[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

See post 135.

So you are an atheist crusader helping rid the world of those nasty Christians who don't understand evolution. I went through this before with you. First, those posts are 6 years old. As I said back then I was discovering things and were open to change. But if you read those posts in detail you will see the I have had the same basic view all along that evolution happens. I am probably more of a theistic evolutionist today but that keeps changing as time goes by. I would imagine thats the same for most people so you cannot judge people on something that happened 6 years ago anyway.

But anyway that wasn't my question. I wanted to know why you bother to continually come into a thread without engaging only to discredit people and make accusations. It's rather negative and unproductive. It sort of tears down people and doesn't help them at all.

 

[VirOptimus]

So you are an atheist crusader helping rid the world of those nasty Christians who don't understand evolution. First those posts you links are 6 years old. As I said back then I was discovering things and were open to change. But if you read those posts in detail you will see the I have had the same basic view all along that evolution happens. I am probably more of a theistic evolutionist today so you cannot judge people on something that happened 6 years ago anyway.

But that wasn't my question. I wanted to know why you bother to continually come into a thread without engaging only to discredit people and make accusations. It's rather negative and unproductive. It sort of tears down people and doesn't help them at all.

Im not interested in helping you.

 

[VirOptimus]

Like I said the thread was derailed into this semantics game based on the meaning of 1 word which somehow represented my entire position. Anyway, thank you for bringing things back on track.

Yes but you keep missing the point. Natural selections role will differ depending on how the variation is produced. Under the SET variations for new traits are randomly produced so NS is regarded as the sole force because it tests and sifts what variations will give some advantage to the environment. But what if the variation is not random and the outcome is always an advantage for survival and passing on traits. Then NS's role is biased and diminished. It is no longer the driving force of evolution. It not longer directs evolution in the same way the SET view things in adaptive evolution.

It changes explanations about evolution from adaptive ones where explanations are always about how organisms were adapted to environments and now include other explanations as mentioned by the EES as causes of evolution itself. Causes of the form change seen in the fossil records other than adaptive ones. That's a significant difference in the structure of evolution.

My understanding is that mutations happen randomly in regards to whether their effects are useful. Useful as in producing the right type of variation needed for a creature to adapt to their environment or give a fitness and survival advantage. So in that regards NS then becomes the determining factor in that it will test and sift those random mutational variations to weed out the bad and leave the good as far as environmental fit and fitness.

But if the EES forces can produce non-random variations that are already a benefit and suitable for environmental fit and don't produce any bad effects then whatever produced those variations is now the selecting force other than NS and therefore biasing NS and driving evolution.

The thing is the EES has been around for years now and many of those experiments have already been done and supported the claims if you read them. Some are just plain common sense. If a creature creatures its own environment or changes existing environments to suit its needs so that it can thrive and survive then it is dictating its own evolution and doesn't depend on being adapted to the environment. It has turned the process on its head and now is in the driving seat for its won evolution. Humans are the best at that in that they can just about do anything to survive regardless of NS.

But we are also getting to understand how living things have this ability of self-organization and how development systems can respond to environments and produce well-suited changes to help them adapt through developmental bias and plasticity. Or how behavior influences evolvability and this has a big bearing on how evolution works.

I disagree. Under the adaptive view first, the assumption is it happens through adaptations. Take the eye and how they explain how this came about. They cannot do experiments to show what happened back then. But the explanation is an adaptive one of trying to explain how each step in the transition was a benefit from random mutations that were preserved and gradually produced what we see today.

But when you look at it in detail there are many gaps in the explanations because it is impossible to explain how complex systems could have adapted step by step. Whereas expanding the explanations to include the EES forces makes more sense as this is about how there are also nonrandom processes that can produce further variations and complexity from existing genetic information. But we are only just getting to discover and learn this more in recent years and this is filling the explanatory gap left by the SET.

More ID/creationist crap.

 

[stevevw]

More ID/creationist crap.

Yet everything I said has been supported by papers from the EES which has nothing to do with creationism or ID.

 

[stevevw]

Im not interested in helping you.

