Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

The genetically deformed Muslims is something biology professor Plavsic talked about, as a member of the Serbian-Bosnian presidential commitee during the war in Bosnia. Plavsic is now in prison for her warcrimes. This was then reconstrued by the talk.origins mob as if I had alleged it. (because they couldn't deal with neutrality as an ideal in science, in stead of as a fact)Do you consider yourself misled by PaulK for omitting this little piece of information about Plavsic?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I'm not asking you who you believe, I'm just asking you if you consider yourself misled by PaulK for omitting the information about Plavsic.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I would say that the fact that you find that information essentially irrellevant shows you to be corrupt in handling evidence.
Who here can't immediately recognize the resentment ridden post of PaulK for what it is?, a screwy attempt at characterassassination.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's just as pathetic an accusation now as it was then. You have no case except in your own twisted mind. Obviously, you are just very upset about my opinion about the relationship between Darwinism and Social Darwinism. (an opinion which you will now misconstrue into something bizarre I'm sure). Very sad.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well I would say that you and PaulK are quite obviously dishonest?Anyone agree?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I answered that question in the elitism and nazism thread already, which nobody here reads that well apparently.....http://EvC Forum: Elitism and Nazism -->EvC Forum: Elitism and Nazismregards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-18-2003]

I explained this before, there wouldn't be a creation vs evolution controversy IMO if it weren't for the politics associated to Natural Selection. I mean there might still have been a controversy in the backhalls of some university if there weren't much of any politics associated to Natural Selection, but it would have no signficant societal interest IMO.I've also explained several times how Creation can be true, and trivialize evolution. By tracing the likelyhood of any particular creature coming to be. So for instance we could possibly trace back in time the likelyhood of humans coming to be to a single creation event, where the formation of humans whole became a relative certainty from that single creation event onwards.Some days ago I read some paper about an organism reverting back to a pre-meiotic stage before evolving. That reminded me of Salty, and how the shaky evidence of evolution theory can still be covered by many very different descriptions.edited to add:I think the Scopes trial is an excellent arena to stake your position on creation vs evolution. The scientific community at large supported Scopes, ignoring, neglecting or supporting the eugenic textbook teacher Scopes teached from, which eugenics Bryant explicitely argued against.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-18-2003]

You tend to ignore the politics, I tend to ignore the science. I think you are the more foolish to ignore that Scopes teached from a eugenics textbook, or to treat that fact as somehow subordinate in importance to the question if or not evolution theory is scientifically valid.Most all Christians and some Muslism I've seen are mainly focused on the immoral beliefs associated to Natural Selection / evolution. I don't think this is just 5 percent, but 99 percent, who find this aspect most important.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Every time you post you show your belief that facts are just neutral to be a fairytale. You are simply quite dishonest, manipulating evidence to the conclusion you like, and I have no reason to assume you don't act exactly the same way in your practice of science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Of course you would say that I'm in no position to question your honesty, because you can't handle such questioning, because as you previously stated you believe the facts you produce are neutral by definition.Alelle frequencies don't change over time. Given the share of stasis of traits vs evolution even by the evolutionist interpretation of history, that is a more true statement. You say that allelle frequencies change over time because of your prejudicial focus on evolution. Again, you're not succeeding in being neutral, and that must be because your belief in neutrality by definition stops you from trying.You said previously it was neutral to provide data about the properties of material, like plutonium. Luckily enough the scientist providing a sample to the Nazi scientists didn't think so, and provided a contaminated sample to the Nazi's so that the Nazi's were misled about the properties of some material (some kind of uranium I think it was). It would have been so easy for the scientist in question to think that providing correct information about a material didn't have any moral implication. Then we might all have been Nazi's or dead.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes.The tricky lawyer Darrow silencing Bryant, the Social Darwinist journalist Mencken publishing about the trial, the self-important science establishment, the use of the trial by evolutionists to promote their cause, it's quite interesting all.I think it's cheap to attach the word modern to evolutinary theory as if the fundamental issues in the creation vs evolution debate have changed. I don't think so. Modern is selfish genes, evolutionary psychology and differential reproductive "success", Kevin MacDonald publishing about Judaism as a eugenic reproductive strategy. Nothing has changed.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are incorrect Mammuthus, heritability is generally zero, stasis of traits is generally observed, changes in allelle frequencies are the exception rather then the other way around.That you have observed a change in allelle frequency means nothing. You have to look at all cases to make a general statement.Again, you aren't very good at living up to the ideal of neutrality in science.I see that you still would rather have us be Nazi's or dead, then to give up your claim to absolute innocense in doing science.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, I'm referencing evolutionist Hagen, heritability of genes is generally zero, and Gould, stasis is mostly observed in the fossilrecord.And I'm not just saying that you are incorrect about it, but that you are willfully blatantly dishonest about it, as you are about the Plavsic issue.Why are you making abstract arguments about neutrality in a scenario where lives are at stake? It's ridiculous.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Again, every post of yours in which you express your glaringly prejudicial opinions as fact is a demonstration that neutrality is an ideal.Sometimes, in a very few number of cases, there is a variant in a population which competes other variants into extinction. Having swept to fixation relatively quickly, stasis then returns. Allelle frequencies don't generally change, that is only an exception to which you are prejudicially focused.I think you should look up what heritability means in a Darwinist context. The meaning is different from the common meaning of heritability. Genes that are fixed in a population have a heritability of zero, regardless of what number offspring are produced, regardless of genes being passed on.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It is a Darwinist understanding of heritability because the understanding is more or less comparitive between variants, just like Natural Selection.Mammuthus has cited no studies which give a general overview on stasis vs allelle frequency change. It's not the point to reference single cases of frequency change, or stasis. I referenced Hagen saying heritability is generally zero ( I never said always zero), and Gould etc. talking about the prevalence of stasis. That is about the subject at issue, at least.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu