[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Bungle_Bear]

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

You didn't accept responsibility for your poor choice of words. You insisted that the misunderstanding was entirely my mistake. Own it and move on.

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

Typically (as in our case) the receiver tells you what they understood the words to mean. If the receiver has misunderstood, the sender needs to look at the words they used in that particular instance. If the words did not convey the intended meaning the sender should take responsibility for the miscommunication. Whinging and complaining is not the way to demonstrate such acceptance.

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?

Then the receiver was dishonest in claiming your words meant something different. Can you point to an example? Please don't pretend that's the case with our previous discussion, it would make you look extremely silly. Just accept your words. I offered to accept you miscommunicated, you will not accept that. Let it go.

 

[stevevw]

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?

I previously explained this using the above from Razeto-Barry and Frick. Here is the expanded quote

There exists a longstanding debate among both scientists and philosophers over exactly what natural selection can explain, one begun by Sober and Neander who were concerned with what natural selection can explain (Sober 1984, 1995; Neander 1988, 1995). In a recent expansive treatment, Razeto-Barry & Frick 2011 distinguish between the creative and non-creative views of natural selection. On the non-creative view, natural selection merely eliminates traits while doing nothing to create new ones; the latter phenomenon is the result of mutation. Proponents of the creative view see natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits.

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.

So natural selection cannot account for the origin of variations that come from mutations but it can explain how these random and accidental sequences go into creating certain functional variations that would otherwise never have happened if not for natural selection. The important part above says that these variations would not have happened if it wasn't for NS causing the spread of certain sequence changes that are needed to create certain adaptive and functional variations. In other words, NS is building those variations from bits or smaller variations into something else. No other cause can be attributed to this but NS.

If we consider that life has evolved from simple to complex IE once there was for example a simple light-sensitive skin patch and then evolved a variety of more complex eyes such as compound and camera-type eyes that were never there or could not have been produced except for natural selection building them from certain sequence changes then we could say that NS is responsible for creating the specific complexity and variety that we see today. When you consider that each tiny sequence change may not mean much on their own but put together they build functional traits and new species we can argue that NS has caused and created this.

I think Dawkins is another who promotes the creative power of natural selection with his blind watchmaker metaphor and the appearance of design in nature. Natural selection is blindly designing complex features like the blind watchmaker in building the watch. The watch as a metaphor for traits was not there originally but is being built bit by bit by natural selection putting certain tiny changes together into something significant that was never there or could have existed except for NS.

Otherwise, can you explain to me what this quote means?

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

Isn't this saying that natural selection causes the development of new species, higher taxa, and major new designs.

 

[stevevw]

You didn't accept responsibility for your poor choice of words. You insisted that the misunderstanding was entirely my mistake. Own it and move on.

Yes because as I said I didn't use a poor choice of words. I clarified what I meant by only highlight with the rest of the quote from where the word 'only highlight' came from. I even reused the word highlight in the second paragraph of the same post and actually said it is only highlighting random mutations from other variations. It could not have been more clearer. But you chose to ignore that. So I certainly wasn't going to take responsibility for something I clearly clarified in black and white.

Besides, I keep thinking hey wait a minute. Everyone knows what 'Highlight means' IE highlighting one thing from others. Even when you use the word 'only' in front of it, it still maintains the same meaning IE only highlighting one thing above other things. I cannot see how you managed to twist that meaning into saying it means only one thing and no other thing. As soon as you include the word 'highlight' regardless of any other word with it it automatically means focusing on one thing rather than other things.

Typically (as in our case) the receiver tells you what they understood the words to mean. If the receiver has misunderstood, the sender needs to look at the words they used in that particular instance. If the words did not convey the intended meaning the sender should take responsibility for the miscommunication. Whinging and complaining is not the way to demonstrate such acceptance.

So what about when I directed you back to the post the word came from where I used the word again in the second paragraph which did clarify its meaning but you said you don't care about that clarification. What am I suppose to do then.

Then the receiver was dishonest in claiming your words meant something different. Can you point to an example? Please don't pretend that's the case with our previous discussion, it would make you look extremely silly. Just accept your words. I offered to accept you miscommunicated, you will not accept that. Let it go.

But it is the case with our example. Here is the second paragraph where I used the word 'Highlight for the second time which gave the proper meaning to the use of the word 'only highlight' IE

From the same post, 520 where I used 'only highlight' I said in the paragraph just under that

Steve said
This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.



Doesn't that clarify what I meant by 'only highlight'? Does the second paragraph in the same post specifically say that other sources are not highlighted because random mutations create new variations? Therefore I am not saying random mutations are the one and only variations according to the mainstream view.

If you don't want to deal with that then I am currently addressing some other word meanings in the previous posts to speedwell you can use as examples. IE whether natural selection is creative, whether natural selection is the sole force of adaptive variations.

 

[Speedwell]

y for the development of at least some traits.

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.

So natural selection cannot account for the origin of variations that come from mutations but it can explain how these random and accidental sequences go into creating certain functional variations that would otherwise never have happened if not for natural selection. The important part above says that these variations would not have happened if it wasn't for NS causing the spread of certain sequence changes that are needed to create certain adaptive and functional variations.

OK, here I see a possible source of confusion. You are using the phrase "certain functional variations" as if it meant the same thing as "sequences of phenotypic changes" in your quoted source.

In other words, NS is building those variations from bits or smaller variations into something else. No other cause can be attributed to this but NS.

No, NS dos not "build variations." It can be said to assemble variation into larger scale and more complex phenotypic changes. But variation is nothing but the amount of change between a parent and its offspring. Period. If natural selection selects a series of these variations to create some larger change, that larger change is generally not called variation.

 

[stevevw]

OK, here I see a possible source of confusion. You are using the phrase "certain functional variations" as if it meant the same thing as "sequences of phenotypic changes" in your quoted source.

What is the difference. What do phenotypic changes mean? Doesn't that just mean phenotypic variations? same thing. Phenotype is the observable characteristics or traits of an organism or in other words the variations. I use certain functional variations because the variations selected by natural selection are usually the functional and adaptive ones that will provide some advantage to the organism as opposed to the random variations produced by mutations. NS is the defining force that selects out those variations that go into creating those variations.

Besides, you are missing the point. The article is saying that it is natural selection that is selecting certain combinations of mutations that will create new traits. The mutation may produce the original variation but that variation means nothing until NS acts and selects certain ones which when put together create the trait.

Proponents of the creative view see natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits.
Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

No, NS dos not "build variations." It can be said to assemble variation into larger scale and more complex phenotypic changes. But variation is nothing but the amount of change between a parent and its offspring. Period. If natural selection selects a series of these variations to create some larger change, that larger change is generally not called variation.

Then what is this larger change called. You're still missing the point. Regardless of what it is called, it is natural selection that is creating this larger-scale change or trait or variation that was not there originally.

Besides what does the article mean by the following, why would they explain things like they do in saying NS creates traits and new designs. Isn't that just saying it creates new variations. Arnt you just quibbling with words.

natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits.
Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

and

The theory of evolution by natural selection, as developed by Darwin, holds that natural selection 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

Isn't this saying that natural selection causes and creates new species, higher taxa, and major new designs?

 

[Speedwell]

What is the difference. What do phenotypic changes mean? Doesn't that just mean phenotypic variations? same thing. Phenotype is the observable characteristics or traits of an organism or in other words the variations. I use certain functional variations because the variations selected by natural selection are usually the functional and adaptive ones that will provide some advantage to the organism as opposed to the random variations produced by mutations. NS is the defining force that selects out those variations that go into creating those variations.

And here you have used "variation" in two different senses, the first compatible with scientific discourse on the subject and the second a novelty of your own. Hence the confusion.

Besides, you are missing the point. The article is saying that it is natural selection that is selecting certain combinations of mutations that will create new traits. The mutation may produce the original variation but that variation means nothing until NS acts and selects certain ones which when put together create the trait.

I am not missing the point. I am only suggesting that your ambiguous use of the term "variation" obscures it.

Proponents of the creative view see natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits.

Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Then what is this larger change called. You're still missing the point. Regardless of what it is called, it is natural selection that is creating this larger-scale change or trait or variation that was not there originally.

Notice that your source does not call this larger-scale change or trait "variation."

Besides what does the article mean by the following, why would they explain things like they do in saying NS creates traits and new designs. Isn't that just saying it creates new variations. Aren't you just quibbling with words.

No, it's not a quibble if it actually obscures what you are trying to say.

natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits.

Natural Selection (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

and

The theory of evolution by natural selection, as developed by Darwin, holds that natural selection 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

Isn't this saying that natural selection causes and creates new species, higher taxa, and major new designs?

