[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[Speedwell]

I thought a creationist only believes the universe and earth is 6,000 years old, that God supernaturally created life such as humans and all other living things as they appear today. That they dont support evolution or common decent. How could I be a creationists if I support evolution and common decent from a universal common ancestor. My position is more in line with theistic evolution.

Generally that's true for a working definition. But if you want to chop it fine it becomes a question of whether or not you regard the existence of God and His authorship of our being as unfalsifiable propositions.

 

[stevevw]

Generally that's true for a working definition. But if you want to chop it fine it becomes a question of whether or not you regard the existence of God and His authorship of our being as unfalsifiable propositions.

Well yes we cannot verify God scientifically and it is a matter of personal faith. That is why injecting God into a scientific forum is such an alien idea and one that would only derail this thread. Other threads in the theology, philosophy and creation v evolution threads are more suitable for that. The EES has nothing to do with such topics.

 

[Speedwell]

Well yes we cannot verify God scientifically and it is a matter of personal faith. That is why injecting God into a scientific forum is such an alien idea and one that would only derail this thread. Other threads in the theology, philosophy and creation v evolution threads are more suitable for that. The EES has nothing to do with such topics.

You are right, but creationists, especially IDists, have tricky ways of slipping it in and it is well to be suspicious of anything which looks like that.

 

[stevevw]

You have accused people of taking such a limited view, even when they have not. They may have appeared to you to have done so, but read what you just wrote: Everybody here agrees that "EES offers expanded explanations that can help increase the science and our understanding of evolution which is a good thing."

Well I can only go from what has been posted. Though you say you and others do accept and acknowledge the EES it still seemed to me that there was resistence and that people were still supporting the narrow adaptive view. We have spent some time on the use of words and language and it seems that the language has still been along the same limiting view that the EES has been talking about.

For example it was disputed that the SET had a narrow view in the first place IE SET only viewed natural selection as the cause and river of adaptive evolution and that random mutations was the only cause of variations. It took some time for people to acknowledge that the EES papers were point thiis out and that it wasnt my misunderstanding through supporting this with both EES and mainstream articles.

If there was acknowledgemnet of the EES then people should have automatcially agreed that the SET did have a restricted view. There was debate then the SET did acknowledge the additional forces the EES was amphasizing but as I and the EES articles pointed out there was a difference between acknowledging those expanded influences and acknowledging them as actual causes and drivers of evolutionary change similar to natural selection and random variations and often beyond the gene-centric view of the SET. It seems almost all reponses were alonmg the lines that natural selection was the only cause of all variations and behaviours including the EES forces.

The only real issue is the degree to which Modern Syntheses needs to be restructured in order to accommodate the findings of EES. This is an ongoing discussion within the field of evolutionary biology. I for one, am content to let the experts in the field work it out. I am certainly not going to anticipate the outcome based the the ramblings of some random guy on the internet who doesn't really seem to know all that much about it.

This oint was also addressed. I pointed out that there is a lot of evidence already and its not a case of yet to be supported. That is why I linked the EES project site as this has a lot of articles and papers of the research and its findings which is proving to support the predictions made. I have never claimed off my own back that I know about this stuff but rather have been relying on the EES findings.

Some people, maybe. My reading of the situation is that it is mostly a misunderstanding due to us not devoting as much time and energy as you think you are owed, to figure out what you are talking about. How selfless of you. And when you are done you can go teach your grandma to suck eggs.

The same question can be asked why have some people especially those who have not really engaged and contributed to this thread in any constructive way persisted to only point out my misunderstandings and question my motives. Is it because they also want to educate people and save the world from another crazy creationsist. I cannot figure out why it matters so much that some persist with the same point being made over and over when once or twice maybe would have been suffice.

 

[stevevw]

You are right, but creationists, especially IDists, have tricky ways of slipping it in and it is well to be suspicious of anything which looks like that.

Well lucky I'm not neither and dont have some need to use a back door to promote God. Not that there is anything wrong if people choose to be creationsist or IDist. It is their way of understanding. I dont think there is anything wrong with people highlighting how they see God in nature either. Some of the great scientists did this. So long as it doesnt become the be all and end all and substitute for faith.

Like I said God is a matter of personal faith and no one can convince another through science. I have no issue with evolution and if it turned out that the SET is validated as is then I have no issue with that either. It is what it is and however nature does its thing it is the science that will determine that. I have no problem with that affecting my belief as it is not dependent on some specific way God created things. We cannot know his ways but only that by faith we know that he is the creator. Gods creation is not based on some scientific theory.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I many not understand evolution at the biologists level but as far as the differences in the core tenets, assumptions and structure between the EES and the SET I think I have a pretty good understanding. Basically the SET takes the adaptive view of evolutionary cause. Only natural selection causes adaptive evolution and therefore drives evolutionary change. Its a pretty easy concept to understand.

Yet despite repeated requests you are unwilling or unable to explain how such an 'easy to understand' concept actually works...

'Nuff said.

 

[pitabread]

Not that there is anything wrong if people choose to be creationsist or IDist. It is their way of understanding.

"Understanding" might be a bit generous there. I find people adherence to creationism/ID typically stems from an emotional basis, as opposed to a rational one.

 

[stevevw]

"Understanding" might be a bit generous there. I find people adherence to creationism/ID typically stems from an emotional basis, as opposed to a rational one.

Isnt that just another way to say faith as opposed to evidence based scientific thinking. The two are different and say nothing about the person themselves. A rational person can have faith and understand that his faith doesnt meet the same criteria of scientific thinking. They are two different areas which people can partake in.

Rational = based on or in accordance with reason or logic.
Faith = strong belief in God or in religious doctrines, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.
Science = the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. (Google dictionary)

Therefore from these definitions, we can say

• Rationality says nothing about the premises about which we reason;
• Faith says nothing about the reasoning system applied to the axiomatic beliefs; and
• Science specifies both the reasoning system and the axioms.

From this, we can conclude:

1. It is correct to state that faith does not fit within science, because it reasons about observations which are neither objective nor repeatable;
2. It is not correct to state that faith is irrational, because it has well-developed systems of reason and logic (e.g. theology, apologetics and hermeneutics). A critic might not agree with faith's premises or conclusions, but to show irrationality, they would need to show that the reasoning system was faulty (and not just that individual arguments were faulty).

As a final note, I believe that the word irrational is often used pejoratively -- implying that an irrational religious person is stupid, reckless and even dangerous -- and not merely to mean that he is not applying sound logic to his faith.
Why do atheists think people of faith are irrational? - Quora

 

[stevevw]

Yet despite repeated requests you are unwilling or unable to explain how such an 'easy to understand' concept actually works...

'Nuff said.

You need to understand that the adaptive view or (adaptionism) is a narrow view taken of evolution that is unrealistic and cannot really be explained. Thats the point it is about just so stories as Gould and Lewetin explained because it is easy to formulate explainations in how a particular trait has provided some fitness benefit and that is why it was selected. This is done at the expense of any other possible cause and that is why it is said to be a narrow and limiting view. This view stems from Neo Darwinism and is still said to be the dominant view in the literature.

Other influences are acknowledged such as under the population genetics view like drift and gene flow as well as recombination and other levels of selection. But it always comes back to as Gould and Lewontin claimed making up so so stories of how natural selection is the ultimate and only real cause and driver of evolution.

At the end of the day regardless of how variation is reshuffled or lost under the adaptive view it is natural selection that will determine whether those variation will provide a survival and reproductive benefit. All evolutionary change is measured by fitness benefits, how a particular trait gives a fitness benefit to the environment they are in IE the strongest gorilla will mate more compared to the smaller weaker ones and thus his genes are passed on. This is done at the cost of all other possible causes such as the EES forces.

But the other point is that it is not just about NS but also the gene-centric view that all new variation is the result of random gene changes which the EES is disputing. Adaptionism and gradualism go hand in hand. This relates back to Neo Darwinism and how evolutionary change needs to be small and gradual just as Darwin said "that if äny complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, then his theory would break down".

This view is also still dominant in that eviolutionary change is explained by tiny incrimental changes in especially at the genetic level in the light of genomics. So most explanations are centred around explaining how natural selection can select these tiny modifications as being advantageous for fitness at the exclusion of all other possible influences and causes.

 

[VirOptimus]

You need to understand that the adative view or (adaptionism) is a narrow view taken of evolution that is unrealistic and cannot really be explained. Thats the point it is about just so stories as Gould and Lewetin explained because it is easy to formulate explainations in how a particular trait has provided some fitness benefit and that is why it was selected. This is done at the expense of any other possible cause and that is why it is said to be a narrow and limiting view. This view stems from Neo Darwinism and is still said to be the dominant view in the literature.

Other influences are acknowledged such as under the population genetics view like drift and gene flow as well as recombination and other levels of selection. But it always comes back to as Gould and Lewontin claimed making up so so stories of how natural selection is the ultimate and only realy cause and driver of evolution.

At the end of the day regardless of how variation is reshuffled or lost under the adaptive view it is natural selection that will determine whether those variation will provide a survival and reproductive benefit. All evolutionary change is measured by fitness benefits, how a particular trait gives a fitness benefit to the environment they are in IE the strongest gorilla will mate more compared to the smaller weaker ones and thus his genes are passed on. This is done at the cost of all other possible causes such as the EES forces.

But the other point is that it is not just about NS but also the gene-centric view that all variation is the result of random gene changes which the EES is disputing. Adaptionism and gradualism go hand in hand. This relates back to Neo Darwinism and how evolutionary change needs to be small and gradual as just as Darwin said that if äny complex organ existed which could not have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modification, then his theory would break down".

This view is also still dominant in that eviolutionary change is explained by tiny incrimental changes in especially at the genetic level in the light of genomics. So most explanations are centred around explaining how natural selection can select these tiny modifications as being advantageous for fitness at the exclusion of all other possible influences and causes.

Is natural selection at all a major component in evolution?

 

[stevevw]

Of course, it is one of the major causes and drivers of evolutio. But not the only one.