Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

Syamsu, If the comparison is so faulty, why were you utterly unable to explain the changes in colouration of the guppy populations without effectively mentioning variation within a population, & differential reproductive success, here?Mark

Syamsu, Oh you explained it all right, you just did it in such a way that everything you said about NS that wasn't true, was. Namely variation & differential reproductive success. So we have, 1/ variation, & 2/ differential reproductive success, because one phenotype reproduces more successfully than the other.So what "comparison" was it about NS that is so wrong?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6." [Added link to quotation from message of another thread. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 09-21-2003]

Syamsu,Still no answer to 59?Mark

Syamsu,Slippery as ever, don't you embarrass yourself? Anyone without an agenda would have conceded this a month ago. So why did you write; Those with camouflage are compared reproductively with those that are not camouflaged. That is, those that have camouflage, are reproductively compared with those that don't have it. The comparison is implicit. How can you tell that "camouflage contributes to reproduction", without C-O-M-P-A-R-I-N-G the non-camouflaged reproductive success with camouflaged?Roll up, people, this will be a corker!Natural selection requires variation, & differential reproductive success. How can your quote above not include variation & differential reproductive success between phenotypes?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Syamsu, 1: So how can you say one sub-pops population is reproductively more successful than another without comparing the two?2: Do you have a personal definition of "compare", too? Spare me the equivocation, get a dictionary & define "compare". 3: Good grief, how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole? So it is a comparison, now? Make your mind up.It was obvious when you started denying that variation & differential reproductive success weren't a part of NS, who exactly had lost touch with reality.Please respond to points 1,2, & 3, above.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003]

Syamsu, Oh, the equivocation! You said that one group affected the others reproduction, this means that because the relative frequency of one phenotype increases at the others expense. If you don't want to call that success, fine by me, then explain this reworded version, specially devised for the master equivocator himself:1: So how can you say one sub-pops population has reproductively affected the other without comparing the two? Lot's of things are comparisons that aren't in your post. But indulge me, define it, & cite your source. I admitted no such thing, in fact the exact opposite is my contention. It is pretty difficult for you to deny: Implicit means implied though not plainly exressed. So when you talk of two populations affecting each other, you HAVE to compare them in order to know that one has affected the other, even though you never used the word "compare".Please answer the question.3:how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Hi Wounded,I agree completely.He has already pointed to the link between the two phenotypes & how they affect their reproduction, hence the implicit comparison. He is just equivocating. We'll never get him to admit it, & really I'm just along for the ride to see the level he is prepared to sink to, in order to deny the obvious.Mark

Syamsu,Just answer the questions, point by point.1: So how can you say one sub-pops population has reproductively affected the other without comparing the two?2: Define comparison/compare3:how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole?You wrote: How do you know the two phenotypes have changed in frequency due to camouflage, then? You told me that the chance of reproduction of one phenotype diminishes that of the other, how do you know this?Tell me Syamsu, I'm utterly unable to comprehend how one determines a frequency of phenotypes within a largwer set/population, & then determining that it has changed due to predation without at some point comparing the numbers/frequencies of each? The simple act of determining that frequency has changed is a comparison by definition.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-24-2003]

Syamsu, But you didn't do this. You DID describe the population as a whole, those that have camouflage, & those that don't. Did I leave any out? No, that's the entire population of breeding individuals accounted for. How can the frequency of camouflaged individuals change when you are only looking at individuals with one trait & not the other!? It will always be 100%, surely? I'm sure you mean absolute numbers, rather than frequency? If the guppy population exploded by a factor of 10, both populations can increase whilst the frequency of one rises at the expense of the other. Why did you think you could cop out on absolute numbers when you don't know what the figures were? The frequency observably changed, the absolute numbers may have gone up or down.Tell me Syamsu, I have 100 oranges & 10 apples, what is the frequency of oranges alone? Do you see how stupid your above statement was? Here's another problem, tell me what the [1]frequency of apples are to oranges, [2]later on the numbers of both oranges & apples are 100 each, the frequency has changed from your answer in [1] to a new value, what is it? Show your work.You were asked to explain the relative frequencies of the camouflaged vs. the non-camouflaged sub-populations with regard to the presence/absence of predators. Let me put it another way so that your childish equivocation is eliminated. How can you know that the relative frequencies of the camouflaged vs. non-camouflaged guppies have changed without counting one population, then the other, & then dividing one by the other? Nope, I would say the traits possessed by the sub-population that increased in frequency are better adapted than the one that decreased in frequency, hence the population as a whole evolves because allele frequencies have changed. In other words, one sub-population is fitter relative to the other. The fitness relative to the environment has decreased overall, but adaptive evolution in the population has taken place because one sub-population enjoys differential reproductive success over the other. How could such a phenomena occur without differential reproductive success? The two sub-populations are able to freely interbreed, after all.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Syamsu,I’ll try a different tack.My contention is, & has always been, this: 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?The following hypothetical examples concern just two traits c & nc (camouflage & non-camouflage)Example 1/ A population has a ratio of individuals c:nc of 10: 100. There is an environmental change & the population explodes to 100:1000. That is, relative to the environment, the entire population has experienced a fitness increase, but the ratios are still 1:10 in both cases. No adaptive evolution has taken place. c is not any more or less fit than nc.Example 2/ A population has a ratio of individuals c:nc of 10: 100. There is are environmental changes & the population explodes to 500:1000. That is, relative to the environment, the entire population has experienced a fitness increase, furthermore, one phenotype, c, has increased it’s relative frequency in the population from 1:10, to 1:2. So, all phenotypes have increased in fitness, but c has increased in fitness by more than nc. There has been a fitness differential evident. Change in allele frequency has occurred. Adaptive evolution has taken place.If you simply compare fitness to the environment to the exclusion of other species members, then adaptive changes in allele frequency within that single breeding population cannot occur. For allele frequencies to adaptively change within a population, the environment must act on fitness differentials within the population as a whole.Silly question, but I have to ask it, do you agree?Evolution & natural selection are directly concerned with alleles & their frequencies, for a selective pressure to be brought to bear on an allele, means that it contributes to reproduction in a positive or negative way. The allele will then change in frequency in that population, because a fitness differential has been introduced to individuals within the population. No fitness differential, no adaptive change in allele frequency.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Syamsu, Why not? If the environment changes in more than one way, what, fitnesswise would cause the ratio of traits to change, & at the same time allow the population as a whole, even the phenotype that is decreasing in relative frequency, to increase?It simply requires more than one factor to be at work, one affects the whole population equally, & the other negatively affects one phenotype more than the other, just less than the positive effect of the first.An example, a species of fish in a river see an explosion of their food source, there is a population explosion, this factor affects both phenotypes equally. All individuals produce more offspring in absolute terms as a result of this factor. They are fitter vs. the environment. But, alas, a predator then gets introduced, meaning the non-camouflaged individuals are still better off than before, but don't do as well on average as the camouflaged individuals. One phenotype proves fitter than another, as a result the population adapts. Everyone is fitter, but some more than others, & thus adaptive evolution takes place. It's actually very, very, simple Syamsu, you just have to read for comprehension. Who said the environment was fit? It is the ability to produce offspring that is fitness. The more offspring they produce, the fitter they are. If a predator vanishes, then an individual will be fitter because it's not in the intestine of another organism. I find this comment perplexing because it is you who is insisting that fitness is measured against the environment only, rather than other members of the same species.I draw your attention back to my original contention which was: "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."If you disagree, please do so with a better explanation than, "it doesn't make sense", especially after I provided a perfectly plausible scenario.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Peter,Exactly, this is why I clearly restated my position, he's not going to be allowed to argue a strawman.Mark

Syamsu, Relative allele frequency is a population trait, but populations are made of lots of individuals, right? It's an extrapolation of what occurs at the genic/individual level (& I have no intention of getting into what the basic unit of selection is) into the make up of populations. Individuals do not adapt genetically, populations do, even if the selection occurs at the individuals level. But I'm not saying one variant replaces another at all. Ultimately it might, but my examples show the process occurring, not completing. Two snapshots, rather than a beginning & an absolute end. The point I am belabouring is that populations adapt via natural selection via differential reproductive success. If I only consider one variant I cannot be in a position to know that the population evolved. Remember my original contention? "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." How can I possibly study, or be in a position to know that the population has evolved by only considering one variant? With reference to my original contention I clearly have to have a knowledge of both in order to make a determination that the population has evolved in the first place. It is impossible otherwise. I fully understand your argument that the fitness of an individual phenotype can be measured alone without reference to the rest of the population. It's just that in this situation it is inappropriate to simply look at one phenotype, when we are concerned with a before & after relative frequency. We cannot have a relative frequency without looking at both. Not at all. How the variation occurred is utterly irrelevant to the argument.Again, I draw your attention back to my original contention which was: "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?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-28-2003]

Syamsu, The spreading of "adaptive traits" IS adaptation!!! Good grief!! I can't wait to hear your tortured, twisted definition of adapted. Hey Syamsu, I would agree that the sun rises in the east, but I define sun & east differently to you so it doesn't happen, right?This is why it is so frustrating debating with you, Syamsu. If you ever found yourself as an eyewitness to an accident case, & was asked to testify in court, what would you achieve by saying "no, the bus did not run over the pensioner, I define bus differently to everyone else, so it didn't happen"? You either don't understand the topic, or are using a dishonest tactic to deflect from the true thrust of the points being made.You're equivocation aside, I'll define the term to deny you the wriggle room.Adaptation is a process of genetic change of a population due to natural selection whereby the average state of a character becomes improved with reference to a specific function. Or a feature that has become prevalent in a population because of a selective advantage owing to its provision of an improvement in some function.(Futuyma)These are common biological definitions of adaptation. I'm not interested in your personal definition, when I made my statement I did so using the definitions above (that other biologists & geneticists use).Now, I'll say it again: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 with this, using the intended definition, rather than your personal one?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-29-2003]

Schrafinator, I think Syamsu means that hypothetically, in a population where no new variation is introduced, variation is reduced via selective processes until the variation & heritability = 0. He is correct. Well, mostly, there are examples of equilibrium being maintained selectively.You are playing into his hands, you will argue past each other for several posts & waste your time. It's just the place he likes to be.Mark