Yes, it is. But notice that your sources do not call these larger-scale changes "variation."

I suppose I can't change your mind on the subject, but it's a nuisance to have to figure out which meaning you are applying to "variation" at any given time. If you would use the term only in it's accepted sense this discussion could proceed much more efficiently.

 

[Ophiolite]

And here you have used "variation" in two different senses, the first compatible with scientific discourse on the subject and the second a novelty of your own. Hence the confusion.
I am not missing the point. I am only suggesting that your ambiguous use of the term "variation" obscures it.
Notice that your source does not call this larger-scale change or trait "variation."

No, it's not a quibble if it actually obscures what you are trying to say.

Yes, it is. But notice that your sources do not call these larger-scale changes "variation."

I suppose I can't change your mind on the subject, but it's a nuisance to have to figure out which meaning you are applying to "variation" at any given time. If you would use the term only in it's accepted sense this discussion could proceed much more efficiently.

I applaud your resolution in working through the verbal mire to identify the source of confusion and explain it with such clarity. I hope you have the requisite PPE to work in such a toxic environment.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

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

No. It is filtering out the non-adaptive variations. Alternatively, it is the process by which you can tell which variations are adaptive. The variations happen regardless.

Still waiting for an answer to the question - how could natural selection possibly be the 'sole cause' of evolution? what does that even mean?

 

[stevevw]

And here you have used "variation" in two different senses, the first compatible with a scientific discourse on the subject and the second a novelty of your own. Hence the confusion.

Yes, you are right using variations twice is not the best way to explain things. So therefore I need to clarify things. Here I have used the word variation the second time instead of perhaps using 'trait' to give some distinction between the two types of changes. IE

"NS is the defining force that selects out those variations that go into creating those traits".

The thing is the word 'variation' is used to describe the different mutational changes in genetic sequences but it is also often used to describe phenotypic variations. IE

Because natural selection acts directly only on phenotypes, more genetic variation within a population usually enables more phenotypic variation.
Population Genetics | Boundless Biology.

The above more or less says the same thing as I said. So even the mainstream literature is using variation interchangeably between gene sequence change and phenotypic change.

But that should not detract from the point here which you still haven't addressed for the 2nd time.

Remember my point was that natural selection causes or creates adaptive variations. I said the random mutational changes in gene sequences (genetic variations) mean nothing until they are selected in certain combinations by NS that then create adaptive variations.

I am not missing the point. I am only suggesting that your ambiguous use of the term "variation" obscures it.

Fair enough and that's why I am clarifying things. Like I said my ability to word things is not the best and it can take me a couple of times to get things right. But I don't think that is detracting from the point I was making. I think that came through clear when I clarified it by saying this

Besides, you are missing the point. The article is saying that it is natural selection that is selecting certain combinations of mutations that will create new traits. The mutation may produce the original variation but that variation means nothing until NS acts and selects certain ones which when put together create the trait.

So I had restated the point I was making and clarified the difference in variation and trait underneath that paragraph. You will find that this is a common way I explain things. I repeat things because I doubt myself that I have made explained things properly and by repeating things I hope that the message will be the correct one between the two. I think I got it right the second time.

Notice that your source does not call this larger-scale change or trait "variation."

Yes and that is what I pointed out above. The problem is as I said which is perhaps also a source of confusion is that the literature does use the word variation for both larger-scale and smaller scale changes. Why would they call the changes that help creatures adapt to their environments 'adaptive variations' rather than 'adaptive traits'? Isn't adaptive variations another way of describing the variations that lead to new species and designs?

I suppose I can't change your mind on the subject, but it's a nuisance to have to figure out which meaning you are applying to "variation" at any given time. If you would use the term only in its accepted sense this discussion could proceed much more efficiently.

Yes and I am sorry that I do that. But I do try to clarify things afterward as I said with that second paragraph above. The problem is the receiver of the message has to read on past that initial attempt and they will usually find I have corrected myself without any prompting.

Even so, I still maintain that it should not be so great that it obscures the point. I made the same point a couple of times. I think you knew the point as you were disputing the meaning of variation as opposed to trait and therefore did know what I was talking about. So though I initially used the word variation twice you still understood what I was talking about by pointing out that the second time I used variation I should have used trait. Is that a reasonable summation of what happened?

 

[stevevw]

I applaud your resolution in working through the verbal mire to identify the source of confusion and explain it with such clarity. I hope you have the requisite PPE to work in such a toxic environment.

You call it verbal mire and yet Speedwell understood what I was saying apart from that one repeated word. That one word repeated didn't stop him from understanding perfectly well what I said as he argued against what I was saying. To do that he has to understand what I was saying. Like I said singling out words is a side issue and is not stopping people from understanding what is happening. It is rather a red herring. If anything it is the misrepresentations of what is happening through exaggerations and derailing posts through side issues that is causing more issues than anything else.

 

[Ophiolite]

You call it verbal mire and yet Speedwell understood what I was saying apart from that one repeated word.

I invite @Speedwell to correct my understanding of what he said. It is my perception that he found what you had written to be ambiguous, which is why he worked hard to drag your meaning out of you.

That one word repeated didn't stop him from understanding perfectly well what I said as he argued against what I was saying.

He argued against your position only after he had clarified it by repeated questioning. Moreover, that one word was a single example he chose to illustrate why your posts are difficult to follow. You seem to imagine this was the only instance of ambiguity. Dream on!

To do that he has to understand what I was saying.

And to understand what you were saying was the effort I applauded him for: he made multiple posts to extract clarity from you and now all we get are denials by you that there was any problem.

Like I said singling out words is a side issue and is not stopping people from understanding what is happening.

And you are talking nonsense. A word was singled out as an example, because there are multiple instance of "single words" not making sense in context and this is stopping people from understanding you.

It is rather a red herring.

Balderdash!

If anything it is the misrepresentations of what is happening through exaggerations and derailing posts through side issues that is causing more issues than anything else.

You have your head buried beneath 300m of desert sands. The derailing is down to only three things:

• Your grasp of evolutionary theory is flawed
• Your ability to communicate such a grasp as you have is compromised
• You continue to deny both of these points

 

[Speedwell]

You call it verbal mire and yet Speedwell understood what I was saying apart from that one repeated word. That one word repeated didn't stop him from understanding perfectly well what I said as he argued against what I was saying. To do that he has to understand what I was saying. Like I said singling out words is a side issue and is not stopping people from understanding what is happening. It is rather a red herring. If anything it is the misrepresentations of what is happening through exaggerations and derailing posts through side issues that is causing more issues than anything else.

That one word was crucial, and it wasn't easy to figure out what the problem was. When you started telling us tht natural selection causes variation I was baffled, because I know it doesn't. Then you posted sources saying that things like "Proponents of the creative view see natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits." You claimed that these sources supported your allegation that natural selection causes variation. Well, I agreed with the sources, because natural selection, by selecting a sequence of variations, does bring about larger scale changes. But the source didn't support your assertion that natural selection causes variation and I was baffled again, I thought to myself, "Is this guy Steve nuts? Or is he trying to put something over on us or what?" It took me a long time to figure out that you were using "variation" in two different senses.

 

[stevevw]

That one word was crucial, and it wasn't easy to figure out what the problem was.

And yet you argued precisely against my use of the word 'variations' to describe larger-scale changes. How could you be so sure if you claim you didn't understand what I said. You pointed out my so-called mistake with clarity. I suggest that you did understand as we had been debating this issue for several posts. It wasn't an alien or new idea of mine.

My use of the word 'variations' for larger-scale changes was only a small semantic oversight which I admit I could have used a better word seeming they were so close together. But that did not cause any misunderstanding. You claimed I used my own novel description and not a scientific one which you determined I was wrong from the paper I linked. So you clearly could see what I was talking about. But as I said using the word 'variation' for larger-scale variations is not necessarily unscientific and wrong. I think it's a matter of opinion.

The thing is mainstream science does use the word 'variation' to describe larger-scale changes or traits. So my use of the word can also be said to be repeating what the science is saying. Like I said in these matters there is no right or wrong answer but rather it is a matter of opinion.

When you started telling us that natural selection causes variation I was baffled,

I actually said natural selection causes adaptive variations, you even quoted me saying it

because I know it doesn't.

But mainstream evolution does say that natural selection causes adaptive variations. I posted links supporting that remember IE

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 paper is saying that natural selection is not the only cause or creative force of novel phenotype variants because developmental processes also cause novel phenotype variants. Therefore this supports my claim that natural selection causes or as the quote states generate adaptive variations.

Look at the extract from an education site for students about evolution. It uses the word variation interchangeably with adaptations.