I wasn't referring to helping me. I was talking about being decent and civilized when debating.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yet everything I said has been supported by papers from the EES which has nothing to do with creationism or ID.

No it hasnt.

And Im sure you get this crap from some ID source.

You very clearly dont understand the science or the papers you quote in your wall of text posts. And no matter how many try to correct you you keep posting the same errors again and again.

 

[stevevw]

Nevermind, other posters covered it earlier in the thread, but it seems the OP didn't listen.

Didn't listen to what

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I am not going to admit to something that was not a mistake.

If it wasn't a mistake it was intentional. I came out saying I didn't think you were dishonest, so I'm rather disappointed and surprised that I was wrong.

The rest of your post seems to indicate that I was right but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. However, if you want to imply it was intentional then so be it.

Let's be clear about this: it's your choice to say it was not a mistake and imply intention on your part. Your words, not mine. No misrepresentation, just exact quotation.

 

[stevevw]

If it wasn't a mistake it was intentional. I came out saying I didn't think you were dishonest, so I'm rather disappointed and surprised that I was wrong.

The rest of your post seems to indicate that I was right but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. However, if you want to imply it was intentional then so be it.

Let's be clear about this: it's your choice to say it was not a mistake and imply intention on your part. Your words, not mine. No misrepresentation, just exact quotation.

Then why don't you include the rest of my exact quotations. How can you say the rest of my post shows you are right. Are you reading the same thing. Now you are not only saying I have linguistic problems but am dishonest to cover your mistake. I can't believe it.

Here are the facts (and I will ask you if the following are an accurate representation of what occurred with each quote) So hopefully you will clarify if these are correct for me.

You tried to claim that I said that random mutations are the only way variations come about according to the mainstream evolution theory. (is this an accurate statement from you)

You did this by claiming my words "only highlights" were not the same meaning as the main source of variation according to the link I attached under that quote of mine. (is this an accurate statement from you)

I said "only Highlights" had the same meaning as 'main' and that was my position. (is this an accurate statement from me)

Directly under the link stating random mutations is the main source was the rest of my explanation that you should have also included which said

This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

So to summarize I said
mainstream evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutations as the source of variations and other sources are not highlighted.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

That clarifies the word ONLY Highlights as talking about one variation (Random mutations) being highlighted as opposed to other variations.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

To further clarify my position I also posted this quote of mine from the previous exchange between me and speedwell on the same subject

according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

But you said I DONT CARE ABOUT THESE POSTS
(is this an accurate statement from you)

So there was no mistake or intentional mistake and it only appears a mistake to you because you have isolated my words (one word) and refused to include the rest which shows there is no mistake and I was clear on my position and have always been.

To avoid you twisting things I will ask you a simple question that requires an honest answer

do I or don't I acknowledge that other sources of evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED and that random mutations are the main source of evolution in the above quotes of mine that were part of the same conversation on that topic?

I bet you don't answer this

 

[Ophiolite]

If it wasn't a mistake it was intentional. I came out saying I didn't think you were dishonest, so I'm rather disappointed and surprised that I was wrong.

The rest of your post seems to indicate that I was right but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. However, if you want to imply it was intentional then so be it.

Let's be clear about this: it's your choice to say it was not a mistake and imply intention on your part. Your words, not mine. No misrepresentation, just exact quotation.

I think you are demanding a precision of writing that is unusual from anyone and difficult to sustain, with consistency, over multiple posts, spanning weeks of time and involving mutliple people.

You give the impression of being more intent on showing up @stevew than of challenging his arguments. This is both unseemly and unproductive. I urge you to return to a focus on the meat of the matter, rather than how that meat is served.

 

[pitabread]

Didn't listen to what

It had to do with your overly simplistic characterization of current evolutionary theory. You appear to be grossly simplifying mechanisms therein to the point of constructing a strawman version of evolution; but others have already gone over this with you.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes but you keep missing the point. Natural selection's role will differ depending on how the variation is produced and because NS is the driving force of evolution under the SET this will make a big difference in how evolution works depending on how variations are produced.

I don't see why. A creature will either survive long enough to reproduce or it will not; that's all the influence natural selection has. It doesn't matter how the variations are produced or whether they are already suitable for reproductive success or not,

Under the SET variations for new/novel traits are randomly produced...

What are "new/novel traits?" Can you give an example?

...so NS is regarded as the sole force because it tests and sifts what variations and determine what traits are passed on. But what if the variation is not random and the outcome is always an advantage for survival and passing on traits.

Natural selection is still testing them. Its role hasn't changed. But you have not shown that variation produced by EES forces is not randomly distributed and none of the EES sources you cite make that claim.

It changes explanations about evolution from adaptive ones where explanations are always about how organisms are adapted to environments by NS to including other explanations as mentioned by the EES which then become the driving force including directing what NS can and cannot do. That's a significant difference in the structure and concept of evolution.

EES has no effect on what natural selection does and the EES sources you cite don't make that claim.

My understanding is that mutations happen randomly in regards to whether their effects are useful for what an organism needs as in producing the right type of variation needed for a creature to adapt to their environment and survival. So in that regards NS then becomes the all-important determining factor in that it will test and sift those random mutational variations to weed out the non-beneficial traits and preserve the ones that allow an organism to pass on its traits.

Natural selection does not act on random mutations. It acts on randomly distributed variation. Until you understand that distinction your understanding of the implications of EES will be inadequate.

But if the EES forces can produce non-random variations that are already a benefit and suitable for the environment and don't produce any bad effects then whatever produced those variations is now the selecting force other than NS and therefore biasing NS and driving evolution.

There is no evidence that the variation produced by EES forces is not randomly distributed

The thing is the EES has been around for years now and many of those experiments have already been done and support the claims if you read them. Some are just plain common sense. If a creature creatures its own environment or changes existing environments to suit its needs so that it can thrive and survive then it is dictating its own evolution and doesn't depend on being adapted to the environment. Humans are the best at that in that they can just about do anything to survive regardless of NS and there is evidence that NS is being bypassed as a result.

NS is a test. There is a difference between bypassing a test as opposed to taking and passing it. Every living creature has to take the test.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Not necessarily. The latest dispute for example has been about semantics and interpretations. What a word like 'highlight' for example means. This was done to try and show that my claim didn't match my support rather than seeking clarification and engaging in the actual content. The posters misrepresented my position knowing that this was not the case from the ample evidence supplied from other quotes they choose to ignore. Just another way to undermine my credibility.

I have gone through several situations now along these lines and each time shows that I was correct and at the very least it has been a case of misunderstanding. But the point here is no clarification is sought by some, it is automatically assumed I must be wrong and that's the unfair part. I find if I am not vigilant on these matters then they are used against me to undermine everything else I say. According to some, I have not been right on anything which I find dogmatic and shows how no matter what I say some just don't want to acknowledge the truth.
Ok I will try to keep an eye on this. I have Grammarly so I can check things. But what I find hard to understand is that some people were actually understanding me quite well when they said I was misinterpreting the papers. So is this now a case that I was correct in my understanding of the papers or just that I made typos, and was inarticulate, and that resulting in incoherence. Humm I think there's a bet each way on this.

I am not sure it is just about this as I have tried to clarify and still there is disputes.

Yes and that is why I bang on about it.

I guess that's your opinion and how you see things because you are not the one being constantly misrepresented.

Oh my, everyone's ganging up on you for no good reason, because you're right and all those people with qualifications and working experience in the field are wrong...

That's how it sounds.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

Natural selection's role will differ depending on how the variation is produced and because NS is the driving force of evolution under the SET this will make a big difference in how evolution works depending on how variations are produced.

...But what if the variation is not random and the outcome is always an advantage for survival and passing on traits.

As others have said, natural selection always does the same thing, regardless of how the variation is produced.

Variation doesn't have to be random, but I'd like some examples where it is 'always an advantage'.

An 'advantage for survival and passing on traits' is, by definition, a selective advantage, i.e. it survives natural selection; I told you this before.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

I think you are demanding a precision of writing that is unusual from anyone and difficult to sustain, with consistency, over multiple posts, spanning weeks of time and involving mutliple people.

