VirOptimus
A nihilist who cares.
Keep your suggestions for yourself.
I keep by my assesement, and you have yourself admitted in the past. Also, you really really dont understand science and the ToE or EES.
Upvote
0
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.
How is this not science
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019
The above paper comes from the Royal Society Biological sciences so you cant get much more scientific than that. Unless you want to call them liars as well.
Because it is not my views I am posting but scientific fact so how is it lying. To say that everything I have said and posted is all a lie is ridiculous and offensive. As I have said I am not fussed about what version evolution takes. It doesn't matter to my faith as God can use whatever he chooses.
The point is non-religious evolutionary scientists support the EES. Are you saying they are also biased and tainted with some belief. You cant keep discrediting scientific facts through ad hominem logical fallacies. you did this in another thread and you have a history of doing this to other people. If you cannot engage in the thread with constructive contributions then I suggest you desist from commenting.
It's not clear to me what you mean by that. Explain what you mean by 'bypassing natural selection altogether', and give me some examples. Also, what are the timescales involved in that (e.g. how many generations)?In light of what the papers say do you think the EES forces diminish natural selections role and can bypass it altogether in producing well suited adaptive variations.
Your question doesn't make sense to me. Tell me, how do you think heritable changes are judged to be adaptive or non-adaptive?... I am asking this basic question " do you think the EES is saying that there are other influences on par with natural selection that are non-adaptive and that these influences have the potential to bypass or minimize and control the influence of NS.
No, random mutation is not regarded as the only source of variation. It has been accepted for decades that variation has other causes, including genetic drift which you mention below.I never said natural selection produces variation. I understand perfectly well that Natural Selection (NS) acts on variation. I have said this in earlier posts. I have said that standard evolutionary synthesis (SET) views random mutation as the source of variation and that selection weeds out the variation that is unsuitable for the environment leaving those variations that can adapt to changing environments.
So what? You still have to actually take the examination, even if somebody snuck you the answers ahead of time.I compared this against the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis (EES) by saying how can NS act on the variation from the EES when it is already well suited, integrated and adaptive. That the EES produces variations that don't need selecting in the sense that they are selected by the creatures themselves or don't contain unsuitable or non-beneficial variations thus NS has little to do but refine things and go along with what has already been presented.
See, none of this is news to anyone who has been paying attention to evolutionary biology. What's rubbish is your imaginary "them" who are unwilling to accept any cause of variation but random mutation.See I get two different claims here, one says its not a force and another from experts in the field that say it is. Who am I to think that the experts may know what they are talking about. So how can this be rubbish unless you want to say that the experts are talking rubbish. I am beginning to wonder who really understands evolution. This is from the experts.
Michael Lynch is a well known and top evolutionary scientist focusing on population genetics. He states
First, evolution is a population-genetic process governed by four fundamental forces. Darwin (1859b) articulated one of those forces, the process of natural selection
The Frailty of Adaptive Hypotheses for the Origins of Organismal Complexity - In the Light of Evolution - NCBI Bookshelf
Here is an article from Nature Education. That’s the well known scientific journal Nature.com and they teach evolution.
Natural selection results in organisms that are more likely to survive and reproduce. Another driving force behind evolution is genetic drift
evolution | Learn Science at Scitable
In other words another driving force besides natural selection is genetic drift.
The papers on the EES influences also refer to these as forces
The researchers also argue that natural selection isn't necessarily the primary force in evolution - the limitations of development and the environments organisms live in can also play a role.
A NCT framework recognizes that the niche-altering activities of humans, and partner species, are not simply adaptive responses to environmentally induced selective pressures, but are instead dynamic evolutionary forces (Odling-Smee et al. 2013: 17).
https://www.quantamagazine.org/scientists-seek-to-update-evolution-20161122
On that basis I agree with you. But my point is how the variation is produced and how it is preserved. The EES differs and disagrees with the SET in saying that random mutations and NS are the main and only way evolution happens. That gathering evidence shows that the EES influences are more prominent than thought and are also causes of evolution which can direct natural selection sometimes bypassing it altogether.
To be clear I am not saying that random mutations and NS are not at work, just the degree and role they play. Is this not the basis for what the EES is saying and if so how am I getting things wrong.
Don't bother asking Steve.This whole promotion of this EES concept just seems like woo to me.
Priorisation of one perspective being more 'impactful' over some other perspective, simply implies some kind of perceived constraint acting over the whole topic.
One can't help but wonder just what that (unstated) constraint actually is?
This will take a bit of explaining so pardon the text wall.It's not clear to me what you mean by that. Explain what you mean by 'bypassing natural selection altogether', and give me some examples. Also, what are the timescales involved in that (e.g. how many generations)?
