Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

He often labels himself a creationists and claims that his assertions are consistent with creationists ideology. However, what the ideology he is referring to is as obscure as the logic in the rest of his posts.His main points seem to be that 1. that there is no variation of any significance in populations 2. to claim there is and to be so bold as to compare relative reproductive success among variants is dangerous 3. because it leads to social darwinisms which..4. Darwinism equals nazismHis arguments are naive and misguided but I would not say one could lump him in with what other creationists typically say.Very interesting that he apparently called Bosnian muslims genetically deformed given his persistence in condeming the supposed judgementalism he accuses all scientists of.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-18-2003]

quote:

---

Do you consider yourself misled by PaulK for omitting this little piece of information about Plavsic?

---

I have what PaulK asserted and what you have asserted with neither one of you posting a link to the original discussion.... so for all I know you could be the one attempting to mislead me...see why posting the evidence for your assertions is important? Your lack of knowlege of biology and wildly accusatory statements regarding others, not to mention your debate tactics on this site would lead me to believe PaulK over you but you can clear the matter up buy posting the evidence in your favor.

paulK writes:

quote:

---

he did try arguing that the Bosnian Muslims were "genetically deformed" at one point. After running from that discussion for the next two years he tried to pretend that he never said it - running away whenever the evidence was produced - before finally claiming that he didn't really mean it and that he was taking some form of "devil's advocate" position.

---

Why is this misleading? He accuses YOU of advocating that Bosnian Muslims are genetically deformed. You have not denied this nor have you provided evidence that this is something you disagree with, nor have you provided a link to the original discussion. That he does not mention another person who has stated something similar (though you have not provided evidence that this was said by Plavsic either) is irrelevant to establishing whether or not YOU stated that Bosnian Muslims are genetically deformed.

and it gets better

quote:

---

What do you mean by that? History says that some genetically deformed
Serbs embraced Islam.

​

>>This biology professor said there was.
>
>Why are you trusting her?

​

Because she is a professor in this field, and carries herself nicely.
I'm currently too busy with the laundry to go and verify her findings.

---

I would say PaulK's post and the links therin with your own words shows that you are a liar....you assasinated your own character

You are the one who made a statement that paulK was misleading me, PaulK presented his evidence in the form of your own words supporting exactly what he said...and you claim we are dishonest...you don't seem to even accept your own words but maybe you could clear the entire matter up if you are not to busy doing laundry..or telling lies

Yes folks..we have it....understatement of the century!

quote:

---

I tend to ignore the science.

---

quote:

---

Every time you post you show your belief that facts are just neutral to be a fairytale.

---

Allele frequencies in populations change over time..that is a fact and it is neutral whether I post it or anyone else does...or are you going to show us all a partisan fact regarding natural selection?

quote:

---

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.

---

You are in no position to question my honesty or my practice of science. You are the one who made a racist statement and then denied it even in the face of your own words...so you are a liar....you are also a hypocrite because you claim that you are worried about "judgemental language in science" yet in every post you yourself put yourself above all others and claim to be able to judge them....you could use a heavy dose of reality....that is if you have time to spare from doing that mountain of laundry that prevents you from researching support for your assertions or ignoring the science.

You are right...I should not mock laundry..especially after having found the Syamsu Institute for Ignoring Science..right here

The variation was introduced by horizontal transfer from the Naked Chef

quote:

---

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.

---

Nope, you are in no position because you yourself have been demonstrated to be a liar.

quote:

---

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.

---

I see you are "tending to ignore science" again

quote:

---

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.

---

Nope, I say that allele frequencies change over time because unlike you I do not "tend to ignore science" I actually read about experimental observations and perform my own...and alleles vary in populations over time. You are merely demonstrating your complete ignorance yet again and then accusing me of not being neutral. You have never read any scientific study of relevance to what you are arguing, have a tendency to lie, and have a tendency to ignore science...it is your beliefs that prevents you from trying to understand.

quote:

---

You said previously it was neutral to provide data about the properties of material, like plutonium

---

And here is your tendency to lie again...I claimed that the facts about the properties of plutonium themselves are neutral...what one does with plutonium is not.

quote:

---

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).

---

To much laundry to look it up for sure

quote:

---

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.

---

And this has what to do with the properties of plutonium? If the scientist did or did not give the nazi's plutonium that would not change the facts about how many protons, neutrons etc plutonium has...you have perfectly illustrated that the opposite of what you said is true...the scientific facts of the element plutonium do not change regardless of what is done with the element plutonium..thus the facts are neutral...I am sure you will now lie and do laundry in response

quote:

---

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.

---

Go into the database and find all the retractions of every study that shows changes in allele frequency are not observed...until you can do so you are incorrect..not me.

quote:

---

That you have observed a change in allelle frequency means nothing. You have to look at all cases to make a general statement.

---

Nope, almost every species (the only exception is W. nobilis) shows variation...I do not have to look at every single living organism on the planet to make a general statement...considering you yourself cannot find an example of a species that does not show change in allele frequency over time suggests you are full of crap and I am not..the burden is on you.

quote:

---

Again, you aren't very good at living up to the ideal of neutrality in science.

---

You are not at all capable of researching the background of your assertions, providing support for your statements, telling the truth, or doing laundry for that matter if it is so involving for you that it interferes with you finding out if what you say is wrong or not.

quote:

---

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.

---

You are the one who has more in common with the nazi's with your considering Bosnian Muslims "genetically deformed"...you could write Mein Kampf II with such an opinion....and you have yet to show how the characterization of the properties of plutonium are not neutral
i.e. facts
Plutonium - (Planet pluto), Pu; at. wt. (244); at. no. 94; sp. gr. (alpha modification) 19.84 (25 deg C); m.p. 640 deg C; b.p. 3228 deg C; valence 3, 4, 5, or 6. Plutonium was the second transuranium element of the actinide series to be discovered. The isotope 238Pu was produced in 1940 by Seaborg, McMillan, Kennedy, and Wahl by deuteron bombardment of uranium in the 60-inch cyclotron at Berkeley, California. Plutonium also exists in trace quantities in naturally occurring uranium ores. It is formed in much the same manner as neptunium, by irradiation of natural uranium with the neutrons which are present. By far of greatest importance is the isotope Pu239, with a half-life of 24,100 years, produced in extensive quantities in nuclear reactors from natural uranium: 238U(n,y)--->239U--B-->239Np--B-->239Pu Eighteen isotopes of plutonium are now known.Where is the moral relativism that you derive from the molecular weight of plutonium or anything else in this cite?

If you could not inherit genes you would not be here as your parents could not have passed on their genes to you...and you differ from your parents...stasis in the fossil record is not the same as changes in allele frequency over time which you have stated over and over does not happen. And as far as stasis in the fossil record, that is a willful misrepresentation of Gould.

quote:

---

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.

---

LOL!!!!that is rich....you make a racist statement and show your true colors, lie about it, and then accuse me of dishonesty.

quote:

---

Why are you making abstract arguments about neutrality in a scenario where lives are at stake? It's ridiculous.

---

You were unable to rebutt my point and now are trying to evade addressing it...could it be you are a liar AND a coward? (who has a lot of laundry to do if he wants to "tend to ignore science" since the data keeps pouring in negating everything you say?)

You know...I think I have to agree with this post.Sy has done nothing but show willful ignorance ("tend to ignore science"), bizarre ungrounded conflation of nazism and Darwinism (given what appear to be his own rather vile eugenics views),
refuses to show any sources to support what he says, shown that his knowledge of biology is that of a two year old with head trauma, and now has shown himself to be a racist liar.It is like debating somebody who has just had a lobotomy and it is getting boring. He can't defend himself but just keeps posting the same shit over and over...guess he will continue but like dealing with most insane people (or fundies)...smile and back away slowly (as Quetzal would say..and should make Moose happy). [This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 09-19-2003]

quote:

---

Perhaps Syamsu believes in Lamarkian evolution.

---

Unlikely. Lamark was also trying to explain the observed variation in the natural world and his mechanism was false. Sy denies the observed variation in the first place.