Not in the least. I highlighted that a claim he made was not supported by the evidence he supplied. Stevew has then blown that up to become me making claims of inconsistency.

You give the impression of being more intent on showing up @stevew than of challenging his arguments. This is both unseemly and unproductive. I urge you to return to a focus on the meat of the matter, rather than how that meat is served.

I have simply tried to stick to the case in point. Stevew insists that statements made after the fact are germane to the claim he made. I have repeatedly offered to let this go, but Stevew keeps asking for more. I have acknowledged he changed argument, Stevew continues to fight it.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

Then why don't you include the rest of my exact quotations. How can you say the rest of my post shows you are right. Are you reading the same thing. Now you are not only saying I have linguistic problems but am dishonest to cover your mistake. I can't believe it.

Here are the facts (and I will ask you if the following are an accurate representation of what occurred with each quote) So hopefully you will clarify if these are correct for me.

You tried to claim that I said that random mutations are the only way variations come about according to the mainstream evolution theory. (is this an accurate statement from you)

You did this by claiming my words "only highlights" were not the same meaning as the main source of variation according to the link I attached under that quote of mine. (is this an accurate statement from you)

I said "only Highlights" had the same meaning as 'main' and that was my position. (is this an accurate statement from me)

Directly under the link stating random mutations is the main source was the rest of my explanation that you should have also included which said

This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

So to summarize I said
mainstream evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutations as the source of variations and other sources are not highlighted.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

That clarifies the word ONLY Highlights as talking about one variation (Random mutations) being highlighted as opposed to other variations.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

To further clarify my position I also posted this quote of mine from the previous exchange between me and speedwell on the same subject

according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.
(is this an accurate statement from me)

But you said I DONT CARE ABOUT THESE POSTS
(is this an accurate statement from you)

So there was no mistake or intentional mistake and it only appears a mistake to you because you have isolated my words (one word) and refused to include the rest which shows there is no mistake and I was clear on my position and have always been.

To avoid you twisting things I will ask you a simple question that requires an honest answer

do I or don't I acknowledge that other sources of evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED and that random mutations are the main source of evolution in the above quotes of mine that were part of the same conversation on that topic?

I bet you don't answer this

I'll answer as I have previously. In later posts you have made that clear. Now your turn - in the original post which I called you on, the only post I have discussed this whole time, did the evidence you supplied support the claim you made? This whole waste of time has been about you trying to drag in later statements and refusing to accept that simple failing.

 

[stevevw]

It had to do with your overly simplistic characterization of current evolutionary theory. You appear to be grossly simplifying mechanisms therein to the point of constructing a strawman version of evolution, but others have already gone over this with you.

In what way. If your talking about the main point I have made which was how mainstream evolution makes natural selection the sole driving force of evolution then that by no means is a gross oversimplification according to mainstream evolutionary view and I have supported this from mainstream evolution literature. So some may have pointed that out but if we want to take the mainstreams view on this I am correct.

The same with how random mutation is made out to be the only cause of new/novel variations above all other variations. Once again I have supplied ample support from mainstream evolution. When I have debated people on how evolution works these are the two mechanisms mostly talked about to explain how features and creatures have evolved from ancestors to today. Everyone acknowledged there are other processes but these are the main ones used to explain the core tenets of evolution. I mentioned these because I mentioned those core mechanisms are being overemphasized at the exclusion and recognition of other forces emphasized with the EES as causes and drivers of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

I'll answer as I have previously. In later posts, you have made that clear

No in the same post and the one before it which were part of the same topic being discussed with speedwell. But you said I DONT CARE about those posts.

Now your turn - in the original post which I called you on, the only post I have discussed this whole time, did the evidence you supplied support the claim you made?

yes and I gave you the evidence and you said I DONT CARE

This whole waste of time has been about you trying to drag in later statements and refusing to accept that simple failing.

No like I said they were in the same post and the one before it and all part of the same conversation between speedwell and me. As you mentioned the stamp here is the stamp date on the one used against me was

Steves quote
Nov 8, 2020#520
But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

the link from the paper
Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

The quote I said you should have included which showed the words ONLY HIGHLIGHT was not just about random mutations was just under the quote you decided to restrict my whole position to was also stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520 as it was in the same post 4 sentences away which said

Steves quote from the same post
This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

In other words, I was saying that random mutations are highlighted as the source for NEW/NOVEL variations as opposed to all other variations which are about the mixing of existing variations. But it clearly shows I wasn't saying random mutations are the only source of variations and there are no other sources of variations.

And if you want to try and take this quote out of context read the whole post at 520 and the conversation in the previous posts and you will clearly see my position does not say random mutations are the only source or variations.

In the post before that stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507 and part of the same conversation I said
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

Put them together as they are from the same post and conversation and my position is that

The mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation and is the main source of variation. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution

The conversation between speedwell and I had been ongoing and there are other examples I could show you that make it even more clear that I was not saying mainstream evolution view ONLY claims random mutations as the source of variations for natural selection but rather the main source above other sources that are NOT HIGHLIGHTED.

So they are not after that quote you used but part of the same post and conversation and therefore are directly linked.

So because you have now acknowledged these additional quotes do make a difference to my position and do show that I was not saying random mutations are the only source all it takes now if for you to acknowledge they should have been considered as well to put things in context and to fully understand what I was saying.

Sorry that I am being persistent in this but you are now questioning my integrity and honesty and misrepresenting my position which I feel is important to defend. Like I said I know from experience that people would use that against me in future posts so I need to be clear about what is happening.

 

[pitabread]

In what way.

Like I said, others have already gone through this. No need to rehash.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No in the same post and the one before it which were part of the same topic being discussed with speedwell. But you said I DONT CARE about those posts. yes and I gave you the evidence and you said I DONT CARE No like I said they were in the same post and the one before it and all part of the same conversation between speedwell and me. As you mentioned the stamp here is the stamp date on the one used against me was

Steves quote
Nov 8, 2020#520
But as I pointed out the mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation.

the link from the paper
Mutations are changes in the genetic sequence, and they are a main cause of diversity among organisms.
Genetic Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

The quote I said you should have included which showed the words ONLY HIGHLIGHT was not just about random mutations was just under the quote you decided to restrict my whole position to was also stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520 as it was in the same post 4 sentences away which said

Steves quote from the same post
This is the mainstream view and it's in the literature everywhere. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution.

In other words, I was saying that random mutations are highlighted as the source for NEW/NOVEL variations as opposed to all other variations which are about the mixing of existing variations. But it clearly shows I wasn't saying random mutations are the only source of variations and there are no other sources of variations.

And if you want to try and take this quote out of context read the whole post at 520 and the conversation in the previous posts and you will clearly see my position does not say random mutations are the only source or variations.

In the post before that stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507 and part of the same conversation I said
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

Put them together as they are from the same post and conversation and my position is that

The mainstream view of evolution only highlights natural selection acting on random mutation and is the main source of variation. Other sources of variation are not highlighted because random mutations create new variation which is an important part of continuing evolution

The conversation between speedwell and I had been ongoing and there are other examples I could show you that make it even more clear that I was not saying mainstream evolution view ONLY claims random mutations as the source of variations for natural selection but rather the main source above other sources that are NOT HIGHLIGHTED.

So they are not after that quote you used but part of the same post and conversation and therefore are directly linked and should have been considered by you to determine the context and my position.

Basically, you have jumped in and only focused on that 1 word and then set rigid criteria to determined my entire position on this. Something I think is unfair and would not be taken for others. You obviously had already decided based on other opinions that I was wrong even before you posted.

This is the problem: I called you on a specific claim you made and the supporting evidence did not support that claim. That's all I said. Your defence was "I made a different argument later". I have acknowledged this change of argument, as have others. Speedwell even went as far as to confirm you had made the claim I called you on and that you changed tack later. The only person who refuses to accept that you made different claims is you - even though your defence is "I made a different claim later". I have also said we can move on - but you won't let it go.