[MOVED] The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis

[stevevw]

No, it wasn't submitted to peer review. It was published in BIO-Complexity, a pseudo-science magazine put out by the Discovery Institute and reprinted in Researchgate, which is basically a social media site.

Ok well lucky what I was saying wasnt dependent on it and that I had also posted many other supports. What I find strange is that you choose to focus on this and not the other articles that support what I said. Is this some way to avoid acknowledging what I said is supported?

I don't care if you mention God or not. I think you are pushing EES because you are under the impression that SET can't work because it's "random" and needs EES because it's "non-random," which reveals an inadequate grasp of SET and puts more load on EES than even its creators intended.

It's not just about the randomness of the SET though that is an important part of it. It is a number of issues that have led to many people saying that the standard view is not accounting for what is happening and lacks explanatory power. Whereas the more pluralistic and expansive view of the EES adds seems to account better for what is happening across a number of areas such as how development should be included as a cause of evolutionary change, how the input of living things can direct natural selection and evolution.

I have covered all this and if it was just as simple as random verse nonrandom then I would not have posted such a comprehensive commentary of the differences. I think you are reducing it down to this simplicity as this is a way you can dismiss what the EES is saying.

 

[stevevw]

No I have said your "arguments" are ID crap.

But my arguments are the same as the EES. In what way are they IDist.

The EES is not.

So your saying I have said nothing of what the EES has argued.

But you don't argue the EES, you argue ID/creationist points.

That is a misrepresentation of what I have said and posted. I have basically said the SET takes a narrow view of evolutionary cause and that the EES is a better way to understand evolution and I have posted extended and comprehensive sections of the EES supporting what I have said. Regardless of the language, I have used I have basically said the same thing as what the EES is saying. You have oversimplified things in order to continue your unsupported attacks.

 

[Speedwell]

Ok well lucky what I was saying wasnt dependent on it and that I had also posted many other supports. What I find strange is that you choose to focus on this and not the other articles that support what I said. Is this some way to avoid acknowledging what I said is supported?

No, just pointing out that you don't always evaluate and understand your sources as carefully as you claim. It tends to support the view expressed by those of our colleagues here who are actually knowledgeable about evolutionary biology that you haven't fully understood the significance of the legitimate EES sources you quote, either.

It's not just about the randomness of the SET though that is an important part of it.

Not for an evolutionary biologist. Now, I am a rank amateur when it comes to biology; my background is in math and I have seen nothing in your presentation that you understand the role of randomness in SET and you haven't given complete or convincing answers when asked about it. What do you actually know about stochastic processes? The distribution of a random variable?.

It is a number of issues that have led to many people saying that the standard view is not accounting for what is happening and lacks explanatory power. Whereas the more pluralistic and expansive view of the EES adds seems to account better for what is happening across a number of areas such as how development should be included as a cause of evolutionary change, how the input of living things can direct natural selection and evolution.

If SET truly lacked explanatory power it would have been rejected long since as useless, much as other evolutionary theories were for that reason--Lamarckism comes to mind as an example. In fact, SET has considerable explanatory power and if you understood your EES sources as well as you claimed you would see that they did not deny it.

I have covered all this and if it was just as simple as random verse nonrandom then I would not have posted such a comprehensive commentary of the differences. I think you are reducing it down to this simplicity as this is a way you can dismiss what the EES is saying.

I don't dismiss what EES is saying; none of us here do. I dismiss much of what you say about EES

 

[VirOptimus]

But my arguments are the same as the EES. In what way are they IDist.
So your saying I have said nothing of what the EES has argued.

That is a misrepresentation of what I have said and posted. I have basically said the SET takes a narrow view of evolutionary cause and that the EES is a better way to understand evolution and I have posted extended and comprehensive sections of the EES supporting what I have said. Regardless of the language, I have used I have basically said the same thing as what the EES is saying. You have oversimplified things in order to continue your unsupported attacks.

Nope, I have not.

You using material from the Discovery Institute made your agenda even clearer.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

In the EES, development assumes a constructive role, natural selection is not the only way that variation in populations can be modified, and causation does not run solely in one direction from the external environment to populations and, instead of a single inheritance mechanism, several modes of transmission exist between generations.

