Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

But when you say that Natural Selection must be non deterministic then you would say that it was Natural Selection regardless of white or black moths becoming prevalent, the outcome being uncertain.The trees turn black and then the color white becomes prevalent. According to you this is Natural Selection. Where Natural Selection indeterministically provided a different result.regardless,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The subject at issue is the comparison between variants, not comparison between before and after for each.I think the analogy with income-effects explained all quite well. There is no comparison, unless you make the comparison. Why would I want to, what is the point? You are still not addressing what the point is of the comparison.The isolated data how each particular variant functions in reproduction is useful for environmentalists in order to preserve, or for doctors in order to make a population of bacteria or something extinct, or for biologists to understand Nature generally.So far in this thread I have.- alle frequencies change as a rule rather then an exception to stasis
- Natural Selection is indeterministic
- You can't know how an organism reproduces if there aren't variants.
- What is the point of knowing how an organism reproduces?These errors are not small, they are big. Whenever are any of you going to drop your prejudices and investigate the issue? Why must I ask several times what the point is of the comparison without an answer?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

It's not very convincing to say that the point of comparison is to compare things. The camouflaged reproduce 4 times more then the colorful, which means the colorful reproduce 4 times less then the camouflaged. Now what? 4 and 1/4, still meaningless as far as I can tell.Notice that these numbers would have no relevancy to the present when either of them becomes extinct, as often happens. You have some odd numbers, which are likely to be consigned to history.In antibiotic resistance I'm guessing that the "resistant" bacteria becomes reproductively stable at a certain populationsize in the body, and that the doctor should realise that taking out the competitors of the resistant bacteria would contribute to the reproduction of the "resistant" bacteria.Please demonstrate where Natural Selection becomes meaningful in antibiotic resistance.With governmentpolicy I think most people would primarily be interested to the group they belong to, and that data is plenty meaningful already to them without comparing to different groups at all. I think you would need more data to make comparing income-effects on groups meaningful.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As far as I know the numbers would be 4 and 1/4 because they should both be relative numbers.You misunderstand, I guess the doctor needs to stop resistant bacteria reaching a populationsize where resistance becomes full. Again where should the comparison be specifically? I thought the doctor might have to realise that the antidote would kill non-resistant *faster then* resistant. But on second thought it seemed to me that killing any competitor would increase reproduction of the resistant.Comparisons between variants are potentially as meaningless as comparisons between elephants and ants. It suggests that the essential differnce between elephants and ants is a generic relative measure of reproduction. The comparison obscures the physical relationships there might be between variants, or obscures that there isn't a physical relationship between variants, and obscures the actual number of organisms. It basically obscures the relationship of the particular variant to the environment in terms of reproduction.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I would still like to see specifically where the comparsion comes in with anti-biotic resistance, and also see if my guesswork based on my conception of viewing organisms in terms of reproduction individually is correct!regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, if your argument is how you can make a comparison without making a comparison then your argument is meaningless, so I wasn't addressing that, I was just making a description of same events without comparing.In my description the frequency of camouflaged increased in real terms, not relative to the population as a whole. You might imagine a scenario where something changes in the environment and the numbers of both variants decrease, but one decreases less then the other, so you have differential reproductive success. You will then say that one of them increases it's fitness, because the relative share in the population of the one variant becomes larger. IMO that is deceptive, that you note a variant having increasing fitness, just before it might actually become extinct.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As before, if your argument was how can you make a comparison without making a comparison, then your argument is stupid. I didn't address that, and won't address that, I'm just showing how you can describe the same events without making a comparison, and explaining why this is better then describing comparitively, which is deceptive.I make a distinction between frequency and relative frequency, and by just frequency I mean the absolute numbers yes. You're still trying to catch me in wrongly making a comparison, in stead of addressing the merits of describing without comparison. Do you think it's somehow impossible to describe the relationship of organism to the environment in terms of reproduction without comparing to a variant organism?When one mountain succesfully enjoys greater height then another then this isn't a "phenemona", it's a comparison. Same with organisms.(edited to add darwinspeak...)regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 10-24-2003]