This is any variation that is suitable for the environment that allows a creature to survive and reproduce. So over generations these small variations that prove beneficial change phenotype in populations. The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment. The variation can be already beneficial and addable even before NS is involved.Your question doesn't make sense to me. Tell me, how do you think heritable changes are judged to be adaptive or non-adaptive?
Actually I thank you as at least you are acknowledging what the EES presents and that it presents some challenges and then are being skeptical of them. many people don't even get that far. By doing this at least people can engage in debate on the details.This whole promotion of this EES concept just seems like woo to me.
Priorisation of one perspective being more 'impactful' over some other perspective, simply implies some kind of perceived constraint acting over the whole topic.
One can't help but wonder just what that (unstated) constraint actually is?
OK, suppose a single mutation results in a well-adapted variation - has that bypassed natural selection altogether? What is the process that determines whether it is well-adapted or not?The best way I can explain this in layman terms would be if other forces of evolution besides NS presented already well adapted variation then what need would there be for NS apart from confirming what has already been presented. In the SET natural selections role is to test variation against the environment. Shift through variation to weed out the unsuitable and find the suitable to fit an environment. So the variation presented is a population can be a mixture of beneficial and non-beneficial variations that need testing.
But unlike random mutations some of the forces with the EES present well suited and adaptable variation that help creatures fit into environments even before NS has a chance to test them. In that sense they bypass selections role of being the force that preserves them.
What do we call the process by which genetic changes that provide a preferential reproductive advantage spread through and change the population phenotype?This is any variation that is suitable for the environment that allows a creature to survive and reproduce. So over generations these small variations that prove beneficial change phenotype in populations.
Nope - the same processes for generating variation appear in both formulations - I told you this a while ago.The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment.
Now you are engaging. That would depend on whether that mutation presented enough of a change that would present a variation that NS could pick up. If it did then 1) who says this was the result of a random mutation 2) if it was it would be more luck that anything else. It just happened to be one of those times when the variation was beneficial. But that is going to be unlikely considering that the majority of mutations are deleterious and neutral and rarely beneficial.OK, suppose a single mutation results in a well-adapted variation - has that bypassed natural selection altogether? What is the process that determines whether it is well-adapted or not?
Evolution I would imagine. I know it may be referred to as evolution by natural selection.What do we call the process by which genetic changes that provide a preferential reproductive advantage spread through and change the population phenotype?
Can you elaborate.Nope - the same processes for generating variation appear in both formulations - I told you this a while ago.
What we are skeptical about is your assertion that EES proponents are struggling against a determined effort to defend random mutation as the only source of variation. It isn't true and engenders distrust.Actually I thank you as at least you are acknowledging what the EES presents and that it presents some challenges and then are being skeptical of them. many people don't even get that far. By doing this at least people can engage in debate on the details.
Just answer the questions as posed:Now you are engaging. That would depend on whether that mutation presented enough of a change that would present a variation that NS could pick up. If it did then 1) who says this was the result of a random mutation 2) if it was it would be more luck that anything else. It just happened to be one of those times when the variation was beneficial. But that is going to be unlikely considering that the majority of mutations are deleterious and neutral and rarely beneficial.
Exactly. It is natural selection that establishes whether some genetic variation is adaptive or not; where 'adaptive' means having a reproductive advantage that enables the genes for that variation to propagate through the population, i.e. evolutionary fitness.Evolution I would imagine. I know it may be referred to as evolution by natural selection.
Your claim that, "The difference between the SET and the EES is that the variations are not produced by random mutations where NS has to test each variation against the environment" misrepresents both SET and EES.Can you elaborate.
OK then help me out. You still didn't respond to whether this is science and what is your view on it. Educate me.Keep your suggestions for yourself.
I keep by my assesement, and you have yourself admitted in the past. Also, you really really dont understand science and the ToE or EES.
An non-controversial statement.OK then help me out. You still didn't respond to whether this is science and what is your view on it. Educate me.
The EES is thus characterized by the central role of the organism in the evolutionary process, and by the view that the direction of evolution does not depend on selection alone and need not start with mutation.
There is some difference of opinion about the relative importance of these processes, but nothing really divisive, and on the whole this statement is relatively non-controversial as well.In the EES, developmental processes, operating through developmental bias, inclusive inheritance and niche construction, share responsibility for the direction and rate of evolution, the origin of character variation and organism–environment complementarity.
The EES proposes that variation is more predictable and selection pressures less exogenous than hitherto thought.
An intriguing proposal which, one hopes, will spur fruitful research. Science marches on.
I think he’s making the same point traditional evolutionists do… that being we supposedly macro evolved someway, but by either means there’s just no verifiable trail to confirm such a thing.An intriguing proposal which, one hopes, will spur fruitful research. Science marches on.
But you still haven't told us what your point is.
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?