The evolutionary significance of niche construction stems from: (i) organisms modify environmental states in non-random ways, thereby imposing a systematic bias on the selection pressures they generate; In addition to accepted evolutionary processes that directly change gene frequencies, the EES recognizes processes that bias the outcome of natural selection, specifically developmental bias and niche construction. All processes that generate phenotypic variation, including developmental plasticity and some forms of inclusive inheritance are potential sources of bias.

None of that says, "natural selection will be diminished, biased, and even replaced by the EES forces". Biasing the outcome of natural selection is not biasing natural selection; any consistent change in selection pressure will 'bias' the outcome of natural selection. There's no mention of natural selection being diminished or replaced.

Under the SET view the source of variation is random so natural selection is regarded as the all-important and only determining factor as to which variation are adaptive and heritable. Therefore NS is seen as the driving force of evolution. But the EES forces can produce nonrandom variations such as through development, niche construction or inheritance beyond genes where only certain variation are produced in line with an organisms needs. These variations can be adaptive and heritable before NS comes along.Therefore the EES forces become the driving force of evolution and replace NS. They are both the source of variation and the determining factor of adaptive and heritable variations. In this way, NS is biased because the EES forces are now determining what is adaptive and heritable and not NS. NS only serves to release the variation produced by the EES forces.

Nope. You're just repeating the same old nonsense. Also, natural selection doesn't 'come along', it is always acting. EES processes can't 'replace' natural selection - no natural selection means no evolution...

That maybe the case but it implies that NS is the only force doing the selecting. This is what the EES is challenging. Niche construction is now seen as a theory itself (NCT) like natural selection which can also select adaptive conditions and traits that is heritable and therefore drives evolution.

Natural selection is not a theory, it's a process; conceptually different from niche construction. If there is selection, it is natural selection; it may be considered as part of a greater process, but it acts just the same.

The standard theory views niche constructive behaviours as extended phenotypes which were only derived from previous NS. They dismiss niche construction as actual causes of evolution that are sometimes beyond genes. Under the EES the creature itself becomes the selecting force rather than NS by creating the condition that would usually be determined by natural selection before NS even comes along. Also, niches themselves are also passed on besides traits which also determine adaptive and survival conditions.

Niche construction is perceived to have no independent evolutionary significance because to the extent that it is evolutionarily consequential, it is regarded as fully explained by a preceding cause, natural selection (e.g. Dawkins 2004). Niche-construction effects are treated as ‘extended phenotypes’, whose sole evolutionary role is to affect the probability that gene variants underlying niche construction are passed on to the next generation. Similar reasoning underlies the treatment of niche construction as an indirect genetic effect, with, for example, a mother’s genes affecting her offspring’s phenotype by modifying its environment (Wolf et al. 1998).

There are two major problems with this line of reasoning:
First, as described above, the processes underlying variation, fitness and inheritance are causally intertwined. All organisms have always engaged in niche construction, going right back to the beginning of life. Hence there is no reason to assume that natural selection must be the first cause of any evolutionary episode. Causation in biological systems is reciprocal rather than linear, with natural selection and niche construction codirecting each other.

Second, not all evolutionarily consequential aspects of niche construction (nor all aspects of development, in general) are under genetic control. Niche-construction theorists, like many developmental biologists, regard organisms (and their environmental modification) as under-determined by genes. The changes that organisms bring about do not flow only from their adaptations, but also derive from plasticity, byproducts, and acquired characters.

None of that supports what you said above - in fact they explicitly say, "Causation in biological systems is reciprocal rather than linear, with natural selection and niche construction codirecting each other."

Also, some of the changes from niche constructions would even be considered a disadvantage or deleterious under the SET requirements of NS. Yet these changes are preserved as they bring benefits overall for future generations.

This is simply multi-generational kin selection - where altruistic actions by particular population variants with a mutant allele benefit not only their existing normative kin, but, by extension, those of future generations. By benefitting kin survival, the mutant allele (particularly recessive alleles) can persist over the generations, benefitting future generations.

Note that the cause here is a mutation and it is subject to natural selection.

Niche construction helps creatures to survive in what would be deemed disadvantageous environments under the adaptive view.

Niche construction is the organism adapting to its environment by changing its behaviour to modify the environment. As previously explained, the difference is just a matter of viewpoint and categorization.

<blah...> There are also many examples of how niche changes made by creatures have good effects on the surrounding environment and this benefits other creatures. For example, beaver dams create pooled water which allows other organisms to grow and improves the surrounding vegetation which provides more habitats. There are also examples of how creatures work together and use other creatures to create niches such as the dung beetle using other creatures dung to create a perfect environment for egg-laying. Or how bacteria live within a creature’s gut which provides a niche and benefit for both.

This is standard ecosystem interaction; nothing new here. EES simply describes it from a different perspective.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

As I have already shown in the previous post that it is an assumption to say that natural selection alone is the process that selects for relevant behaviors. Even before natural selection comes along it is the creature that is selecting the healthy and positive conditions that will enhance their fitness and provide benefits for their offspring in future generations. So long as that niche is maintained it will provide heritable benefits.

Again, natural selection doesn't 'come along' it is an ongoing process.

But you didn't answer my question: "when a population evolves towards niche construction, what is the process that selects for the relevant behaviours?"

The process that establishes whether a certain pattern of behavior or environment is advantageous is the creature itself through changing its environment, its developmental responses to its environment, and the back and forth feedback between these factors as well as NS.

The creature exhibits the behaviours, natural selection will tend to filter out those behaviours that are disadvantageous. Yes, there's a complex interchange between creature and environment with many factors involved, but in evolution 'advantageous' and 'disadvantageous' are defined in terms of natural selection.

The fact that you still want to emphasize selection over everything else shows even though you claim that the SET acknowledges the EES forces they don’t really recognize them as actual causes that direct evolution like NS.

Wrong. Natural selection is what it is - variations are advantageous or disadvantageous according to the outcome of natural selection. It can be complicated, but I'm trying to explain where you're misunderstanding or misrepresenting what happens.

As the article points out “niche construction generates consistent and sustained forms of natural selection”. Creatures have the ability to create conditions that provide well-integrated and suited changes that provide fitness and adaptive benefits just like NS can do and therefore is another source that determines the course of evolution and in doing so biases and diminishes NS.

Generating "consistent and sustained forms of natural selection" is not biasing or diminishing natural selection

As far as niche constructions many creatures such as insects, birds, and mammals, basically most creatures that produce offspring create conditions conducive for healthy birthing and rearing through a number of behaviors. These include creating protective birthing conditions with insects such as the Dung Beetle or with birds and mammals.

Behaviours that create those conditions persist over generations because they are advantageous under natural selection.

As far as inheritance beyond genes we now know through processes like epigenetics and direct interactions that whatever behaviors a creature has and teaches their offspring will affect and influence future generations. We know that social and cultural practices can help with evolvability and put creatures in better positions to thrive and survive. These forces are part of the EES and influence the course of evolution by helping creatures be in a more adaptive position.

Clumsily put, but sure, so what? Mainstream evolutionary theory has no problem with that.

Under inheritance beyond genes creatures' behaviors can be passed along and down to future generations through social and cultural practices which can be advantageous similar to niche construction in putting creatures in a better position to be fitter and adapt.

Cultural inheritance applies to a tiny minority of creatures. What about the overwhelming majority that don't have social or cultural practices, that don't have that cognitive capacity?

I think most animals have an inherent ability to work with nature and therefore their behaviour is more likely to provide benefits.

Meaningless. Animals are part of nature.

I am not sure it is common and the fact that this happens doesn’t negate the important role niche construction plays as a cause of evolutionary change.

I'm telling you it is common, and of course it doesn't negate the role of niche construction - nobody said it does, but it means that niche construction doesn't "always produce advantageous results".

According to NCT creatures are not dumb passive creatures that cannot change with changing environments. They have a great capacity to adjust environments to suit. Living things seem to have a ready set of behaviors and tools available (hormonally, chemically, etc.) that help create the right environment. It seems inherent in them.

No evolutionary theory can claim that organisms are "dumb passive creatures that cannot change with changing environments" because if that was the case evolution would not happen

It seems inherent in them because they evolved that way.

But this is different from the narrow view, SET takes that treats creatures as passive entities subject to predators and changing environments where they can only survive if they are adapted genetically through NS.

That's incorrect.

The rest is 'not even wrong'.

 

[stevevw]

No, just pointing out that you don't always evaluate and understand your sources as carefully as you claim. It tends to support the view expressed by those of our colleagues here who are actually knowledgeable about evolutionary biology that you haven't fully understood the significance of the legitimate EES sources you quote, either.

I find this line of reasoning to be inconsistent and unfair. You have yourself argued against what I have said as wrong yet admit you are a layman. Yet at the same time want to claim me a layman who doesn’t understand the literature I am citing. So it seems fine for you. Yet when I do it it's wrong. I also think it’s a misrepresentation of things. Primarily I have made simple and basic claims which are repeated in the EES papers that don’t really need a higher level of understanding. The thing is a claim is made and it is a simple claim and one that cannot be misconstrued. I think using the tact of a lack of understanding to discredit what I am saying is being misused and doesn't address the content of what is being said.

For example, you challenged the claim that the EES said that the SET claimed that natural selection was the sole source of evolutionary change and that I misunderstood things. I then showed you that this is exactly what the papers said and you agreed. I then went about showing how the EES was correct on this by provided support for outside the EES from mainstream papers which you also acknowledged.

As mentioned I have basically made a simple claim about what the EES claims about the differences between the EES and the SET. It is not a matter of a special and deeper understanding of these basic issues. Primarily the EES is saying that the SET claims that the sole cause of evolutionary change is Natural Selection and that the source of variations is random.

As opposed to the EES where the cause of evolution is expanded to include the EES forces of niche construction, inheritance beyond genes, developmental bias, and plasticity. That these EES forces are nonrandom and can produce adaptive and heritable variations before and without natural selection. That this expands the causes of evolution and adds more explanatory power. How is this so hard to understand? You have acknowledged this and also acknowledged this is what the papers have said. I can show you the posts.

Some may want to dispute this by claiming that there is more to evolution than that. But that is not the point. That may be their view of things but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what the EES is basically saying.

Not for an evolutionary biologist. Now, I am a rank amateur when it comes to biology; my background is in math and I have seen nothing in your presentation that you understand the role of randomness in SET and you haven't given complete or convincing answers when asked about it. What do you actually know about stochastic processes? The distribution of a random variable?.

But attacking the person is not addressing what the source says. Why would the source be placing so much emphasis and focus on this? Why would they for example say something like this? This comes from the EES itself and talks about the basic differences between the EES and the SET How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis
Like the EES, the Modern Synthesis also represents a particular way to understand evolution. It primarily focuses on genes:

• new variation arises through random genetic mutation
• inheritance occurs through DNA
• natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Now that quote clearly states what I have been saying and that’s all I have been saying. This is a summary of what the difference is and it is printed in black and white. There are no hidden meanings and no amount of further understanding is going to change these basic differences. So explain to me how this is wrong and doesn’t mean exactly what it says.

If SET truly lacked explanatory power it would have been rejected long since as useless, much as other evolutionary theories were for that reason--Lamarckism comes to mind as an example. In fact, SET has considerable explanatory power, and if you understood your EES sources as well as you claimed you would see that they did not deny it.

This is a good example of how using a lack of understanding based on a straw man. It is an extreme and false claim to say that the argument that the SET lacks explanatory power should mean that it should be totally and immediately rejected. We both know that science doesn't work that way and that even with Lamarckism and how the MS came about was gradual and evolved.

So it follows that using this false claim as evidence I don't understand things is also false. You are also assuming that I don't think the SET has any explanatory power. You are taking things to extremes. I have not said the SET completely lacks explanatory power. I have actually said the EES has more explanatory power than the SET which is a different thing altogether.

But here's the main point. You claim that I am misunderstanding the EES paper when it says that the SET lacks explanatory power and the EES offers a better explanation for what we are seeing in how living things evolve. If that is the case then please explain what the EES papers mean by the following.

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?
“We now possess a more pluralistic theory, recognizing more factors and interactions than included in the classical model and with expanded explanatory capacity” Müller and Pigliucci (2010: 276)

“By encouraging greater reflection on the plurality of the underlying causes of evolution, the EES should deepen understanding of the mechanisms of evolution” Laland et al. (2015: 10)

“The EES […] represents a pluralistic, process-based framework of dynamical interactions between a multitude of evolutionarily effective factors and generates its own set of evolutionary predictions that make it clearly distinct from the MS account” Müller (2017: 8)

“The ongoing shift from a population-dynamic account to a causal-mechanistic theory of phenotypic evolution brings with it a significantly expanded explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. It has become possible to address phenomena of evolution that were untreatable by the MS” Pigliucci and Müller (2010b: 12)

“[…] if the current efforts succeed, we will expand the scope and explanatory tools available to evolutionary biologists” Pigliucci (2008: 322)

“The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena” Laland et al. (2015: 9)

“Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework” Müller (2017: 9)

We have presented a general contrastive framework suitable for evaluating the goodness of scientific explanations. It is able to distinguish why and when explanations of the EES are better than prevailing SET explanations. Our framework also suggests that there might be an overlooked diversity of explanatory standards within EES, and that making different areas of research coherent requires an assessment of the standards that operate within each contributing field.
Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?

I don't dismiss what EES is saying; none of us here do. I dismiss much of what you say about EES

let’s see what I have said about the EES. Basically, I have said that the EES claims that the SET takes a too narrow view of evolution by making natural selection the sole cause and driver of evolution and that variation is random. That is basically reflected exactly in the quote from the paper above.

I have also said that the EES claims that their view of evolution is more expansive and includes other sources of variations that are nonrandom and because of that are also adaptive and heritable before natural selection comes along. That these additional variations can bias natural selection and therefore can cause and drive evolution in a similar way to natural selection.

Yo make things simple and to show how the EES core assumptions differ from the SET here is a chart explaining the differences. Assumptions are a good representation of how the EES and the SET see things and are the basis for most theories in science. These assumptions support what I have been saying and don't need any further understanding as far as how they define the basic predictions of each view. Click on the image to enlarge

 

[Speedwell]

I find this line of reasoning to be inconsistent and unfair. You have yourself argued against what I have said as wrong yet admit you are a layman. Yet at the same time want to claim me a layman who doesn’t understand the literature I am citing. So it seems fine for you. Yet when I do it it's wrong. I also think it’s a misrepresentation of things. Primarily I have made simple and basic claims which are repeated in the EES papers that don’t really need a higher level of understanding. The thing is a claim is made and it is a simple claim and one that cannot be misconstrued. I think using the tact of a lack of understanding to discredit what I am saying is being misused and doesn't address the content of what is being said.

For example, you challenged the claim that the EES said that the SET claimed that natural selection was the sole source of evolutionary change and that I misunderstood things. I then showed you that this is exactly what the papers said and you agreed. I then went about showing how the EES was correct on this by provided support for outside the EES from mainstream papers which you also acknowledged.

As mentioned I have basically made a simple claim about what the EES claims about the differences between the EES and the SET. It is not a matter of a special and deeper understanding of these basic issues. Primarily the EES is saying that the SET claims that the sole cause of evolutionary change is Natural Selection and that the source of variations is random.

As opposed to the EES where the cause of evolution is expanded to include the EES forces of niche construction, inheritance beyond genes, developmental bias, and plasticity. That these EES forces are nonrandom and can produce adaptive and heritable variations before and without natural selection. That this expands the causes of evolution and adds more explanatory power. How is this so hard to understand? You have acknowledged this and also acknowledged this is what the papers have said. I can show you the posts.

Some may want to dispute this by claiming that there is more to evolution than that. But that is not the point. That may be their view of things but it doesn’t change the fact that this is what the EES is basically saying.

But attacking the person is not addressing what the source says. Why would the source be placing so much emphasis and focus on this? Why would they for example say something like this? This comes from the EES itself and talks about the basic differences between the EES and the SET How the EES differs from the Modern Synthesis
Like the EES, the Modern Synthesis also represents a particular way to understand evolution. It primarily focuses on genes:

• new variation arises through random genetic mutation
• inheritance occurs through DNA
• natural selection of genes is the sole cause of adaptation

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/282/1813/20151019

Now that quote clearly states what I have been saying and that’s all I have been saying. This is a summary of what the difference is and it is printed in black and white. There are no hidden meanings and no amount of further understanding is going to change these basic differences. So explain to me how this is wrong and doesn’t mean exactly what it says.

This is a good example of how using a lack of understanding based on a straw man. It is an extreme and false claim to say that the argument that the SET lacks explanatory power should mean that it should be totally and immediately rejected. We both know that science doesn't work that way and that even with Lamarckism and how the MS came about was gradual and evolved.

So it follows that using this false claim as evidence I don't understand things is also false. You are also assuming that I don't think the SET has any explanatory power. You are taking things to extremes. I have not said the SET completely lacks explanatory power. I have actually said the EES has more explanatory power than the SET which is a different thing altogether.

But here's the main point. You claim that I am misunderstanding the EES paper when it says that the SET lacks explanatory power and the EES offers a better explanation for what we are seeing in how living things evolve. If that is the case then please explain what the EES papers mean by the following.

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.

Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?
“We now possess a more pluralistic theory, recognizing more factors and interactions than included in the classical model and with expanded explanatory capacity” Müller and Pigliucci (2010: 276)

“By encouraging greater reflection on the plurality of the underlying causes of evolution, the EES should deepen understanding of the mechanisms of evolution” Laland et al. (2015: 10)

“The EES […] represents a pluralistic, process-based framework of dynamical interactions between a multitude of evolutionarily effective factors and generates its own set of evolutionary predictions that make it clearly distinct from the MS account” Müller (2017: 8)

“The ongoing shift from a population-dynamic account to a causal-mechanistic theory of phenotypic evolution brings with it a significantly expanded explanatory capacity of evolutionary theory. It has become possible to address phenomena of evolution that were untreatable by the MS” Pigliucci and Müller (2010b: 12)

“[…] if the current efforts succeed, we will expand the scope and explanatory tools available to evolutionary biologists” Pigliucci (2008: 322)

“The EES also raises new questions, informs established lines of inquiry and helps to provide more complete explanations for evolutionary phenomena” Laland et al. (2015: 9)

“Instead of privileging selected mechanisms such as random variation, genetic control and natural selection, the multitude of factors that dynamically interact in the evolutionary process will be better expounded by a pluralistic theory framework” Müller (2017: 9)

We have presented a general contrastive framework suitable for evaluating the goodness of scientific explanations. It is able to distinguish why and when explanations of the EES are better than prevailing SET explanations. Our framework also suggests that there might be an overlooked diversity of explanatory standards within EES, and that making different areas of research coherent requires an assessment of the standards that operate within each contributing field.
Does the extended evolutionary synthesis entail extended explanatory power?

let’s see what I have said about the EES. Basically, I have said that the EES claims that the SET takes a too narrow view of evolution by making natural selection the sole cause and driver of evolution and that variation is random. That is basically reflected exactly in the quote from the paper above.

I have also said that the EES claims that their view of evolution is more expansive and includes other sources of variations that are nonrandom and because of that are also adaptive and heritable before natural selection comes along. That these additional variations can bias natural selection and therefore can cause and drive evolution in a similar way to natural selection.

Yo make things simple and to show how the EES core assumptions differ from the SET here is a chart explaining the differences. Assumptions are a good representation of how the EES and the SET see things and are the basis for most theories in science. These assumptions support what I have been saying and don't need any further understanding as far as how they define the basic predictions of each view. Click on the image to enlarge
View attachment 289236

If you say a theory "lacks explanatory power" you are saying that it has none. Your EES sources aren't making that claim about SET. They are saying that EES improves the explanatory power of SET, not that SET has no explanatory power. Your source doe not support your claim.

BTW, I can't read that weak blue font color on my screen.

 

[stevevw]

If you say a theory "lacks explanatory power" you are saying that it has none.

Well I got the word 'lacks' from the EES papers. So if you are saying that this is my claim then you are also saying it is the EES claim as well and I don't think the EES is saying that if you balance out all the quotes they say on this. So your assessment of what I am saying is wrong IE

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Your EES sources aren't making that claim about SET. They are saying that EES improves the explanatory power of SET, not that SET has no explanatory power. Your source doe not support your claim.

Once again you are making a straw man argument. I didn’t say that the SET has no explanatory power. I simply repeated what the EES said.

But once again this is a good example of bringing up a semantic problem and making it an issue to the point that it becomes the focus and all else is ignored. There is a whole lot more in that post that addressed things that you did not respond to.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...But once again this is a good example of bringing up a semantic problem and making it an issue to the point that it becomes the focus and all else is ignored.

The semantics are important because they convey meaning.

 

[Ophiolite]

The semantics are important because they convey meaning.

I am alternately dismayed then amazed then infuriated by persons who say "now you are just talking semantics", as though that, in some peculair way, refuted something. Exactly as you say, semantics is about meaning and if we think what we are saying means something and want the meaning to be conveyed accurately to our audience then we had best get the semantics right.

A huge number of arguments, at many levels, occur because the key words are defined differently by the participants. This can occur within the heart of science, though hopefully less frequently than in the world at large. Confusions and debate occurred withing geology because definitions of rock types changed over time, as more researchers investigated a wider range of similar rocks in diverse settings. As a result there are instances where the first rocks assigned a name no longer fit the within the current definition. (I do hope none of you challenge me to give an example! It will probably take me hours of research to track a couple down.)

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I am alternately dismayed then amazed then infuriated by persons who say "now you are just talking semantics", as though that, in some peculair way, refuted something. Exactly as you say, semantics is about meaning and if we think what we are saying means something and want the meaning to be conveyed accurately to our audience then we had best get the semantics right.

A huge number of arguments, at many levels, occur because the key words are defined differently by the participants. This can occur within the heart of science, though hopefully less frequently than in the world at large. Confusions and debate occurred withing geology because definitions of rock types changed over time, as more researchers investigated a wider range of similar rocks in diverse settings. As a result there are instances where the first rocks assigned a name no longer fit the within the current definition. (I do hope none of you challenge me to give an example! It will probably take me hours of research to track a couple down.)

Yes, it's particularly problematic when people confuse the technical 'jargon' of a field with the common usage (e.g. 'theory'), or take the exaggerated tenor & tone of debates and arguments within a field too literally (which, I suspect, is part of the problem here).

 

[Speedwell]

Well I got the word 'lacks' from the EES papers. So if you are saying that this is my claim then you are also saying it is the EES claim as well and I don't think the EES is saying that if you balance out all the quotes they say on this. So your assessment of what I am saying is wrong IE

This recognition of a variety of distinct routes to phenotype–environment fit furnishes the EES with explanatory resources that traditional perspectives lack.
The extended evolutionary synthesis: its structure, assumptions and predictions

Once again you are making a straw man argument. I didn’t say that the SET has no explanatory power. I simply repeated what the EES said.

But once again this is a good example of bringing up a semantic problem and making it an issue to the point that it becomes the focus and all else is ignored. There is a whole lot more in that post that addressed things that you did not respond to.

I was just trying to clear up an obvious discrepancy between what you claimed and what your source claims. Then you say it's just semantics and I'm just being nit-picky. On the other hand, for all I know it was a rhetorical ploy. Such trickery is commonly attempted by creationists--how do I know you aren't trying it too, unless I call you on it?

 

[Ophiolite]

Yes, it's particularly problematic when people confuse the technical 'jargon' of a field with the common usage (e.g. 'theory'), or take the exaggerated tenor & tone of debates and arguments within a field too literally (which, I suspect, is part of the problem here).

On the other hand I adore the debates that break out within the pages of reputable journals, wherein an expert submits a critique of a published paper and the original researcher is afforded a chance to respond, both items being published side by side. Remarks such as "We are surprised that Dr.XYZ should think the isotope ratios of shelf carbonates could in any way be relevant to those present in the Ordovician molasse of the Appalachians. The observation is offered with no support, though extensive work by our team has confirmed the relationship beyond reasonable doubt," hint at the incandescent fury that can erupt when the human in the scientist momentarily pushes the scientist in the human aside.

Or in a more constrained way this real passage form a paper I read in a paper on the Richat structure while preparing replies on the current Atlantis thread.
"Different igneous rock series have been reported previously from the Richat dome, which includes quartz-gabbros and dolerites, diorites, aplites and granites (Blanc and Pomerol, 1973). These authors also mentioned abnormal values of up to 8% K2O for the gabbroic rocks. However, our field work did not allow the recognition of the more evolved part of this series (aplites and granites). Large-scale hydrothermal potassic enrichment has been documented in the Richat dome (see Section 3.2) and this may have caused previous workers to call certain altered rocks ‘‘aplites and granites’’.

Which translates as "Are you guys blind? You didn't think the elevated K values were significant? Field examination alone should have told you what you were seeing! Unbelievable."

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

On the other hand I adore the debates that break out within the pages of reputable journals, wherein an expert submits a critique of a published paper and the original researcher is afforded a chance to respond, both items being published side by side. Remarks such as "We are surprised that Dr.XYZ should think the isotope ratios of shelf carbonates could in any way be relevant to those present in the Ordovician molasse of the Appalachians. The observation is offered with no support, though extensive work by our team has confirmed the relationship beyond reasonable doubt," hint at the incandescent fury that can erupt when the human in the scientist momentarily pushes the scientist in the human aside.

Or in a more constrained way this real passage form a paper I read in a paper on the Richat structure while preparing replies on the current Atlantis thread.
"Different igneous rock series have been reported previously from the Richat dome, which includes quartz-gabbros and dolerites, diorites, aplites and granites (Blanc and Pomerol, 1973). These authors also mentioned abnormal values of up to 8% K2O for the gabbroic rocks. However, our field work did not allow the recognition of the more evolved part of this series (aplites and granites). Large-scale hydrothermal potassic enrichment has been documented in the Richat dome (see Section 3.2) and this may have caused previous workers to call certain altered rocks ‘‘aplites and granites’’.

Which translates as "Are you guys blind? You didn't think the elevated K values were significant? Field examination alone should have told you what you were seeing! Unbelievable."

Exactly - this is just the sort of thing happening between standard and extended evolutionary theory, arguing which approaches, perspectives, and categorisations are the most fruitful in evolutionary analysis, and each straw-manning the other for dramatic effect. I think it's great - and I suspect that the emergent concepts of the EES viewpoint will gain increasing traction over time.

 

[stevevw]

I was just trying to clear up an obvious discrepancy between what you claimed and what your source claims. Then you say it's just semantics and I'm just being nit-picky. On the other hand, for all I know, it was a rhetorical ploy. Such trickery is commonly attempted by creationists--how do I know you aren't trying it too unless I call you on it?

Well the first thing you can do so that you can clear up any confusion about word meanings without automatically calling me on it is to fully read the links and posts to understand what they are saying. Words taken in isolation may appear to have more than one meaning but in the context of the whole section and other quotes on the topic, you can see how the word is applied.

In this case, I posted the quote from the EES paper in the same post where you picked out the word 'lack' that I personally used and that is why I used it because the paper used the word lack. In other words, I was paraphrasing the paper which is a common way to reference academic literature. The fact you didn't see this is an oversight on your part which could have helped alleviate the skepticism of any creationism. But also by reading the other quotes, this would have also helped in showing that the word 'lack' did not mean without no explanation at all as all the other quotes acknowledge that the EES adds explanatory power as well.

My concern is this often happens in this thread and I have had to point this out many times which seems to me too much of a coincidence and that some may be jumping to conclusions about what is being said as creationism. Sometimes the word itself is being twisted completely from its original meaning to point out how I am wrong. Like the word 'lack' which actually means 'not having enough of something' rather than 'having nothing at all'. It has been the same with other words I have used like 'highlight' which means 'highlighting something from other things' and not making that something the 'one and only thing'.

So yes word meanings are important and need to be clarified so long as the proper meaning is understood in the first place and not taken out of context.

 

[stevevw]

The semantics are important because they convey meaning.

I agree, but so long as the meaning is properly investigated and understood and not taken out of context or twisted to mean something else as what has been happening in this thread too often.

 

[Ophiolite]

Sometimes the word itself is being twisted completely from its original meaning to point out how I am wrong. Like the word 'lack' which actually means 'not having enough of something' rather than 'having nothing at all'.

Well, this is a perfect example of the problem. Your definition of "lack" is incomplete. It can mean what you say. but it can also mean "having nothing at all". Given that difference, which is more than a nuance, it behoves the writer to make clear which meaning he is using. If they do not do so, then any ambiguity arising is their responsibility. Such is the case with your use of "lack".

Cambridge Dictionary: The fact that something is not available or that there is not enough of it
The Free Dictionary: Deficiency or absence
Merriam-Webster: To be deficient or missing
Dictionary.com: Deficiency or absence of something needed, desirable, or customary

Those are the first four definitions I found when searching on line. It is clear that your definition is one of the correct definitions. I repeat, basing your argument on only one creates ambiguity and that is down to you.
I regret having to add this caveat, but frankly I don't trust you not to try wriggling out of this. Your statement, quoted above, is absolute. You state that "having nothing at all", "absent", or "missing" are not acceptable definitions of lack.

 

[VirOptimus]

I agree, but so long as the meaning is properly investigated and understood and not taken out of context or twisted to mean something else as what has been happening in this thread too often.

The only one responsible for your posts is you.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

I agree, but so long as the meaning is properly investigated and understood and not taken out of context or twisted to mean something else as what has been happening in this thread too often.

If you don't use words correctly in context, other people won't understand what you say. If you don't correctly understand words in context, you won't understand what other people say.

Context is important to meaning.