[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

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 defense was "I made a different argument later".

No show me where I said I made a different argument later. I actually said I made a different argument in the same post and before that post, you called me on and that you were quoting me out of context by not using the rest of the same post.

I said I clarified what "ONLY HIGHLIGHT" meant in the same post where the words "ONLY HIGHLIGHT" came from and the post before that quote. IE

Steve said in the same post (stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520)
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.

Steve said before that post not after (stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507)
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

BUT YOU SAID I DONT CARE about those posts.
So applied to a court hearing you rejected the very evidence that proved my case. How is that a fair trial?

But I said this same thing that the quotes about my argument came before the post you used and you have totally ignored this and repeated your assertion. Can you see the stamp date on them.

So to end this answer the question you avoided answering a couple of posts back.

In the same post, you quote mined me on with the word "ONLY highlighted" (stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520) did I acknowledge that
"other sources of variations for evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED?"

and did I say in the same conversation on the same topic in the post before that stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

Both these quotes show I did not mean ONLY as in the one and ONLY variations and are said in the same post and even before that post. They put into proper context my position but you refused to accept this and now claim I said these after the fact. Talk about avoiding the truth.

If you have nothing to hide you will answer them

 

[stevevw]

Why have you gone out of your way to magnify any "dispute" between the two views?

I haven't gone out of my way to magnify things. I have merely posted what the EES says. Most of this thread has been about me responding to claims and accusations about misunderstandings and inaccuracies about the EES and the SET.

That may make it seem like things are magnified but that hasn't been anything I have done. The simple fact that disputes began in the thread which led to prolonged debates is not just my doing. It takes 2 to make a debate. Basically, I have made only a couple of simple claims which were supported by the EES and mainstream evidence which I posted.

One good example was that mainstream evolution made natural selection the sole cause and driving force of evolution as you know. That set off a lot of objections and claims about misrepresentations and my lack of understanding. As you know it took some time but I eventually supported this first by the EES and then later as you requested more support from mainstream literature.

The other claim was that the EES provides a better explanation for what we see in the way life evolves and changes than the mainstream adaptive view. That has involved more explanation and has dragged on. The recent furor about random mutations was part of that but it became more of an issue about other stuff. It was important to establish how mainstream evolution sees how variation is produced for new variations that were not there in the first place as this is the most relevant variations to compare to the EES which also claims that new variations that were not there come from other sources besides mutations.

So that is where we are at and I haven't really magnified anything. It's just taken some banter to get to the core of what the issues are when comparing the EES to the SET and that may make things feel like they are magnified.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

No show me where I said I made a different argument later. I actually said I made a different argument in the same post and before that post, you called me on and that you were quoting me out of context by not using the rest of the same post.

I said I clarified what "ONLY HIGHLIGHT" meant in the same post where the words "ONLY HIGHLIGHT" came from and the post before that quote. IE

Steve said in the same post (stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520)
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.

Steve said before that post not after (stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507)
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

BUT YOU SAID I DONT CARE about those posts.
So applied to a court hearing you rejected the very evidence that proved my case. How is that a fair trial?

But I said this same thing that the quotes about my argument came before the post you used and you have totally ignored this and repeated your assertion. Can you see the stamp date on them.

So to end this answer the question you avoided answering a couple of posts back.

In the same post, you quote mined me on with the word "ONLY highlighted" (stamp dated Nov 8, 2020#520) did I acknowledge that
"other sources of variations for evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED?"

and did I say in the same conversation on the same topic in the post before that stamp dated Nov 3, 2020#507
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

Both these quotes show I did not mean ONLY as in the one and ONLY variations and are said in the same post and even before that post. They put into proper context my position but you refused to accept this and now claim I said these after the fact. Talk about avoiding the truth.

If you have nothing to hide you will answer them

You continue to refuse to address the claim I made. We're done.

 

[stevevw]

You continue to refuse to address the claim I made. We're done.

Unfortunately you refuse to acknowledge the additional support which does address your claims which is what I predicted. In fact, you actually admitted that I had addressed your claim but said it was after your claim. So logically if I can prove that my address was before your claim then I have proven my case. I have done that already but you refused to acknowledge it.

Here it is again and look at the post numbers carefully

You said in post #524 that my claim that mainstream evolution ONLY HIGHLIGHTS random mutations was saying it was the only source of variations.

I disputed your claim and said HIGHLIGHT means random mutations are highlighted from other variations.

You said the word ONLY means I was only saying random mutations is the one and only source.

I said no you are quoting me out of context and it means random mutations are highlighted from other variations

I then provided support from the same post stamp dated in post #520 (4 posts before your claim) just under the quote you were taking out of context which showed what I was saying was correct IE

"other sources of variations for evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED?"

Therefore my position from that same post was
mainstream evolution ONLY HIGHLIGHTS random mutations and "other sources of variations for evolution are not HIGHLIGHTED?"

That shows clearly that before your claim I had already acknowledged that random mutations are only one source of variation that is HIGHLIGHTED as opposed to others not being HIGHLIGHTED.

I then posted further evidence from post #507 (17 posts before your claim) which said
according to the theory, random mutations is the main source of variation.

So I had already said that random mutations are the main source of variation according to mainstream evolution well before your claim that I hadn't.

Which is exactly what my link in you post 524 said and exactly my position all along

So it's obvious for everyone to see I had addressed your claim well before you made it and you refused to acknowledge this.

As you can understand I have to defend my integrity and honesty from these false accusations and that is why I persisted.

But I can only point out where you went wrong and I cannot make you acknowledge the truth. You have had every chance to rectify this but if you're not going to do that then you are right we must move on.

 

[Speedwell]

I haven't gone out of my way to magnify things. I have merely posted what the EES says. Most of this thread has been about me responding to claims and accusations about misunderstandings and inaccuracies about the EES and the SET.

That may make it seem like things are magnified but that hasn't been anything I have done. The simple fact that disputes began in the thread which led to prolonged debates is not just my doing. It takes 2 to make a debate. Basically, I have made only a couple of simple claims which were supported by the EES and mainstream evidence which I posted.

One good example was that mainstream evolution made natural selection the sole cause and driving force of evolution as you know. That set off a lot of objections and claims about misrepresentations and my lack of understanding. As you know it took some time but I eventually supported this first by the EES and then later as you requested more support from mainstream literature.

The other claim was that the EES provides a better explanation for what we see in the way life evolves and changes than the mainstream adaptive view. That has involved more explanation and has dragged on. The recent furor about random mutations was part of that but it became more of an issue about other stuff. It was important to establish how mainstream evolution sees how variation is produced for new variations that were not there in the first place as this is the most relevant variations to compare to the EES which also claims that new variations that were not there come from other sources besides mutations.

So that is where we are at and I haven't really magnified anything. It's just taken some banter to get to the core of what the issues are when comparing the EES to the SET and that may make things feel like they are magnified.

I'm prepared to believe that you have a really imprecise writing style--rather than that you just don't know what you are talking about. Let's see:

1. I asked you before to provide your definition of "random." Can you do that?

2. Do you have any evidence that variation which is due to EES forces is not randomly distributed?

3. In a previous post you used the phrase "new/novel traits" which was unfamiliar to me. Can you explain what it means to you and give an example?

4. You have also used the phrase "new variations which were not there before." Can you explain what you mean by that and give an example?

Try to provide short answers in your own words.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...

I'm still waiting for a response to my post #614 - particularly examples of where variation is 'always an advantage', and an explanation of what that's supposed to mean.

 

[stevevw]

I'm prepared to believe that you have a really imprecise writing style--rather than that you just don't know what you are talking about. Let's see:

Thank you, but I don’t think that is the only reason people don’t get the posts. It may also be the cultural differences in lingo and some may just not want to acknowledge what’s said.

1. I asked you before to provide your definition of "random." Can you do that?

Already did that in post #600 IE The definition of random as far as evolution is concerned 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 survive.

2. Do you have any evidence that variation which is due to EES forces is not randomly distributed?

Yes, how are variations produced by the EES nonrandom processes going to be randomly distributed when that variation is biased and only produce certain variations as opposed to any random variation and that this is often confined to the specific organism and environment. These variations are often self-selected, already adaptive, and have fitness and inheritance value before natural selection comes along.

This means these variations will bias and drive natural selection rather than the other way around where NS needs to determine the evolutionary worth of randomly distributed variations. Therefore they are not randomly distributed because some variations have more influence and worth as far as driving evolution than others. I have already provided ample support for this from the EES papers but will provide it again if needed.

3. In a previous post, you used the phrase "new/novel traits" which was unfamiliar to me. Can you explain what it means to you and give an example?
4. You have also used the phrase "new variations which were not there before." Can you explain what you mean by that and give an example?

I will answer these two together. I am surprised you haven’t heard the word Novel variations/traits before. The word is often used in evolutionary explanations to describe new variations that have not been produced before. For example, there were no camera-type eyes at one stage of evolution. Therefore according to evolution theory, random mutations had to mutate new sequences that could produce this new information to create new variations that did not exist previously step by step to build the eye. This is the fundamental process Darwin was talking about as the core tenet of his theory (descent with modification.

That is why I emphasized random mutations as the all-important source of variations because this was the only source that could add the new information to evolve the universal common ancestor into all the variation and complexity we see today. Yes, other sources like recombination and drift have contributed but they don’t really produce the new information for variations that never existed previously. They only recombine and determine the spread or loss of existing variations produced by mutational changes. As the links I provided said without random mutations selection would have nothing for evolution to happen.

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, how are variations produced by the EES nonrandom processes going to be randomly distributed when that variation is biased and only produce certain variations as opposed to any random variation and that this is often confined to the specific organism and environment. These variations are often self-selected, already adaptive, and have fitness and inheritance value before natural selection comes along.

This means these variations will bias and drive natural selection rather than the other way around where NS needs to determine the evolutionary worth of randomly distributed variations. Therefore they are not randomly distributed because some variations have more influence and worth as far as driving evolution than others. I have already provided ample support for this from the EES papers but will provide it again if needed.

I asked for evidence, not a question. What evidence is there that EES produces variation which is not randomly distributed?

I will answer these two together. I am surprised you haven’t heard the word Novel variations/traits before. The word is often used in evolutionary explanations to describe new variations that have not been produced before. For example, there were no camera-type eyes at one stage of evolution. Therefore according to evolution theory, random mutations had to mutate new sequences that could produce this new information to create new variations that did not exist previously step by step to build the eye. This is the fundamental process Darwin was talking about as the core tenet of his theory (descent with modification.

OK, but the way you wrote it before "new/novel traits" (complete with the slash mark) comes straight out of the ID play book and isn't used by biologists that way--I suppose in your case it must be just a coincidence.

That is why I emphasized random mutations as the all-important source of variations because this was the only source that could add the new information to evolve the universal common ancestor into all the variation and complexity we see today. Yes, other sources like recombination and drift have contributed but they don’t really produce the new information for variations that never existed previously. They only recombine and determine the spread or loss of existing variations produced by mutational changes. As the links I provided said without random mutations selection would have nothing for evolution to happen.

But it is recombination which produces the random distribution of variation--which is why I asked for evidence that variation based on EES is not randomly distributed.

 

[VirOptimus]

A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

The above show that he argues religion as he thinks the EES opens up for a god, just as I have said from the start.

 

[Speedwell]

The joke's on him--for a theist, it doesn't need to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

... other sources like recombination and drift have contributed but they don’t really produce the new information for variations that never existed previously.

JFYI both recombination and genetic drift generate information for new variations that have never existed previously.

 

[stevevw]

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

Not according to the EES. For some variations, natural selection will be diminished, biased, and even replaced by the EES forces.

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

For example under niche construction when an organism creates an environment like a nest it has created an enclosed environment that is cocooned from outside forces. It is disease-free and has all the precise conditions needed for the offspring to thrive and survive. The organism has this capacity to know how to create niche environments that are precisely what they need to adapt, survive and pass of their traits. Because these niche environments are conducive to thriving and surviving they are advantageous.

The same with inheritance beyond genes where certain behaviours are conducive for producing outcomes and conditions that help organism thrive and survive. These behaviours are intuitive but also learnt creatures know what is needed and best for thriving and surviving. So they will always produce advantageous results. Developmental processes are another source. The developmental system has the capacity to produce certain changes that help an organism adapts to environments. The specific variations develop has produced are precisely what is needed for those environments as opposed to all other variations and as opposed to random mutations that may produce disadvantageous changes.

The SET treats the environment and living things as separate entities where a creature needs to be adapted to an environment by outside forces like random mutation and NS. Those random variations are not conducive for advantageous changes and therefore need to be tested and sifted by NS.

Whereas the EES takes the constructive and reciprocal view which makes the environment and living things as one where there are constant feedbacks between both and where creatures can change environments and where environments change creatures in nonrandom ways. Those nonrandom processes are nonrandom for a reason and that is because they produce certain results as opposed to all other results that are designed to give an advantage and help them create thrive and survive.

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.

Yes but for the sake of explaining what force determined that advantage and therefore is the driving force of evolution if that selective advantage is is created by nonrandom processes that it is the nonrandom processes such as the EES forces that have both produced that variation and done the selecting.

NS is no longer the determining factor because it is now being biased and dictated along the evolutionary pathways created by those EES forces. I mentioned this as well as earlier where the EES basically summarised these processes as being seen as the causes of evolution other than NS because of the fact that they drive NS and according to the SET NS is the driver of evolution.

 

[stevevw]

I'm still waiting for a response to my post #614 - particularly examples of where variation is 'always an advantage', and an explanation of what that's supposed to mean.

Sorry with all the furor going on I must have missed this one. But I noticed VirOptimus couldn't wait to put the boot in as though I had not responded on purpose and that it would be optimistic that I did respond. Shows his low opinion of me and that before I even have a chance to reply I am condemned.

 

[stevevw]

I asked for evidence, not a question. What evidence is there that EES produces variation which is not randomly distributed?

I thought because I had already supplied this many times you would not need it again. That's why I said, "I have already provided ample support for this from the EES papers but will provide it again if needed". Nevertheless here it is again.

Non-random phenotypic variation: organisms are biased in certain evolutionary directions rather than others, as reflected by available evolutionary phenotypes.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ciple_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channeled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

non-genetic inheritance can bias the expression and retention of environmentally induced phenotypes, thereby influencing the rate and direction of evolution [68].
USQ Systems Logout

As you can see these variations are not just random ones and therefore are not dispersed in a random way overall compared to all possible variations that could have happened. They are specific to the organism and its environment. When compared to all possible variations including random ones these nonrandom variations are favored and in fact bias evolutionary outcomes when it comes to Natural selections role.

Also what you are forgetting is that under the EES some variations are non-genetics. This variation is usually nonrandom and not viewed under the SET as sources of evolution. Because it is nongenetic and nonrandom it is self-created and selected so sits outside the SET view of evolution which is about NS acting of randomly dispersed variations. The variations are not random disperse because they are specific to the organism, the environment they are in, and the niche they construct.

Extended inheritance: organisms inherit more than just genes and more than just by physical inheritance. Organisms not only have genetic and epigenetic inheritance, they have inheritance of behavior based on the nurturing of parents and biological communities.
Does evolutionary theory need a rethink?

But I cannot see the relevance of this relating things back to the EES. I have been talking about the drivers of evolution when comparing the SET to the EES and when it comes to the drivers of evolution how variation is distributed is irrelevant. It is how that variation is produced as to how that influences what drives evolution.

OK, but the way you wrote it before "new/novel traits" (complete with the slash mark) comes straight out of the ID playbook and isn't used by biologists that way--I suppose in your case it must be just a coincidence.

The only reason I put a (/new) against novel was in case someone didn't understand what the novel meant. But here's the thing. Once again this is about semantics and language which is secondary to what the content is about. You are focusing on how I am writing and not on what I am writing. I don't think the addition of (/new) will change what I am saying about random mutations being the only source of new variations that were not there originally.

But it is recombination which produces the random distribution of variation--which is why I asked for evidence that variation based on EES is not randomly distributed.

I am not disputing that. But when you take an overall view of variations that randomly distributed variation only falls within a certain set of variations of all possible variations that could have happened from a random process variations available to natural selection are not really randomly distributed and that is the important point as far as what is driving evolution. We only see certain variations and body plans out of all possibilities. Why is that.

If the EES forces are producing those certain variations then it is not as if NS is the driving force as it is not really working with variations that are randomly distributed but rather a limited number of variations out of all possible ones which dictate what can be evolved or not.

If the variation is nonrandom and only within a certain range then it is not really as if NS is the determining factor driving evolution but rather the sources that produced that variation in the first place. NS is only opening up and accommodating that variation.

Like I said earlier the fact that variation is randomly distributed is irrelevant to what I am talking about with the EES and SET when it comes to what drives evolution.

 

[stevevw]

JFYI both recombination and genetic drift generate information for new variations that have never existed previously.

Then what is meant by these quotes

heritable variation can only arise by mutation. Evolution is simply not possible without random genetic change for its raw material.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Mutations are essential to evolution. Every genetic feature in every organism was, initially, the result of a mutation.

Without variation (which arises from mutations of DNA molecules to produce new alleles) natural selection would have nothing on which to act.

All genetic variation in the population is generated by mutation.
Mutations Are the Raw Materials of Evolution | Learn Science at Scitable

Asexual organisms or organisms, such as bacteria, that very seldom undergo sexual recombination do not have this source of variation, so new mutations are the only way in which a change in gene combinations can be achieved.
Sources of variation - An Introduction to Genetic Analysis - NCBI Bookshelf.

 

[stevevw]

A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

A simple calculation shows why evolution is impossible

The above shows that he argues religion as he thinks the EES opens up for a god, just as I have said from the start.

Another logical fallacy. That in no way disputes the EES. I have said I am primarily a theistic evolutionist and that is exactly how we would expect a theistic evolutionist to view things in those threads you linked. What you are not understanding is that a theistic evolutionist doesn't deny natural processes. They just believe they were initiated and/or influenced in some way, shape, or form by a creative agent of some sort. That thread you quoted me from was a thread on those possibilities. But this thread is not and I have not mentioned God or a creative against. Two different threads with 2 different topics.

Are you saying that anyone who speaks like that cannot comment on science and if they do they are only doing it because of their belief. You do realize that people can hold these two different views and that some of the greatest scientists speak in the terms I was in that thread. Does this then make any science they do or talk about irrelevant or wrong. You are engaging in a logical fallacy designed to try and undermine the content which has nothing to do with whether the content is correct or not. That's all you ever do. You don't contribute to the content constructively.

 

[stevevw]

No it hasnt.

And I'm sure you get this crap from some ID source.

Every single paper I have posted is from mainstream science and the EES which is regarded as mainstream science though it differs and challenges the SET. Try and find one paper or source that is a creationist or ID source. I bet you cant. I specifically did not want to introduce that into this thread and on;y want to debate the science of the SET and the EES and I think that has been the case. You are desperate to turn it into the creationism v evolution debate so in fact, you have introduced creationism and ID into this thread more than anyone else which is really off-topic.

 

[Speedwell]

I thought because I had already supplied this many times you would not need it again. That's why I said, "I have already provided ample support for this from the EES papers but will provide it again if needed". Nevertheless here it is again.

Non-random phenotypic variation: organisms are biased in certain evolutionary directions rather than others, as reflected by available evolutionary phenotypes.
https://www.researchgate.net/public...ciple_for_the_Extended_Evolutionary_Synthesis

Some work on developmental bias suggests that phenotypic variation can be channeled and directed towards functional types by the processes of development [27,28].
http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

non-genetic inheritance can bias the expression and retention of environmentally induced phenotypes, thereby influencing the rate and direction of evolution [68].
USQ Systems Logout

What I asked for was actual evidence that distributed variation does not form a bell curve. None of those sources provide it.

I am not disputing that. But when you take an overall view of variations that randomly distributed variation only falls within a certain set of variations of all possible variations that could have happened from a random process variations available to natural selection are not really randomly distributed and that is the important point as far as what is driving evolution. We only see certain variations and body plans out of all possibilities. Why is that.

Because that's what the theory of evolution (SET or otherwise) predicts will happen.

 

[VirOptimus]

Every single paper I have posted is from mainstream science and the EES which is regarded as mainstream science though it differs and challenges the SET. Try and find one paper or source that is a creationist or ID source. I bet you cant. I specifically did not want to introduce that into this thread and on;y want to debate the science of the SET and the EES and I think that has been the case. You are desperate to turn it into the creationism v evolution debate so in fact, you have introduced creationism and ID into this thread more than anyone else which is really off-topic.

Yes, but the way you use them and try to argue is ID/creationist style so I'm sure you have gotten your arguments frpm an ID/creationist source which try to twist the science and as you dont really understand it you just parrot.

 

[VirOptimus]

Another logical fallacy. That in no way disputes the EES. I have said I am primarily a theistic evolutionist and that is exactly how we would expect a theistic evolutionist to view things in those threads you linked. What you are not understanding is that a theistic evolutionist doesn't deny natural processes. They just believe they were initiated and/or influenced in some way, shape, or form by a creative agent of some sort. That thread you quoted me from was a thread on those possibilities. But this thread is not and I have not mentioned God or a creative against. Two different threads with 2 different topics.

Are you saying that anyone who speaks like that cannot comment on science and if they do they are only doing it because of their belief. You do realize that people can hold these two different views and that some of the greatest scientists speak in the terms I was in that thread. Does this then make any science they do or talk about irrelevant or wrong. You are engaging in a logical fallacy designed to try and undermine the content which has nothing to do with whether the content is correct or not. That's all you ever do. You don't contribute to the content constructively.

That you dont see the problem is very telling.

The second quote has you saying that things are "designed" even.