Individuals have variations within their heritable traits. Some variations make an individual better suited to survive and reproduce in their environment.
If this continues over generations, these favorable adaptations (the heritable features that aid survival and reproduction) will become more and more common in the population.
Khan Academy | Free Online Courses, Lessons & Practice

I simply repeated what many mainstream sources have said that natural selection causes and creates adaptive variations or adaptive evolution.

Then you posted sources saying that things like "Proponents of the creative view see natural selection as a creative force that makes probable combinations of mutations that are necessary for the development of at least some traits." You claimed that these sources supported your allegation that natural selection causes variation. Well, I agreed with the sources, because natural selection, by selecting a sequence of variations, does bring about larger-scale changes. But the source didn't support your assertion that natural selection causes variation and I was baffled again, I thought to myself, "Is this guy Steve nuts? Or is he trying to put something over on us or what?" It took me a long time to figure out that you were using "variation" in two different senses.

As I said mainstream literature does the same. Look at the above. But at least you are agreeing with me that mainstream evolution claims that natural selection creates certain traits/variations.

Because natural selection acts directly only on phenotypes, more genetic variation within a population usually enables more phenotypic variation.
Population Genetics | Boundless Biology.

See how they have used the word variation for both the genetic sequence changes and the phenotypic changes that help creatures adapt and survive.

 

[stevevw]

I invite @Speedwell to correct my understanding of what he said. It is my perception that he found what you had written to be ambiguous, which is why he worked hard to drag your meaning out of you.

He argued against your position only after he had clarified it by repeated questioning. Moreover, that one word was a single example he chose to illustrate why your posts are difficult to follow. You seem to imagine this was the only instance of ambiguity. Dream on!

These topics are quite complex and I think for the most part we seem to understand each other. That there are some misunderstandings is natural and not a crime. You seem to think it is. I think you will find I do clarify things. Speedwell was able to clarify "own his own might I had for himself what I was saying with a bit of thought. So I cannot see how I was repeatedly questioned when he worked it out the first time after I said it.

And to understand what you were saying was the effort I applauded him for: he made multiple posts to extract clarity from you and now all we get are denials by you that there was any problem.

And you didn't understand what was said. Come on get with the program lol. That's a joke by the way.

And you are talking nonsense. A word was singled out as an example because there are multiple instances of "single words" not making sense in context and this is stopping people from understanding you.

Can you give one of these examples of these multiple words. If there are multiple ones then you shouldn't have any problems finding one.

You have your head buried beneath 300m of desert sands. The derailing is down to only three things:

• Your grasp of evolutionary theory is flawed
• Your ability to communicate such a grasp as you have is compromised
• You continue to deny both of these points

Fair enough, I'll try better.

 

[Speedwell]

And yet you argued precisely against my use of the word 'variations' to describe larger-scale changes. How could you be so sure if you claim you didn't understand what I said. You pointed out my so-called mistake with clarity. I suggest that you did understand as we had been debating this issue for several posts. It wasn't an alien or new idea of mine.

My use of variations for larger-scale changes was only a small semantic oversight if you could call it that depending on whose view you take which did not cause any misunderstanding. You claimed I used my own novel description and not a scientific one which you measured against the paper I linked which you were using to determine I was wrong. You cant have your cake and eat it too by saying I cause confusion and yet clearly understand what we've been talking about.

But here is another point that I made earlier that you need to consider. Mainstream science does use the word 'variation' to describe larger-scale changes or traits. So my use of the word can also be said to be repeating what the science is saying. Like I said in these matters there is no right or wrong answer but rather it is a matter of opinion.

I actually said natural selection causes adaptive variations, you even quoted me saying it But mainstream evolution does say that natural selection causes adaptive variations. I posted links supporting that remember IE

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 paper is saying that natural selection is not the only cause or creative force of novel phenotype variants because developmental processes also cause novel phenotype variants. Therefore this supports my claim that natural selection causes or as the quote states generate adaptive variations.

Look at the extract from an education site for students about evolution. It uses the word variation interchangeably with adaptations.

Individuals have variations within their heritable traits. Some variations make an individual better suited to survive and reproduce in their environment.
If this continues over generations, these favorable adaptations (the heritable features that aid survival and reproduction) will become more and more common in the population.
Khan Academy | Free Online Courses, Lessons & Practice

I simply repeated what many mainstream sources have said that natural selection causes and creates adaptive variations or adaptive evolution.

