[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

"Science is getting closer and closer to the very core of existence. The closer they get the more they will see that there had to be a creator." - Is really really not helping your "its only the science" schtick.

More logical fallacies. Just about every post is one now.

 

[VirOptimus]

More logical fallacies. Just about every post is one now.

Your quote is a logical fallacy?

 

[Hans Blaster]

Again you jump to unfounded conclusions - no-one has said the EES has anything to do with religion. I can't speak for Hans Blaster, but the perceived problem with the Templeton Foundation in general is not so much the funding of individual projects but their wider strategy.

I am not saying EES is religion related. (Though it looks like it is being used by some to prop up religious ideas, but so are a lot of things that weren't created by or for religion.) It appears to just be another scientific view on evolution.

I do think the Templeton foundation is willing to bend the edge of things to build support for religion, in particular to show the compatibility of science and religion and therefore prop up the legitimacy of religion and its inherent supernaturalism with the reputation of science. They do so in ways that distort the intent of certain efforts and the conclusions made by science. I do question the choices of scientists who take their money.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Did you not notice that we're in the middle of a lethal global pandemic? had you not noticed the millions who live with or die every year from heart disease, stroke, respiratory diseases, tuberculosis, diarrhoeal diseases, diabetes, birth complications, cancer, HIV, malaria, cirrhosis, etc., etc. ??

These are mostly lifestyle problems...

I thought this was worth quoting - dismissing the major killer diseases of people around the world as 'mostly lifestyle problems' shows the strange distoring lens through which Steve views the world...

 

[Hans Blaster]

I think you are jumping the gun here. The EES has been around for over 12 years now and the EES project is based on evidence that has been around for decades. The EES is just a more concerted effort to focus on certain evolutionary forces that contribute to evolution. There is a vast amount of empirical scientific data on the EES now.

As this thread developed, I did take a look at some basic background material on EES and the MES and their differences. It mostly looked like a few scholars were emphasizing certain things more than in the MES. I couldn't really see what the big deal was, frankly.

The involvement of the John Templeton Foundation is only a recent event. But that has little to do with the science being done. All the papers associated are peer-reviewed and prominent mainstream scientists like Kevin Laland, Gerd Muller, Günter Wagner, Massimo Pigliucci, Marcus Feldman, Patrick Bateson, and John Endler to name a few. I think it is a logical fallacy to say that the scientific research is invalid because of its funding.
People – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

Didn't say that.

 

[stevevw]

I am not saying EES is religion related. (Though it looks like it is being used by some to prop up religious ideas, but so are a lot of things that weren't created by or for religion.) It appears to just be another scientific view on evolution.

I do think the Templeton foundation is willing to bend the edge of things to build support for religion, in particular to show the compatibility of science and religion and therefore prop up the legitimacy of religion and its inherent supernaturalism with the reputation of science. They do so in ways that distort the intent of certain efforts and the conclusions made by science. I do question the choices of scientists who take their money.

The John Templeton Society is by no means a religious organization but rather a philanthropic one. It cannot bend any thinking or motivations of anyone including the universities or scientists it funds associated with the EES research.

The EES is said to be an extension of the standard view of evolution. But within that view are some conceptual changes that place more emphasis on other evolutionary causes that the standard view minimizes as causes.

In doing so they take the view that random mutation is not the only way variation can be made. Also that natural selection can be diminished and bypassed in situations where the input from living things can alter their environments rather than be altered themselves thus minimizing adaptive evolution and by development mechanisms that produce well suited and adaptive variations in response to environmental pressures.

The standard view acknowledges the same influences but they don't give them the same level of evolutionary cause. Rather they say that the EES forces are themselves the result of the standard force of natural selection and gene change alone. That they are constraints and causes of the absence of natural selection rather than being causes themselves on par with NS.

 

[stevevw]

As this thread developed, I did take a look at some basic background material on EES and the MES and their differences. It mostly looked like a few scholars were emphasizing certain things more than in the MES. I couldn't really see what the big deal was, frankly.

I agree but some make it a big deal. Anyone would think some sacrilege had been done lol.

Didn't say that.

When you say you are skeptical of the EES because of its association with the Templeton Society and "that they do so in ways that distort the intent of certain efforts and the conclusions made by science" it seems you are judging the science as distorted (because the scientists had funding from JTS) and that this swayed the findings away from empirical evidence before as you acknowledged you hadn't looked at the details of the EES.

