive variations that were not there before NS came along are the result of natural selections actions in selecting them from all other variations. In that sense, NS is causing or creating them.

I think if you go back through the thread and find any dispute about understanding or meaning of particular aspects of NS you will find it is not a case of one side being correct and the other being wrong but rather a case for each side's understanding can be made. But what has been happening is that this thread has ended up with a few people who happen to agree with one side of the view as opposed to my view which also happens to be supported by mainstream evolution.

But I am not saying I have not got things wrong and caused misunderstandings. But please don't just assume every misunderstanding is caused by me.

 

[stevevw]

I gave you an example. I think you have conflated "adaptive variation" with "adaptation." I'm not attacking you, or blaming you for anything, I just want to know what your response is.

OK thanks, I appreciate the understanding.

 

[stevevw]

double post

 

[stevevw]

This is a recurrent theme - he reads some article and takes all the content literally, making no allowance for the greater context or interpretation because he has no experience or background in the subject - and he's impermeable to explanation.

I am perfectly well aware of the greater context and I am not denying it. I just happen to think it's irrelevant to the point I am making. The problem is the articles I mentioned have highlighted a problem with the mainstream view which happens to be summed up with those 'literal remarks' I have posted which are not my words but theirs.

They go into explanations of why they have made those literal claims. So there is more context. They address the context you are talking about and show why that doesn't make any difference to the literal claims they are making. I've tried to explain this throughout the thread. The articles even say that mainstream literal takes a narrow view despite the claims of any context.

Core values
The core of current evolutionary theory was forged in the 1930s and 1940s. It combined natural selection, genetics, and other fields into a consensus about how evolution occurs. This ‘modern synthesis’ allowed the evolutionary process to be described mathematically as frequencies of genetic variants in a population change over time — as, for instance, in the spread of genetic resistance to the myxoma virus in rabbits.

In the decades since evolutionary biology has incorporated developments consistent with the tenets of the modern synthesis. One such is ‘neutral theory’, which emphasizes random events in evolution. However, standard evolutionary theory (SET) largely retains the same assumptions as the original modern synthesis, which continues to channel how people think about evolution.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

Even though claims have been made that classical evolutionary biology has continuously incorporated aspects from new conceptual domains [33,36], 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: (i) all evolutionary explanation requires the study of populations of organisms; (ii) populations contain genetic variation that arises randomly from mutation and recombination; (iii) populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by natural selection, gene flow and drift; (iv) genetic variants generate slight phenotypic effects and the resulting phenotypic variation is gradual and continuous; (v) genetic inheritance alone accounts for the transmission of selectable variation; (vi) new species arise by a prevention of gene flow between populations that evolve differently; (vii) the phenotypic differences that distinguish higher taxa result from the incremental accumulation of genetic variation; (viii) natural selection represents the only directional factor in evolution. For a more extensive description of tenets see Futuyma [37].

As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

Like I said when we speak about core values, assumptions, and tenets these are a good representation of the overall theory. So they are acknowledging that there is more context to evolution but still claim that it is taking a narrow view I have suggested.

 

[Speedwell]

You left out an important word that gives important context. I think you will find I usually say natural selection causes adaptive variation or adaptive evolution. The variation presented to NS is not adaptive and it is NS which causes that variation to become adaptive. If we check the meaning of 'cause' it states
Verb
make something happen.

Isn't that exactly what NS is doing, making adaptive variations happen.

Here is one of the supports I presented in this thread for NS being a cause of adaptive variations but not just a cause but the 'sole cause'. It states that developmental processes play a major role in 'causing' adaptive phenotypic variation and thus the burden of causing those adaptive phenotypic variations doesn't rest with natural selection alone.

Developmental processes play important evolutionary roles as causes of novel, potentially beneficial, phenotypic variants, the differential fitness of those variants, and/or their inheritance (i.e. all three of Lewontin's [98] conditions for evolution by natural selection). Thus, the burden of creativity in evolution (i.e. the generation of adaptation) does not rest on selection alone [12,19,25,27,60,64,73,99–101].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

In other words, the cause of adaptive phenotypic variation does not rest with NS alone.

It uses the word 'creativity' of adaptive variations. Isn't creating and causing similar in that they are implying NS creates or causes something.

I also used the word 'create' in this thread if you remember IE NS creates adaptive variations. I supported that with several mainstream links from prominent evolutionary biologists like Gould.

The essence of Darwinism lies in a single phrase: natural selection is the creative force of evolutionary change. No one denies that selection will play a negative role in eliminating the unfit. Darwinian theories require that it create the fit as well.
Stephen Jay Gould on Natural Selection

I explained all this during this thread if you remember as to why natural selection may not cause the original variation but it can be seen as causing or creating the adaptive variations that were originally not there and the mainstream evolutionary view agrees with me. Therefore NS is causing or creating those adaptive variations compared to any variant being produced by mutation or the EES forces IE

While Razeto-Barry and Frick grant that natural selection cannot explain the origin of traits that arise by a single mutation, they argue that it can explain the occurrence of sequences of phenotypic changes that would otherwise be wildly unlikely to occur without selection operating to cause the spread of the changes prior to the final one in the sequence.
Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

The theory of evolution by natural selection, as developed by Darwin, holds that natural selection results in favorable, heritable traits becoming more common in subsequent populations and, over time, is the creative force even in macroevolutionary changes, such as the development of new species, higher taxa, and major new designs.
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Natural_selection

Thus as many mainstream evolutionary biologists believe natural selection is a creative or causal force for adaptive variations. At the very least what we have here is a divided opinion/view as to using the word cause or create to describe the way NS is responsible for adaptive variants that were not there in the first place.

But what always seems to happen is that a few have a different view and make out I am wrong or have misunderstood things. Yet as we can see how I see things is also a mainstream view. So rather than be wrong or misunderstand things it is more of a case of differing views and no one is wrong.

Well, if that's what you think it means, you should have no trouble explaining how it works biologically. We understand how mutation, genetic drift, recombination, etc. create variation. Now you are saying that natural selection not only selects for fitness from amongst those variations, but actually creates variation itself. How does that work?