As I said mainstream literature does the same. Look at the above. But at least you are agreeing with me that mainstream evolution claims that natural selection creates certain traits/variations.

Because natural selection acts directly only on phenotypes, more genetic variation within a population usually enables more phenotypic variation.
Population Genetics | Boundless Biology.

See how they have used the word variation for both the genetic sequence changes and the phenotypic changes that help creatures adapt and survive.

None of those sources say anything like what you appear to be claiming.

But at least you are agreeing with me that mainstream evolution claims that natural selection creates certain traits/variations.

Agreeing with you???? My, oh my. Yes, we here have been agreeing that natural selection acts on variation to create larger-scale change and for most of this thread we were seriously convinced that you were arguing against it.

 

[pitabread]

The thing is mainstream science does use the word 'variation' to describe larger-scale changes or traits. So my use of the word can also be said to be repeating what the science is saying. Like I said in these matters there is no right or wrong answer but rather it is a matter of opinion.

This where context matters; words like "variation" can mean different things depending on the context. Having a proper conceptual understanding of the science involved can be necessary to interpreting that context.

 

[stevevw]

None of those sources say anything like what you appear to be claiming.

How can you say that. Are we reading the same article? You said my source didn't call larger-scale change variations. IE Speedwell said Notice that your source does not call this larger-scale change or trait "variation."

Yet my links say exactly that when it calls the larger-scale changes "adaptive phenotype variations". Phenotype changes are larger-scale changes. For example, in summarizing the paper I linked from the Royal Society

Natural selection is not the only cause or creative force of novel adaptive phenotype variants.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
Therefore this supports my claim that natural selection causes or as the quote states generate large-scale variations.

Plus you have used the word variation to mean large-scale changes (phenotype changes) as well when you equate phenotypic changes to mean variations. You even say these phenotypic variations are the result of random mutations IE
#519
Natural selection does not act on random mutation. It acts on randomly distributed variation in the phenotype. This randomly distributed variation is brought about by various causal factors including but not limited to random mutation.

So it looks like we are both guilty of using the word variation for large scale changes in evolution. I would suggest this is because the mainstream literature also uses the word variation to mean large scale evolutionary changes. The word is used interchangeably with mutational and larger phenotypic change just the same as how I used it.

Agreeing with you???? My, oh my. Yes, we here have been agreeing that natural selection acts on variation to create larger-scale change and for most of this thread we were seriously convinced that you were arguing against it.

Well as I have shown you have also used the word variation interchangeably so who knows what you were referring to as to whether that meant variations in gene sequences or variations in phenotypes.

According to the mainstream view natural selection only acts on phenotypes. So if you say that the word variation should only apply to small-scale changes such as gene sequences then you are saying natural selection only acts at the gene level thus contradicting the mainstream view. So I am not sure you are consistent or sure of your own position on this.

See how these so-called misunderstandings people are pinning on me is not just from me. Like I said mainstream literature uses the word 'variation' when referring to large-scale changes in phenotypes and it also uses the same word to refer to smaller-scale changes in gene sequences. It's not surprising as both the phenotype and gene sequences experience variations in their form or sequences. So perhaps the real cause on any misunderstanding is coming from the mainstream literature itself.

PS if we are going to focus on minor issues like semantics as to causing confusion and misunderstandings then I noticed you used the word 'create' IE you said: "natural selection acts on variation to create larger-scale change". Yet I thought you said NS doesn't create anything. Doesn't create also mean cause. So now it can appear you are agreeing with what I said IE 'NS causes or creates adaptive variations'. See how it cuts both ways.

But I don't bother with these minor semantics if they are not really an issue. I see past them and know you didn't really mean that because I know that is not really your position from past exchanges. But the problem is some can jump into a conversation and take a word or two or even a sentence of a post and read things out of context because they don't know what has been said in the past. They see things out of context and thus the cause of misunderstanding is coming from their lack of checking what has been said previously on the topic.

 

[stevevw]

This where context matters; words like "variation" can mean different things depending on the context. Having a proper conceptual understanding of the science involved can be necessary for interpreting that context.

Well it looks like the mainstream literature doesn't have a proper conceptual understanding of evolution as they use the word variation interchangeably and out of context to mean different things.

 

[VirOptimus]

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

No answer to this yet.

 

[stevevw]

No answer to this yet.

That's because you haven't answered my questions. How is 'why I am touting the EES' or its importance to myself relevant to the validity of the EES.