I believe it doesn't make sense when you say that fitness increases relative to a variant, and then next say that fitness increases relative to the environment. The environment has no fitness, you can't increase fitness relative to the environment. Or otherwise the other one is wrong.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Selection select each individually by criteria of reproduction, and variants are an incidental environmental factor.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I think the correct words are fitness (to the environment), and relative fitness (to a variant or the population whole). Your argument did make sense, but the wordusage is wrong IMO, and had me confused.When you say that adaptive changes in allele frequency occur, then that sounds like the population is the unit of selection. Relative allelle frequency sounds like a population trait, not an organism trait.I think you are, or should be, only referring to the one variant replacing another variant, and not referring with adaptation to "growth" of camouflaged in so far as they don't replace coloured, otherwise you are guilty of comparing apples and oranges again.You really have no chance to argue against the broader more generally applicable individual approach without undermining essential parts of the comparitive approach as well, and I think you realise that by now.It's a bit of a lucky coincedence in my opinion, that there just happened to be camouflaged individuals in the population when the predators were introduced. So then the adaptation occurs when the predators were introduced, but normally I would guess the point where the adaptation occurs is a mutation, for instance a mutation that gives camouflage. There is no adaptation in allele frequency change, that is just spreading of adaptive traits.The basic setup of Natural Selection, to have potentially useful variation present just waiting for a change in the environment to become adaptive, is faulty IMO. It basicly says that the variation produced is not random in respect to contributing to reproduction, but that the variation is potentially useful in contributing to reproduction. That is of course not true, most variation disappears without contributing to reproduction at all, it's deceptive to treat them as potentially doing so.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This is what I wrote as the beginnings of a my-opinions faq on individual selection (and later to add the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism), to stop cluttering up of other threads with these subjects, and hopefully to raise argument to a higher level.Q:Selection without variation?A:That's right, basicly just each organism getting selected individually. An individual approach still applies when there is variation in a population, it just describes each variant individually, rather then describing variants comparitively.Q: What is the definition of Natural Selection when you exlude variation?A: The relationship of an organism to the environment in terms of reproduction, where lowering chane of reproduction means to be selected out, and making the chance of reproduction higher means to be selected in.Q:But if there are no variants to select between, what is then being selected between?A:Reproduction or no reproduction is what's being selected between for each organism.Q:How do you expect me to believe that Natural Selection is wrong when every biologist says it's correct?Af course one has to decide for oneself what version of selection is right, and which is wrong, and not base that judgement on authority, but there is some circumstantial evidence that makes it more credible that the common definition of Natural Selection theory might be simply wrong.- Unlike in other sciences Darwinists much use prosaic books to advance their science, in stead of technical papers. Prosaic language can more easily hide technical faults in a theory.- Most notably Popper, as well as some other philosophers found technical fault with Natural Selection, and the definition "survival of the fittest", and while these philosphers don't point out the same fault as I do, it's not like I am the first or only one to say that Natural Selection is wrong.- There are Darwin interpreters with dissimilar opinions on what Natural Selection is. There is no great big monolith definition like F=ma in Darwinist science, and some small diversity around that one definition like you have in physics, but rather Darwinists have a set of notions what Natural Selection is about, which results in a rather vague collection of definitions of Natural Selection.- Like any Darwin interpreter, I can also find support in Darwin's prosaic work for my definition of selection. Darwin once seriously contemplated to have the theory be named Natural Preservation, in stead of Natural Selection. When you use the name preservation in stead of selection, then you might more easily see how you can use this theory individually in stead of comparitively between variants.- (for as far as I can tell) in computersimulations of Natural Selection there is no comparison between organisms coded. Some simulations make comparisons between variants to provide data to the user, but this comparison is not part of how the digital universe behaves. So really what is not there in the coding of a computersimulation maybe simply shouldn't be there in a worded definition either, or should it?Q:How do you investigate the theory of Natural Selection?A: Basicly I do this by continuously asking the question what is required to occur for the theory of Natural Selection to apply. For instance Natural Selection doesn't apply for traits that are not varying in a population. After having found the minimum requirements for Natural Selection to apply, I then make up every sort of theoretical scenario, with variants, without variants, with variants that are competing, with variants that are not competing etc. etc. and then see if Natural Selection can satisfactorily describe these theoretical scenario's.Q: Theoretical scenario's? Isn't science supposed to be objective, why don't you use real world examples?A: Yes, I do try to use real world examples, but I also think Nature is very rich, and every theoretical scenario is bound to have taken place somewhere in Nature. Doing this avoids being prejudicially focused on describing one particular sort of scenario, and neglecting other scenario's.Q: But how can you describe evolution with selection, when you don't include variations?A: I can't describe evolution with just selection, I also need mutation for that. Of course, I am defining evolution here in the sense of descent with modification, where Darwinists more commonly define evolution as a change in allelle frequency in a population.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Variation does disappear, as also by the standard version of Natural Selection. I'm at a loss how you can say otherwise. Again, my point is that the mutations are not really random if you say the variations provided by mutation are for contributing to reproduction when the environment changes. Mutations are usually deleterious, and so become extinct through competition with variants, or they have no phenotypical effect whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes I would like those people who previously said they wouldn't reply to me anymore to go away, like MrHambre, Mammuthus, and Tazimus Maximus.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mark:
"That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others."Do you agree?----As in the post previous, there is no adaptation in allele frequency change, that is just spreading of adaptive traits. No I don't agree.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

But it's just like saying that the individuals in the population have changed, but they don't change of course, a change occurs, and this change spreads, or not as the case may be.I must refer you to the arguments raised previous. There is no point if you just define things your way without argumentation, and then say it happened.Q What is meaningful here?A The relation of camouflage to the predators.B How many colorful there are compared to camouflaged.My answer is A, your answer is B.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu