[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[VirOptimus]

Wow, I didn't realize I had been debating for so long. I don't get what you are trying to say. Those posts are in threads that are about religion and science so of course people are going to have mixed views. This post is purely about the science so talk about ID or creation are going to be irrelevant and derail the thread. They are also old and as I said my views have evolved with time and education.

Once again you are making a logical fallacy in saying that because a person has a belief that they are discredited from talking about certain topics and when they do it is only because of their belief. That if they question the science it isn't because of the science but because of their belief. So are you saying that all people with a belief in God are not allowed to debate about certain topics because of their faith?

You fail to understand human nature and that people (all people) can have opposing views and decern the difference. The point is this thread is based on science so deal with the science. I am not appealing to supernatural forces but ones that can be supported by science. So talk about the science and tell me how the science is wrong like others have done.

No, people of belief isnt barred from science.

But its clear from the posts I have quoted (and many more) that you are a creationist and arent debating in good faith. All you do is searching for arguments against evolution without understanding and just cherry-picking articles that you think (but very rarely do) agree with your view, all this because you have an agenda. You arent interested in science, you want to spread your religious views. Its inherintly dishonest and just well, preaching.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

So talk about the science and tell me how the science is wrong like others have done.

Who told you the science is wrong? What science, specifically?

 

[Speedwell]

Wow, I didn't realize I had been debating for so long. I don't get what you are trying to say. Those posts are in threads that are about religion and science so of course people are going to have mixed views. This post is purely about the science so talk about ID or creation are going to be irrelevant and derail the thread. They are also old and as I said my views have evolved with time and education.

Once again you are making a logical fallacy in saying that because a person has a belief that they are discredited from talking about certain topics and when they do it is only because of their belief. That if they question the science it isn't because of the science but because of their belief. So are you saying that all people with a belief in God are not allowed to debate about certain topics because of their faith?

You fail to understand human nature and that people (all people) can have opposing views and decern the difference. The point is this thread is based on science so deal with the science. I am not appealing to supernatural forces but ones that can be supported by science. So talk about the science and tell me how the science is wrong like others have done.

When a person makes sophistical arguments on any subject he must expect his motivation to be questioned.

 

[stevevw]

It's clear that you think your interpretation is supported by the excerpts and quotes you post over and over again as if repeating them will make it true or exhaust us into agreeing. But, as I said previously, we've spent most of the thread explaining why we don't agree. What do you expect to change?

Nothing, that is what debate is. We obviously don't agree with certain aspects and that is exactly what the papers are saying. That there will be debate on the details between the EES and the SET. I don't expect anyone to give up and agree with me. By the same token, you seem to think that I should give up and agree with you. Maybe there is more agreement than we are acknowledging and it is more about communication.

I just see things differently. As I said my understanding evolves with time and understanding. But what I find a little frustrating is when you point out something and I respond with a specific part of the paper that addresses that you don't seem to reply how that is irrelevant or not. That would help to clarify things better. That is how debate works.

For example, I said that the EES basically makes a different hypothesis than the SET. You said that a crude mischaracterization. Crude means makeshift and mischaracterization means a wrong representation. I certainly didn't think that this was the case and perhaps I think you were making your own crude mischaracterization.

So based on that I make my reply and post those quotes which explain the overall representation of the differences of the EES as opposed to the SET. I cannot see any problem and think this is a reasonable if not accurate reply. The papers do say there is a difference in the basic idea of each with one taking a programmed view based on genes and the other taking a constructive and reciprocal view based on a number of influences. That basically sums up the different ideas. But I don't think it was as bad as a makeshift and wrong representation of the differences as you say.

I would have liked it if you addressed this and said something along the lines of maybe " you disagree with the assessment of the paper" or that there was more to the SET than what the paper claimed.

 

[stevevw]

Who told you the science is wrong? What science, specifically?

I have had an ongoing issue with VirOptimus. He makes comments saying I am wrong and don't know the science. But I also have a problem with him specifying what that is. I would like some debate over specifics but that never happens. So that is why I am asking him to point out what I have said about science with the EES that is wrong.

I think you know science. I guess to VirOptimus any science I post is wrong. Remember that I began the thread with just posting a link explaining the EES without making any comments and then basically reemphasized exactly what the papers were saying and VirOptimus said it was rubbish. So I just wanted to know exactly why or how it is wrong or rubbish. How I am misunderstanding the science.

 

[Speedwell]

I have had an ongoing issue with VirOptimus. He makes comments saying I am wrong and don't know the science. But I also have a problem with him specifying what that is. I would like some debate over specifics but that never happens. So that is why I am asking him to point out what I have said about science with the EES that is wrong.

I think you know science. I guess to VirOptimus any science I post is wrong. Remember that I began the thread with just posting a link explaining the EES without making any comments and then basically reemphasized exactly what the papers were saying and VirOptimus said it was rubbish. So I just wanted to know exactly why or how it is wrong or rubbish. How I am misunderstanding the science.

Because all you do is post a wall of cut-and-paste text without ever explaining exactly how it supports the conclusions you draw from it--you expect us to go over it in detail and explain why it doesn't.

 

[stevevw]

When a person makes sophistical arguments on any subject he must expect his motivation to be questioned.

But how is it sophisticated. It is pretty simple to understand even for laypeople. The debate on this is fairly well known or maybe not considering I have rarely seen it mentioned on this Forum. But nevertheless, even if it is a little hard to grasp you don't discredit it by trying to attack the person or sources. You get in and read about it and try to get a better understanding.

I don't mind being questioned and that is part of the debate. But there is a difference between being questioned on the science and having your character or integrity questioned. I use a game metaphor in saying that a person is "playing the person" and not the game or the ball.

If you think there is an issue with the persons credibility or ability then like a game of footy rather than stand on the sidelines calling them out or attacking the person in the game you get in and expose them by playing the game (the ball) better exposing the weaknesses. The same with the debate. Rather than attacking the person making claims about motives and credibility get in there, and engage with the content, show how the content is wrong and rebuff with better evidence.

 

[Speedwell]

But how is it sophisticated. It is pretty simple to understand even for laypeople. The debate on this is fairly well known or maybe not considering I have rarely seen it mentioned on this Forum. But nevertheless, even if it is a little hard to grasp you don't discredit it by trying to attack the person or sources. You get in and read about it and try to get a better understanding.

I don't mind being questioned and that is part of the debate. But there is a difference between being questioned on the science and having your character or integrity questioned. I use a game metaphor in saying that a person is "playing the person" and not the game or the ball.

If you think there is an issue with the persons credibility or ability then like a game of footy rather than stand on the sidelines calling them out or attacking the person in the game you get in and expose them by playing the game (the ball) better exposing the weaknesses. The same with the debate. Rather than attacking the person making claims about motives and credibility get in there, and engage with the content, show how the content is wrong and rebuff with better evidence.

Sophistical: Fallacious, misleading or incorrect in logic or reasoning, especially intentionally.

 

[stevevw]

Because all you do is post a wall of cut-and-paste text without ever explaining exactly how it supports the conclusions you draw from it--you expect us to go over it in detail and explain why it doesn't.

See this is another example of misrepresentation. Maybe you have it in your mind that this is the case but that is not the reality. If anything I am one to go overboard and post walls of my own explanations.

I did this in post #6 after Kylie linked an article about the EES. I gave a commentary to point out the differences between the SET and the EES. Once again here #35 where I give a commentary above and below each link posted. Again here #56, #57, #67,#72, #86, #103, #104, #105. All these posts either are just my commentary explaining the EES or have quotes with commentary. So I think there is ample explanation.

As a side point, I noticed there was a large % of posts irrelevant to the thread as well which sort of says something about making it harder to keep things on the topic which can contribute to a lack of clarity and understanding.

 

[stevevw]

Sophistical: Fallacious, misleading or incorrect in logic or reasoning, especially intentionally.

Oh sorry, I misunderstood. Then you need to show how I have misunderstood. See here's another thing. You just finished saying how I posted big walls of papers and didn't explain things. Yet now you say I misunderstood the papers and my reasoning is wrong. How can that be the case if you say I didn't explain things and that there were only bits of papers posted? If anything that would help people to know the facts which cannot be misrepresented or reasoned wrong.

I just think I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Apart from trying to discredit my sources and me, I don't think you have really pointed out how what I have said is misleading, incorrect in logic or reasoning or done intentionally. If you have then please link the post. But at the same time please tell me how the posts I linked for you above are misleading, fallacious, and incorrect in logic or reasoning and intentionally done. You have all the work done for you so please support your assertions.

 

[Speedwell]

Oh sorry, I misunderstood. Then you need to show how I have misunderstood. See here's another thing. You just finished saying how I posted big walls of papers and didn't explain things. Yet now you say I misunderstood the papers and my reasoning is wrong. How can that be the case if you say I didn't explain things and that there were only bits of papers posted? If anything that would help people to know the facts which cannot be misrepresented or reasoned wrong.

I just think I am damned if I do and damned if I don't. Apart from trying to discredit my sources and me, I don't think you have really pointed out how what I have said is misleading, incorrect in logic or reasoning or done intentionally. If you have then please link the post. But at the same time please tell me how the posts I linked for you above are misleading, fallacious, and incorrect in logic or reasoning and intentionally done. You have all the work done for you so please support your assertions.

You have, perhaps without intending it, created an image of an evolutionary establishment clinging desperately to a view of evolution consisting of nothing but undirected random chance mutations and natural selection and defending it against a band of courageous pioneers who have the evidence to overturn and completely replace that view with EES. We know that image to be false and the quotations you cite do not sustain it.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Nothing, that is what debate is. We obviously don't agree with certain aspects and that is exactly what the papers are saying. I don't expect anyone to give up and agree with me. By the same token, you seem to think that I should give up and agree with you.

I don't expect you to agree with me, and I'm happy to debate the position - but you haven't debated the points we've made, you've simply renewed your original assertions each time.

As I said my understanding evolves with time and understanding.

FTFY. You really ought to read back what you write before you post it (I said that four years ago).

But what I find a little frustrating is when you point out something and I respond with a specific part of the paper that addresses that you don't seem to reply how that is irrelevant or not. That would help to clarify things better. That is how debate works.

I'm pretty sure we explained that you were misinterpreting those papers. Cherry-picking excerpts from provocative opinion pieces is not the best way to make or support an argument.

For example, I said that the EES basically makes a different hypothesis than the SET. You said that a crude mischaracterization. Crude means makeshift and mischaracterization means a wrong representation. I certainly didn't think that this was the case and perhaps I think you were making your own crude mischaracterization.

My comment was about your explanation of what you meant by 'a different hypothesis'. But in any case, both SET and EES involve innumerable hypotheses.

The papers do say there is a difference in the basic idea of each with one taking a programmed view based on genes and the other taking a constructive and reciprocal view based on a number of influences. That basically sums up the different ideas. But I don't think it was as bad as a makeshift and wrong representation of the differences as you say.

OK, let me put it another way; I think it's a gross oversimplification that doesn't accurately represent the situation.

I would have liked it if you addressed this and said something along the lines of maybe " you disagree with the assessment of the paper" or that there was more to the SET than what the paper claimed.

I already commented on that.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I have had an ongoing issue with VirOptimus. He makes comments saying I am wrong and don't know the science. But I also have a problem with him specifying what that is. I would like some debate over specifics but that never happens. So that is why I am asking him to point out what I have said about science with the EES that is wrong.

Ah, so what you meant was that he told you that your claims about the science were wrong. That's not the same thing as the science being wrong.

I think you know science. I guess to VirOptimus any science I post is wrong. Remember that I began the thread with just posting a link explaining the EES without making any comments and then basically reemphasized exactly what the papers were saying and VirOptimus said it was rubbish. So I just wanted to know exactly why or how it is wrong or rubbish. How I am misunderstanding the science.

I suspect he was rubbishing your interpretation of what was being said about the science.

 

[VirOptimus]

I have had an ongoing issue with VirOptimus. He makes comments saying I am wrong and don't know the science. But I also have a problem with him specifying what that is. I would like some debate over specifics but that never happens. So that is why I am asking him to point out what I have said about science with the EES that is wrong.

I think you know science. I guess to VirOptimus any science I post is wrong. Remember that I began the thread with just posting a link explaining the EES without making any comments and then basically reemphasized exactly what the papers were saying and VirOptimus said it was rubbish. So I just wanted to know exactly why or how it is wrong or rubbish. How I am misunderstanding the science.

I have engaged with your posts in the past. That is a futile endeavour as you just keep posting the same thing over and over and keep misrepresenting articles and quotemine. (Just as you are in this very thread).

So your posts gets the replies they deserve.

 

[stevevw]

You have, perhaps without intending it, created an image of an evolutionary establishment clinging desperately to a view of evolution consisting of nothing but undirected random chance mutations and natural selection and defending it against a band of courageous pioneers who have the evidence to overturn and completely replace that view with EES. We know that image to be false and the quotations you cite do not sustain it.

I don't think that is the case. If it is that has not been my intention. I have only pointed out what the papers say. That the SET or MS causes people (scientists) to see the evolutionary change in adaptive terms. That this view can overlook other causes of evolution. That is not saying anyone is taking a desperate position and it is exactly what the papers say. I think because there has been some vigorous debate back and forth that this can create a greater divide than really is.

The confusion comes when you or others deny that this adaptive view exists in the mainstream evolutionary view at all and yet the papers say the opposite. So it is not me causing any image problem. My question is why do you think the papers even talk in these terms if it's not the case. Why do the papers say stuff like this

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

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.

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?

So why do you think the papers use this language if there is no truth to it. It would only cause confusion and as you say a misrepresented image if this was the case.

 

[stevevw]

I don't expect you to agree with me, and I'm happy to debate the position - but you haven't debated the points we've made, you've simply renewed your original assertions each time.

But I think I have debated things so there is obviously a difference in opinion. For example the post you used Post #20. You made a point about how I had misunderstood the paper or the whole EES and posted a snippet to support this. But ironically it was you who misunderstood it. You thought the supporters of SET had already incorporated the EES forces to show how there was no issue.

But you misunderstood the paper. It was only pointing out the position of how the SET thinks they have incorporated the EES forces and not that they really had. I was just pointing out to you this misunderstanding. I had to repeat this as you still didn't get what the paper was actually about. If anything there is probably a misunderstanding on both sides.

FTFY. You really ought to read back what you write before you post it (I said that four years ago).

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you saying you said the same thing about yourself years ago?

I'm pretty sure we explained that you were misinterpreting those papers. Cherry-picking excerpts from provocative opinion pieces is not the best way to make or support an argument.

I think this is a bit of an unfair conclusion. I have posted large sections of papers and given commentary. In fact, my own personal commentary probably outnumbers the quotes from papers. So I think this shows I understand the papers pretty well. The thread is only 8 pages long and much is about disputes about credibility and irrelevant stuff so I cannot see how you have really explained how I have misunderstood things.

As I pointed out above I think you have also misunderstood what the papers are saying. I mean if you can show me one example of how you pointed out my misunderstanding then I will know better. But they must be few and far between as I have gone over the thread a couple of times now. Maybe it's a misunderstanding and communication on both sides.

My comment was about your explanation of what you meant by 'a different hypothesis'. But in any case, both SET and EES involve innumerable hypotheses.

Yes, I agree it is more complex than perhaps trying to cover everything with a general summation. But I was only going off the papers where they were summarizing what the differences were in the intros and conclusion sections. I felt they gave a good overall outline. I guess the authors did as well otherwise why would they write that.

OK, let me put it another way; I think it's a gross oversimplification that doesn't accurately represent the situation.

Fair enough.

 

[stevevw]

Ah, so what you meant was that he told you that your claims about the science were wrong. That's not the same thing as science being wrong.

Either way it was just a claim. There was no example of support. Just an unsupported assertion which is quite frustrating. There is very little engagement.

I suspect he was rubbishing your interpretation of what was being said about the science.

Yet there was no example. Who knows what the case may be. It's easy to throw mud.

The point is I think I understand the EES fairly well and I don't think I have got things that wrong. I have been studying this for many years. I have given comprehensive commentary on the papers I posted. I don't think I was that far off as made out. But if it was I would like some idea of what that is. If you make a charge then you need to back it up with something, anything.

 

[stevevw]

I have engaged with your posts in the past. That is a futile endeavour as you just keep posting the same thing over and over and keep misrepresenting articles and quotemine. (Just as you are in this very thread).

So your posts get the replies they deserve.

So basically your input into this thread is nothing to do with the OP and just off-topic and designed to derail it. Your aim is to discredit the person rather than engage in the debate. Is that right? What you've posted 15 odd posts, 10% of all posts have just been by yourself about attacking the poster rather than engaging in any constructive debate for which this Forum is designed. Its OK to make your point but to do it over and over seems a little excessive to me. That seems more like trolling.

 

[Speedwell]

I don't think that is the case. If it is that has not been my intention. I have only pointed out what the papers say. That the SET or MS causes people (scientists) to see the evolutionary change in adaptive terms. That this view can overlook other causes of evolution. That is not saying anyone is taking a desperate position and it is exactly what the papers say. I think because there has been some vigorous debate back and forth that this can create a greater divide than really is.

The confusion comes when you or others deny that this adaptive view exists in the mainstream evolutionary view at all

Nobody is denying that it exists in the mainstream view. It is part of the mainstream view and even EES proponents accept it.

and yet the papers say the opposite.

No, they don't say the opposite. They are saying that what you call "adaptive evolution" is part of SET but not the whole of it. They are saying that "adaptive evolution" is part of EES.

So it is not me causing any image problem. My question is why do you think the papers even talk in these terms if it's not the case. Why do the papers say stuff like this

Charles Darwin conceived of evolution by natural selection without knowing that genes exist. Now mainstream evolutionary theory has come to focus almost exclusively on genetic inheritance and processes that change gene frequencies.

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.

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?

So why do you think the papers use this language if there is no truth to it. It would only cause confusion and as you say a misrepresented image if this was the case.

This is getting pretty weird. How can you read that paper--it's in plain English--and then tell me to my face it says something entirely different from what it actually says?

 

[VirOptimus]

So basically your input into this thread is nothing to do with the OP and just off-topic and designed to derail it. Your aim is to discredit the person rather than engage in the debate. Is that right? What you've posted 15 odd posts, 10% of all posts have just been by yourself about attacking the poster rather than engaging in any constructive debate for which this Forum is designed. Its OK to make your point but to do it over and over seems a little excessive to me. That seems more like trolling.

My motivations are my own.

1. Do you accept common descent?

2. What role, if any, do natural selection have?

3. What role, if any, do god have in evolution?