 

[stevevw]

I thought this was worth quoting - dismissing the major killer diseases of people around the world as 'mostly lifestyle problems' shows the strange distorting lens through which Steve views the world...

Maybe this is a good example of how we see things differently. You gave the example of the coronavirus. The evidence seems to show that this virus and others similar are the results of how humans are now living closely with other species. In this case fish at a wet market.

This is a lifestyle consequence of partly through unhygienic methods but also because humans have encroached on the environment of other species and are living much closer to them especially in Asian countries thus increasing the risk of viruses jumping species.

These viruses have only happened in recent times when populations have grown and mass production of food has increased. You could make a case for most diseases happening in a similar way because of modern lifestyle.

But as I mentioned I am not denying natural selections role especially in viral and bacterial diseases. But the cultivation of these diseases is primarily because of human action or lack of it. They can be minimized and stopped through human action (niche construction).

 

[VirOptimus]

The John Templeton Society is by no means a religious organization but rather a philanthropic one. It cannot bend any thinking or motivations of anyone including the universities or scientists it funds associated with the EES research.

The EES is said to be an extension of the standard view of evolution. But within that view are some conceptual changes that place more emphasis on other evolutionary causes that the standard view minimizes as causes.

In doing so they take the view that random mutation is not the only way variation can be made. Also that natural selection can be diminished and bypassed in situations where the input from living things can alter their environments rather than be altered themselves thus minimizing adaptive evolution and by development mechanisms that produce well suited and adaptive variations in response to environmental pressures.

The standard view acknowledges the same influences but they don't give them the same level of evolutionary cause. Rather they say that the EES forces are themselves the result of the standard force of natural selection and gene change alone. That they are constraints and causes of the absence of natural selection rather than being causes themselves on par with NS.

Do you think the EES opens up for god in evolution theory?

 

[stevevw]

Do you think the EES opens up for god in evolution theory?

I feel this is a loaded question. No matter how I answer it I am going to cop it. I don't think it is the right thread to debate this question as I wanted to focus on the science that supports the EES. In saying that my personal view is that if God is the creator then as the Bible says His creation is known to all whether that be just in nature itself (the universe, the ecosystems, or the workings of the living cell.

I think the EES forces bring direction to evolution which shows that living things are equipped with mechanisms that ensure their survival. But a case can be made for the SET being a mechanism of God's creation as it also ensures life can adapt and survive so in that sense has some direction. Obviously, if you ask any person who supports theistic evolution they will tell you that God uses evolution as part of his creation in some shape or form. So it doesn't really matter how evolution is viewed as far as God's creation is concerned.

But the important factor in using scientific evidence for God's creation is that there will never be enough evidence to prove God directly and therefore one cannot use that as a basis for proving God. Faith is the key component and if there was enough scientific evidence to prove God then there would be no need for faith. Yet the Bible tells us that faith is the most important thing to our relationship with God. So my faith is not dependent on proving God through evolution.

 

[VirOptimus]

I feel this is a loaded question. No matter how I answer it I am going to cop it. I don't think it is the right thread to debate this question as I wanted to focus on the science that supports the EES. In saying that my personal view is that if God is the creator then as the Bible says His creation is known to all whether that be just in nature itself (the universe, the ecosystems, or the workings of the living cell.

I think the EES forces bring direction to evolution which shows that living things are equipped with mechanisms that ensure their survival. But a case can be made for the SET being a mechanism of God's creation as it also ensures life can adapt and survive so in that sense has some direction. Obviously, if you ask any person who supports theistic evolution they will tell you that God uses evolution as part of his creation in some shape or form. So it doesn't really matter how evolution is viewed as far as God's creation is concerned.

But the important factor in using scientific evidence for God's creation is that there will never be enough evidence to prove God directly and therefore one cannot use that as a basis for proving God. Faith is the key component and if there was enough scientific evidence to prove God then there would be no need for faith. Yet the Bible tells us that faith is the most important thing to our relationship with God. So my faith is not dependent on proving God through evolution.

Your non-answer says plenty.

 

[stevevw]

Your non-answer says plenty.

As you have persisted with this line of argument I thought a bit of context is needed. So the majority of people in the US believe in God. As of 2019 around 81% of people in the US support evolution. But of that 81%, nearly half (48%) say God or a higher power was involved in some way and a further 18% say evolution didn't happen at all. So around 66% believe God is involved in how life came to be. I seem to fit into the 48% that support evolution but say God or a higher power was involved in some way. I would say I large % would support a form of theistic evolution. So it seems I am in the majority. If you step outside the US in most countries the % in favour of evolution goes down and belief in God goes up.

Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study. This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[Bungle_Bear]

If you step outside the US in most countries the % in favour of evolution goes down and belief in God goes up.

Evidence please.

 

[VirOptimus]

As you have persisted with this line of argument I thought a bit of context is needed. So the majority of people in the US believe in God. As of 2019 around 81% of people in the US support evolution. But of that 81%, nearly half (48%) say God or a higher power was involved in some way and a further 18% say evolution didn't happen at all. So around 66% believe God is involved in how life came to be. I seem to fit into the 48% that support evolution but say God or a higher power was involved in some way. I would say I large % would support a form of theistic evolution. So it seems I am in the majority. If you step outside the US in most countries the % in favour of evolution goes down and belief in God goes up.

Roughly eight-in-ten U.S. adults (81%) say humans have evolved over time, according to data from a new Pew Research Center study. This includes one-third of all Americans (33%) who say that humans evolved due to processes like natural selection with no involvement by God or a higher power, along with 48% who believe human evolution occurred through processes guided or allowed by God or a higher power. The same survey found that 18% of Americans reject evolution entirely, saying humans have always existed in their present form. (See the full report for a deeper look at the ways question wording and format can affect survey results on evolution.)
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

And this is relevant how?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Steve, any chance of you giving examples of the posts in this thread you say are trying to discredit the EES?

 

[stevevw]

And this is relevant how?

You asked if the EES opens up a way for God in Evolution. My answer explained how people of faith have different views about fitting God and evolution together but primarily they will believe God is the creator of life so God is involved somewhere. You said this was a nonanswer.

I gave the context showing how most people have a similar view to myself so my non-answer as you say is a common answer and the only way to answer your question. So for me and millions of others, it is not a non-answer but a realistic one as far as faith in God and evolution is concerned. So I don't know what else I can do to answer your question.

 

[stevevw]

Evidence please.

This comes from the same link I used for VirOptimus IE

Outside the U.S., there are many other countries where sizable shares of the population reject evolution. In Latin America, for example, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution. In Central and Eastern Europe, evolution is broadly accepted, but roughly half or more of adults in two countries – Armenia and Bosnia – reject it. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Iraq reject evolution.
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

 

[VirOptimus]

You asked if the EES opens up a way for God in Evolution. My answer explained how people of faith have different views about fitting God and evolution together but primarily they will believe God is the creator of life so God is involved somewhere. You said this was a nonanswer.

I gave the context showing how most people have a similar view to myself so my non-answer as you say is a common answer and the only way to answer your question. So for me and millions of others, it is not a non-answer but a realistic one as far as faith in God and evolution is concerned. So I don't know what else I can do to answer your question.

But its wholly irrelevant for science. Your inability to understand this is one of the reasons why you are never going to be taken seriously.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

This comes from the same link I used for VirOptimus IE

Outside the U.S., there are many other countries where sizable shares of the population reject evolution. In Latin America, for example, roughly four-in-ten or more residents of several countries – including Ecuador, Nicaragua and the Dominican Republic – say humans and other living things have always existed in their present form. This is true even though the official teachings of Catholicism, which is the majority religion in the region, do not reject evolution. In Central and Eastern Europe, evolution is broadly accepted, but roughly half or more of adults in two countries – Armenia and Bosnia – reject it. Meanwhile, Muslims in many nations are divided on the topic, although majorities of Muslims in countries such as Afghanistan, Indonesia, and Iraq reject evolution.
For Darwin Day, 6 facts about the evolution debate

You obviously didn't understand the article. It does not say what you claim it says, hence my asking you for evidence in support of your claim.

Your claim: "If you step outside the US in most countries the % in favour of evolution goes down and belief in God goes up."
What the article says: Many countries reject evolution, but likewise many countries have higher acceptance than US. There is no comment on belief in God.

However, other statistics support the argument that while Christianity in its various forms constitutes the largest religion in the world, it is not the religion of the majority of people.

You failed on both premises of your assertion. You might want to take more time in future to understand the articles you read.

 

[stevevw]

Steve, any chance of you giving examples of the posts in this thread you say are trying to discredit the EES?

Yeah, I will get to it, just a bit busy at the moment to go back over thread. Will try and get to this later this week or tomorrow if I can.
Regards
Steve