[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

Cite the research from their papers which proves that mainstream evolutionary theory asserts that natural selection is the only cause of evolution.

Ok there is a number of them. IE

For biologists schooled in population genetic or quantitative genetic thinking, the starting point for evolutionary analyses is the selection pressures [94].

A widely accepted definition of evolution is change in the genetic composition of populations, which, to many evolutionary biologists, restrict evolutionary processes to those that directly change gene frequencies—natural selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation.

Contemporary evolutionary biology textbooks support this interpretation (see the electronic supplementary material, table S1). Only selection, drift, gene flow, and mutation are consistently described as evolutionary processes, and coverage of developmental bias, plasticity, inclusive inheritance, and niche construction is at best modest (e.g. [95]) and, more commonly, absent [96,97]. What coverage does occur is typically given the traditional interpretation outlined above.
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

The Modern Synthesis (MS) emerged in the first half of the twentieth century, with the integration of Darwinian natural selection, population-level thinking and Mendelian inheritance, and has provided the dominant conceptual framework for evolutionary biology [4,5]. It is rightly regarded as one of the major achievements of biology and led to the widespread adoption of several core assumptions [6] (table 1). These include: natural selection is the sole explanation for adaptation;
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2015.1019

The familiar representation – the one we find in textbooks – is the genetic theory of evolution by natural selection.
The standard response at this stage is to point out that any adaptive directionality in evolution caused by plasticity, niche construction, and extra-genetic inheritance can, in fact, be explained by natural selection in the past. How else could something like niche construction improve the fit between organism and environment? This response views causation according to Mayr’s proximate-ultimate distinction. Natural selection is viewed an ultimate cause, responsible for the adaptive fit between organism and environment.
How do living beings fulfil the conditions for evolution by natural selection? – Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

The above also talks about natural selection (adaptations) as being 'Lewontin’s conditions affects what counts as an evolutionary explanation'. So only natural selection is recognized as the forces that adapt variations to environments according to Lewontin and Mayr who are both prominent supporters of the MS.

The above is pointing out that according to Pievani also a prominent MS supporter the core of evolution is the genetic population theory of natural selection. This is based on gradualism and adaptationism.

The following paper is probably the best for showing how natural selection (adaptionism by NS) is made the prominent cause of evolution. But also how despite claims that classical evolution has included the new influences in the way the EES views evolution they still basically retain the same view as the MS in that evolution change only comes through random gene change and adaptive variations are determined by natural selection alone that directs evolution.

Even though claims have been made that classical evolutionary biology has continuously incorporated aspects from new conceptual domains [33,36], the majority of tenets and explanations that appear in characterizations of the current theory are still derived from the MS account and its population genetic principles [37].

In a condensed form, these tenets are as follows: (i) all evolutionary explanation requires the study of populations of organisms; (ii) populations contain genetic variation that arises randomly from mutation and recombination; (iii) populations evolve by changes in gene frequency brought about by natural selection, gene flow and drift; (iv) genetic variants generate slight phenotypic effects and the resulting phenotypic variation is gradual and continuous; (v) genetic inheritance alone accounts for the transmission of selectable variation; (vi) new species arise by a prevention of gene flow between populations that evolve differently; (vii) the phenotypic differences that distinguish higher taxa result from the incremental accumulation of genetic variation; (viii) natural selection represents the only directional factor in evolution. For a more extensive description of tenets see Futuyma [37].

As can be noted from the listed principles, current evolutionary theory is predominantly oriented towards a genetic explanation of variation, and, except for some minor semantic modifications, this has not changed over the past seven or eight decades. Whatever lip service is paid to taking into account other factors than those traditionally accepted, we find that the theory, as presented in extant writings, concentrates on a limited set of evolutionary explananda, excluding the majority of those mentioned among the explanatory goals above.

Connected with the gradualist requirement of the MS theory is the deeply entrenched notion of adaptation. Again, we are confronted with a feature of the classical theory that has been criticized repeatedly in the past, both on empirical and theoretical grounds [30,41] but also on the basis of modern results of genetics [22].

the notion most frequently encountered is still that of a collection of features that make up the organism, each one individually adapted to performing a function in the way best suited for the organism's survival, a picture that has been described as ‘bundles of discrete adaptations.’ This view was neither eliminated by Dobzhansky's alternative view, in which he interpreted populations as states of relative adaptedness [30], nor by the demonstration of the frequent occurrence of non-adaptive traits.

And here's how it ties in natural selection as the sole force but how this has been the subject of criticism. So therefore it seems to be a well-known contention which I have mentioned before (Gould) for example questioning NS being made the cause of all evolutionary change.

Natural selection, the cornerstone of the MS theory so intimately linked to both gradualism and adaptationism, has itself been the subject of a fair share of critical debate. In this case, it is not so much the principle itself that is contested, but the uniqueness of the causal agency that has been ascribed to it.
Again we are confronted with a classical criticism that stood at the centre of multiple debates in the past [42], but the issue is as unresolved as ever.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary

In other words how it is made the sole force for adaptive evolution.
There are many more so all these authors of peer-reviewed papers cannot be lying or using hyperbole as you say.

 

[stevevw]

I don't deny what I actually said - I just asked you to quote me instead of putting words in my mouth - because your interpretations are demonstrably poor.

The incoherent nonsense was this: "Even you have said when I claimed that I have never seen anyone on this forum talk about the EES."

The point is I didn't make it up. But I will quote you word for word next time.

 

[stevevw]

I thought the leader from last week's New Scientist (Issue #3301) focusing on evolution was pertinent to the thread:

"... we should resist the temptation to think that evolution is carved in tablets of stone. The radical but irresistible ideas put forward by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace in 1859 remain the core of the theory, yet it has constantly accommodated new knowledge. This happened most conspicuously about a century ago, when the new science of genetics was melded with natural selection to create what became known as the “modern synthesis”.​

Today, we are arguably in the midst of another upgrade. Over the past 30 years, discoveries in developmental biology, epigenetics and elsewhere have needed to be brought under the wing of evolution. As our special report on Evolution is evolving: 13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature shows, they largely have been. Only hindsight will be able to judge whether what emerges is Evolution 3.0, or merely Modern Synthesis 1.1. If nothing else, the flurry of activity is proof that evolution – and hence biological science – is a vibrant, living-and-breathing entity still in its prime."
[My bolding]
​

'Nuff said.

This article would be interesting except its behind a paywall.

 

[stevevw]

A description which has been oversimplified for rhetorical purposes, not intended to be an exact scientific description of SET, as the context of the paper shows. But even so, it only describes natural selection as a cause of adaptation, not a sole cause of evolution as you claimed.

The point is they go into more detail as to how the SET takes the narrow view of evolution and then use examples of comparing this to the EES which lends even more weight to what they say. So despite using these core descriptors and general structures and assumptions of the SET they back themselves up if you read the paper.

 

[Speedwell]

The point is they go into more detail as to how the SET takes the narrow view of evolution and then use examples of comparing this to the EES which lends even more weight to what they say. So despite using these core descriptors and general structures and assumptions of the SET they back themselves up if you read the paper.

Yes, you rely very heavily on that Royal Society paper, but I would be more prone to believe you if you could find an SET source which claimed that natural selection is the only cause of evolution, rather than a non-SET source which claimed that the SET claimed it, if you see what I mean.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

This article would be interesting except its behind a paywall.

The leader makes the relevant point. The "13 ways we must rethink the theory of nature" include the processes mentioned in the EES articles and more.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, you rely very heavily on that Royal Society paper,

If you go back and check you will see that I posted 1/2 a dozen different papers for the support and you also overlook that those papers have links to other non-EES papers that they use as their support. But I am interested that earlier you said you believed the authors. Are you now saying they are making things up? Like I said they based what they said on their research and what was commonly known about how the SET and mainstream saw evolution.

but I would be more prone to believe you if you could find an SET source which claimed that natural selection is the only cause of evolution, rather than a non-SET source which claimed that the SET claimed it if you see what I mean.

That is pretty easy to do. Like I said this has been an ongoing issue in evolution for a long time and despite claims that the view has changed with the new discoveries the actual core view of evolution within the MS still holds the Neo Darwinistic (adaptive) take on things.

This is what I was mentioning earlier with how Gould and Lewontin pointed this out with their paper "The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme. They mentioned that
adaptationists see natural selection as the only and all-powerful force that can overcome any constraint to species' traits.
"The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme" (1979), by Stephen J. Gould and Richard C. Lewontin | The Embryo Project Encyclopedia

It seems according to many this view is still widely taken today. IE

The common perception of the Fisherian idea that selection is an Omni-powerful force, which always brings a population to the maximum fitness peak available in the adaptive landscape
The fall and rise of Dr Pangloss: adaptationism and the Spandrels paper 20 years later - ScienceDirect

In recent work in evolutionary genomics, the challenge to adaptationism has been extended and forcefully urged in the biological literature by Lynch ([2007a], [2007b]; Lynch and Conery [2003]) and Koonin ([2009], [2012]), among others (for example, Maeso et al. ([2012]) and (Stoltzfus [2012])).

In what follows, empirical adaptationism will be taken to require only that the operation of natural selection is paramount and constitutes a sufficient explanation of a trait, that is, it will correspond to what Lewens ([2009]) called pan-selectionism. This choice is standard in recent discussions of evolution at the genomic level (for example, Barrett and Hoekstra [2011]);
Genomic Challenge to Adaptationism

This has caused several prominent evolutionary scientists to challenge this common adaptive view and they would not be making it a point if it wasn't common and still being held by many IE

Lynch tells it the best
Evolutionary biology is treated unlike any science by both academics and the general public. For the average person, evolution is equivalent to natural selection

the myth that all of evolution can be explained by adaptation continues to be perpetuated by our continued homage to Darwin's treatise (6) in the popular literature.

The literature is permeated with dogmatic statements that natural selection is the only guiding force of evolution, with mutation creating variation but never controlling the ultimate direction of evolutionary change (for a review, see ref. 17).
The frailty of adaptive hypotheses for the origins of organismal complexity

Evolutionary-genomic studies show that natural selection is only one of the forces that shape genome evolution and is not quantitatively dominant, whereas non-adaptive processes are much more prominent than previously suspected.
Darwinian evolution in the light of genomics - PubMed

Here are a few other mainstream papers that say similar things.

today’s mainstream evolutionary theory is generally “adaptationist” in that it invokes natural selection as either the only significant cause of evolution (adaptation) or at least its primary agent.
The middle way of evolution

Since Darwin’s work, the designator “evolution” has been typically, if not exclusively, linked with the theory of natural selection as the primary cause by which such species change has occurred over historical time.
Evolutionary Thought Before Darwin (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

Natural selection is the only mechanism that consistently causes adaptive evolution.
122 [Study Guide] 23-3 How Evolution Occurs
massasoit.instructure.com › courses › files › download

 

[Speedwell]

If you go back and check you will see that I posted 1/2 a dozen different papers for the support and you also overlook that those papers have links to other non-EES papers that they use as their support. But I am interested that earlier you said you believed the authors.

That was just a rhetorical jab--I guess you missed it. My options were to believe the authors were wrong or you were wrong. The choice was not difficult.

But I still don't get what you are up to. You are leading us through a morass of cherry-picked quotes to prove that mainstream evolutionary biologists are steadfastly resisting the idea that evolution has any other cause than natural selection. You've gone to a lot of trouble over this (or come across an ID quote mine, which think is more likely) but you never provide a convincing reason. If you remember, I was willing to concede your argument about the status of natural selection some time ago just to get you to move on to the next premise, but you don't seem to be able to.

 

[stevevw]

That was just a rhetorical jab--I guess you missed it. My options were to believe the authors were wrong or you were wrong. The choice was not difficult.

But that is illogical as I am saying the same thing as the authors. So if I am wrong then it logically follows that the authors are wrong. The problem is you did think the authors or papers were wrong when you said
"I would be more prone to believe you if you could find an SET source which claimed that natural selection is the only cause of evolution, rather than a non-SET source which claimed that the SET claimed it"

That implies you are suspect of the EES authors and papers and want some unbiased evidence from a SET source for which I supplied. Now you are still not satisfied and are changing the goalposts again.

But I still don't get what you are up to. You are leading us through a morass of cherry-picked quotes to prove that mainstream evolutionary biologists are steadfastly resisting the idea that evolution has any other cause than natural selection. You've gone to a lot of trouble over this

As I stated above and earlier I was forced to take the long road in supporting what I said because it was denied and people said I was wrong and that I was simplifying, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting things.

(or come across an ID quote mine, which think is more likely)

Actually I have not supplied any ID quote mines. They are all from mainstream authors and papers.

but you never provide a convincing reason. If you remember, I was willing to concede your argument about the status of natural selection some time ago just to get you to move on to the next premise, but you don't seem to be able to.

As stated already this thread was taken down the long road and forcing me to go to great lengths to support what I said. But from memory, I did explain why I started the thread. As I said rather than me holding a misrepresentation of evolution, it is the 'mainstream evolutionary view' that is misrepresenting what is actually happening in how life changes/evolves according to the EES papers. This limits evolution and leads to limited knowledge.

I guess as Lynch stated I am challenging the dogma. I agree that at times I may have taken a hard line but sometimes that is needed. Within the EES view, there is a range of views. There are those who are non-religious who take an even harder line than me in saying Natural selection is not necessary at all and is a political idea that was injected into evolution rather than a true representation of evolutionary change.

I don't go to that extent but acknowledge I may be a little right of center. The point is all these views claim to have the support and come from scientists. I agree that the SET is beginning to include the forces that the EES emphasize but it is about degrees of acceptance for them being actual causes of evolution rather than explanations of why adaptive evolution hasn't occurred or is constrained. So that may be a cause of misunderstanding and contention as well.

But I am coming from a purely scientific angle and therefore have not injected religion or belief in God into this at all. I think that is a completely different argument and more about philosophy than science. As I stated earlier my area of study includes ideas like the EES in taking a pluralistic approach to evolution which will include subjects I studied like psychology and sociology.

I think you are wanting me to admit that the only reason I take my position is for religious reasons. But that is illogical as the position on the EES cannot be supported by belief or God. It seems that if you show that my only motivation is belief this will somehow negate any scientific evidence shown. But that's illogical as well.

So I could say the same thing as to why some are so eager and persistent to link me to religion and belief in God when that is irrelevant to supporting what the EES is saying.

 

[VirOptimus]

But that is illogical as I am saying the same thing as the authors. So if I am wrong then it logically follows that the authors are wrong. The problem is you did think the authors or papers were wrong when you said
"I would be more prone to believe you if you could find an SET source which claimed that natural selection is the only cause of evolution, rather than a non-SET source which claimed that the SET claimed it"

That implies you are suspect of the EES authors and papers and want some unbiased evidence from a SET source for which I supplied. Now you are still not satisfied and are changing the goalposts again.

As I stated above and earlier I was forced to take the long road in supporting what I said because it was denied and people said I was wrong and that I was simplifying, misunderstanding, or misrepresenting things. Actually I have not supplied any ID quote mines. They are all from mainstream authors and papers. As stated already this thread was taken down the long road and forcing me to go to great lengths to support what I said. But from memory, I did explain why I started the thread. As I said rather than me having a misrepresentation of evolution as the EES papers have said it is the 'mainstream evolutionary view' that is misrepresenting what is actually happening in how life changes/evolves. This limits things and leads to limited knowledge.

I guess as Lynch stated I am challenging the dogma. I agree that at times I may have taken a hard line but sometimes that is needed. Within the EES view, there is a range of views. There are those who are non-religious who take an even harder line than me in saying Natural selection is not necessary at all and is a political idea that was injected into evolution rather than a true representation of evolutionary change.

I don't go to that extent but acknowledge I may be a little right of center. The point is all these views claim to have the support and come from scientists. I agree that the SET is beginning to include the forces that the EES mention but it is about degrees of acceptance for them being actual causes of evolution. So that may be a cause of misunderstanding and contention as well.

But I am coming from a purely scientific angle and therefore have not injected religion or belief in God into this at all. I think that is a completely different argument and more about philosophy than science. As I stated earlier my area of study includes ideas like the EES in taking a pluralistic approach to evolution which will include subjects I studied like psychology and sociology. So I more inclined to see things holistically then take the narrow view I am challenging.

I think you are wanting me to admit that the only reason I take my position is for religious reasons. But that is illogical as the position on the EES cannot be supported by belief or God. It seems that if you show that my only motivation is belief this will somehow negate any scientific evidence shown. But that's illogical as well.

So I could say the same thing as to why some are so eager and persistent to link me to religion and belief in God when that is irrelevant to supporting what the EES is saying.

Sure sure.

A poster with a history of religiously motivated posts (by his own admission and shown by quotes upthread) on the ToE, who even has openly supported irreducible complexity and other ID nonsense just happen, by accident, post known ID talking points on a religious discussion board.

That sounds really convincing.

Your tagline "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." also shows your religous intent.

 

[stevevw]

Sure sure.

A poster with a history of religiously motivated posts (by his own admission and shown by quotes upthread) on the ToE, who even has openly supported irreducible complexity and other ID nonsense just happen, by accident, post known ID talking points on a religious discussion board.

That sounds really convincing.

Your tagline "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." also shows your religous intent.

Lol as I was writing the post I knew it was going to bring you out from the shadows. That's the only time you ever contribute to a post when you want to attack religious people's intent and motives. According to your logic, anyone that utters anything about God as a creator is disqualified from talking about scientific ideas, and anything they say is unfounded by their beliefs. Under that criterion that would exclude Charles Darwin who said

“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

Or Albert Einstein who said
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”

or Lord William Kelvin
“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

what about Werner Heisenberg Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

 

[VirOptimus]

Lol as I was writing the post I knew it was going to bring you out from the shadows. That's the only time you ever contribute to a post when you want to attack religious people's intent and motives. According to your logic, anyone that utters anything about God as a creator is disqualified from talking about scientific ideas, and anything they say is unfounded by their beliefs. Under that criterion that would exclude Charles Darwin who said

“The question of whether there exists a Creator and Ruler of the Universe has been answered in the affirmative by some of the highest intellects that have ever existed.”

Or Albert Einstein who said
“The more I study science, the more I believe in God.”

or Lord William Kelvin
“If you study science deep enough and long enough, it will force you to believe in God.”

what about Werner Heisenberg Nobel Prize in Physics for the creation of quantum mechanics
“The first gulp from the glass of natural sciences will turn you into an atheist, but at the bottom of the glass God is waiting for you.”

To close to home?

 

[Speedwell]

Actually I have not supplied any ID quote mines. They are all from mainstream authors and papers.

And you researched them all yourself one by one. Good. But you could have saved yourself the trouble, because they can all be found together in quote mines at ID propaganda sites.

As stated already this thread was taken down the long road and forcing me to go to great lengths to support what I said. But from memory, I did explain why I started the thread. As I said rather than me holding a misrepresentation of evolution, it is the 'mainstream evolutionary view' that is misrepresenting what is actually happening in how life changes/evolves according to the EES papers. This limits evolution and leads to limited knowledge.

I guess as Lynch stated I am challenging the dogma. I agree that at times I may have taken a hard line but sometimes that is needed. Within the EES view, there is a range of views. There are those who are non-religious who take an even harder line than me in saying Natural selection is not necessary at all and is a political idea that was injected into evolution rather than a true representation of evolutionary change.

I don't go to that extent but acknowledge I may be a little right of center. The point is all these views claim to have the support and come from scientists. I agree that the SET is beginning to include the forces that the EES emphasize but it is about degrees of acceptance for them being actual causes of evolution rather than explanations of why adaptive evolution hasn't occurred or is constrained. So that may be a cause of misunderstanding and contention as well.

But I am coming from a purely scientific angle and therefore have not injected religion or belief in God into this at all. I think that is a completely different argument and more about philosophy than science. As I stated earlier my area of study includes ideas like the EES in taking a pluralistic approach to evolution which will include subjects I studied like psychology and sociology.

I think you are wanting me to admit that the only reason I take my position is for religious reasons. But that is illogical as the position on the EES cannot be supported by belief or God. It seems that if you show that my only motivation is belief this will somehow negate any scientific evidence shown. But that's illogical as well.

So I could say the same thing as to why some are so eager and persistent to link me to religion and belief in God when that is irrelevant to supporting what the EES is saying.

Because your arguments could well have come right out of the Discovery Institute playbook.

 

[stevevw]

And you researched them all yourself one by one. Good.

Yes and I pride myself on the level of research I do. I would have thought by the amount of info posted with detail and my commentary would have shown that this is not just some quick and simple exercise of finding quotes from religious sites. The bulk of my info comes from the site the EES setup (which is not a religious site) and more or less has all the info I have posted so far.
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program

As far as I understand IDists use certain quotes from science sites to prop up their religious claims, not the science claims. How have I been making any claims about religion or God? I think you are drawing a longbow.

But you could have saved yourself the trouble because they can all be found together in quote mines at ID propaganda sites. Because your arguments could well have come right out of the Discovery Institute playbook.

I disagree. The arguments are directly from the EES papers which have a completely different basis for doing their research with different arguments, assumptions, and predictions. As far as I understand ID has its own predictions that have nothing to do with the EES or what I have posted. If you claim what I have said comes directly from IDist quotes then that would mean the EES and its scientists are IDists which I doubt very much.

But what I cannot still understand anyway is why is linking what I have posted with IDists going to make any difference to what the EES has said. What effect does it have on the science of the EES? How does it diminish the facts of what is said? This is all an ad hominem logical fallacy anyway.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes and I pride myself on the level of research I do. I would have thought by the amount of info posted with detail and my commentary would have shown that this is not just some quick and simple exercise of finding quotes from religious sites. The bulk of my info comes from the site the EES setup (which is not a religious site) and more or less has all the info I have posted so far.
Extended Evolutionary Synthesis – An integrative research program

As far as I understand IDists use certain quotes from science sites to prop up their religious claims, not the science claims. How have I been making any claims about religion or God? I think you are drawing a longbow.
I disagree. The arguments are directly from the EES papers which have a completely different basis for doing their research with different arguments, assumptions, and predictions. As far as I understand ID has its own predictions that have nothing to do with the EES or what I have posted. If you claim what I have said comes directly from IDist quotes then that would mean the EES and its scientists are IDists which I doubt very much.

You evidently don't know what a quote mine is. A quote mine is a list of quotations from one's opponents, selected carefully and removed from context if necessary to give the impression that they support your position rather than their own. When I say that your quotes can be found in ID quote mine I don't mean to imply that the authors of the quotes are IDists, but that the quotes have been selected by IDists for rhetorical purposes.

But what I cannot still understand anyway is why is linking what I have posted with IDists going to make any difference to what the EES has said. What effect does it have on the science of the EES? How does it diminish the facts of what is said? This is all an ad hominem logical fallacy anyway.

Because IDists cannot be trusted to argue honestly. That is not an ad hominem fallacy, it is an observable fact. But no one is trying to diminish what EES has said. We are wondering why you are so interested in blowing up the differences between SET and EES into a hostile controversy. That's what IDists do. That's why I ask, why are you doing it?

 

[stevevw]

You evidently don't know what a quote mine is. A quote mine is a list of quotations from one's opponents, selected carefully and removed from context if necessary to give the impression that they support your position rather than their own. When I say that your quotes can be found in ID quote mine I don't mean to imply that the authors of the quotes are IDists, but that the quotes have been selected by IDists for rhetorical purposes.

But isn't a quote mine a small quote that is out of context to support a totally different claim. In the case of IDists it would be for supporting a religious claim. I don't think I am doing anything like that. I haven't made any religious claims. I haven't posted small quotes out of context but rather large sections of the papers with commentary explaining things, not in religious terms but in scientific ones even if some may think I am wrong. But that's irrelevant.

Because IDists cannot be trusted to argue honestly. That is not an ad hominem fallacy, it is an observable fact.

No its an assumption and fallacy as you cannot possibly know that all IDists argue dishonestly. So it's still an Ad Hominum because regardless of what you think of the source you still need base things on the content and the argument made itself and not automatically dismiss things based on assumptions.

How do you know what the specific content and argument are for that situation if you make a prior judgment not to even look at it based on a preconception? Plus this seems like bias and prejudice in that you only think that certain groups are dishonest and you are honest. All people can be prone to dishonesty in arguments in order for them to win. It's like a religious person = liar and wrong and science position = right and honest.

But no one is trying to diminish what EES has said.

I am not sure that is true. It seems you don't believe the EES papers and authors and this only came out recently after many posts. I mean you have already conceded that the EES papers have supported what I claimed so why claim that I am using IDists as support. You question the EES paper's claims and legitimacy as well so how is this about ID.

We are wondering why you are so interested in blowing up the differences between SET and EES into a hostile controversy. That's what IDists do. That's why I ask, why are you doing it?

No I am not trying to blow anything up. Like I said I think from the outset some were making it an issue when I wasn't. They immediately attacked me without even looking at the content. So I want to cause this blow-up but those others and I was put on the defensive right from the start. That in itself points to bias and prejudgement. Of course, anyone who is attacked like that is going to defend things.

 

[Speedwell]

But isn't a quote mine a small quote that is out of context to support a totally different claim.

It can be a quotaton of any length.

In the case of IDists it would be for supporting a religious claim. I don't think I am doing anything like that. I haven't made any religious claims. I haven't posted small quotes out of context but rather large sections of the papers with commentary explaining things, not in religious terms but in scientific ones even if some may think I am wrong. But that's irrelevant.

But you were following the IDist line of argument so closely that we were getting impatient for the anticipated religious conclusion

No it's still an Ad Hominum because regardless of what you think of the source you still need base things on the content and the argument made itself and not automatically dismiss things. How do you know what the specific content and argument are for that situation if you make a prior judgment not to even look at it based on a preconception? I am not sure that is true. It seems you don't believe the EES papers and authors and this only came out recently after many posts.

No, I'm just not entirely convinced by your interpretation of them.

I mean you have already conceded that the EES papers have supported what I claimed so why claim that I am using IDists as support.

I'm not claiming that you are using IDists as support; I am saying that you appear to be using legitimate EES material as an IDist would.

You question the EES paper's claims and legitimacy as well so how is this about ID. No I am not trying to blow anything up. Like I said I think from the outset some were making it an issue when I wasn't. They immediately attacked me without even looking at the content. So I want to cause this blow-up but those others and I was put on the defensive right from the start. That in itself points to bias and prejudgement. Of course, anyone who is attacked like that is going to defend things.

And I am not saying so. What I am saying is that whatever your real motivation, you came on to us like an IDist would using a well-known IDist line of argument (you know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...) and that is why you got the reaction you did...

 

[stevevw]

It can be a quotation of any length. But you were following the IDist line of argument so closely that we were getting impatient for the anticipated religious conclusion

Well the definition says at most a passage which is not a large section. But as I stated the quote is usually connected to an unrelated claim. If you go back and check what I was saying you will see that along with the claim such as 'that mainstream evolutionary view was narrow' I was also explained why that was so using other sections from the same paper and why the pluralistic view made more sense. I even had commentary without any quotes along the same lines. So I cannot see how you can make these conclusions but only that you have assumed this and made a biased judgment.

No, I'm just not entirely convinced by your interpretation of them.

But my interpretation is that of the EES at least as far as my basic argument about the differences in how the EES and the SET see the causes of evolution according to what the papers say. [/quote] I'm not claiming that you are using IDists as support; I am saying that you appear to be using legitimate EES material as an IDist would. [/quote] But an IDists would have some reason. They would be making a claim about something religious. I haven't done this so I cannot see how you are justifying this.

But you missed my point. I was referring to how you said
but I would be more prone to believe you if you could find an SET source which claimed that natural selection is the only cause of evolution, rather than a non-SET source which claimed that the SET claimed it

So you are more or less acknowledging that the EES papers back what I was saying but you wanted further evidence such as from a non-EES paper. In some ways, you are boxing the EES papers and authors like IDists. But nevertheless, I supplied that info all from non-religious sources, and still, you want to link it to IDIsts. Yet you have already conceded that a non IDists and religious source is supporting what I am saying. So why would I need any IDist or reason from an IDists source?

And I am not saying so. What I am saying is that whatever your real motivation, you came on to us like an IDist would using a well-known IDist line of argument (you know, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck...) and that is why you got the reaction you did...

OK well as far as I am concerned that is not the case. But let's say it is, so what. How does that negate what I said?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I found it telling that the people who literally wrote the book on niche construction (Odling-Smee, Laland, & Feldman: "Niche Construction: The Neglected Process in Evolution" - Monographs in Population Biology #37) say that it transforms the sources of natural selection, which is clearly very different from the repeated claim in this forum that 'EES says that' niche construction and the other 'EES forces' are causally 'on a par' with natural selection (a claim, incidentally, nowhere to be found in the quoted articles).

This suggests that the fundamental misunderstanding of the evolutionary process - the relationship between heritable variation and natural selection, pointed out early on, still persists.

 

[Speedwell]

OK well as far as I am concerned that is not the case. But let's say it is, so what. How does that negate what I said?

It doesn't necessarily, although I think you exaggerate (just like the ID crowd) the response of SET proponents to the new ideas of EES and I wonder why that is. No, the resemblance of your arguments to ID propaganda doesn't necessarily negate them. What it does do is explain the level of resistance you encountered.

Now, if you wanted to discuss the emergence of EES and its gradual acceptance by SET in a serious way without trying to "prove" that there is a serious controversy between them that would be a different thing altogether.