Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

You haven't really provided a reason for comparison at all as far as I can tell, I provided the reason of replacement myself, so no you can't claim to have convinced me of anything.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You are just pulling a lawyertrick because you have no argument why comparing elephants and ants is meaningless, when comparing nylon eating and non nylon eating bacteria is supposedly a meaningful scientific theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The trick is that you extrapolate my agreeing with different fitness giving rise to different proportions, to agreeing that this is a scientifically meaningful theory. As before, the comparison is possibly meaningful IMO only to get at a replacementfactor, and you never presented comparisons in the context of a replacementfactor.You are not comparing elephants and ants while you do compare nylon eating and non nylon eating because ... [insert argument here] ....regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 11-10-2003]

That you accuse me of ignorance is because you have no clear understanding of the reasons for comparison in Natural Selection. Would you have a clear understanding of that, you would just convey that understanding to me, and there would be no need to make vague references to other then ns cases where comparison between organisms is useful. That you say that "the entire point of Natural Selection is arguably replacement" is nothing more then emotional assertion of the usefulness of selection, there is no scientific rigour there. Modern Natural Selection is expressely not about replacement AFAIK.By individual selection, replacement would probably only show up from the point of view of the variant being replaced, where the other variant is a downward selective pressure. From the point of view of the replacer the other variant is mostly just a temporary constraint, and should probably be ignored. See it's perfectly possible to view replacment non-comparitively, as said to you a dozen times before, adding comparison as a requirement for Natural Selection limits the theory to a few peculiar scenario's. You are stubbornly misrepresenting the issue as if comparitive selection covers so much more then individual selection, while the reverse is obviously true.I refer you to my faq posting before in this thread for your false statement that the presence of variation makes an individual approach useless.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I consider it shown that you only have some vague notions why comparing elephants and ants is meaningless while comparing nylon eating and non nylon eating is supposedly a meaningful scientific theory.I reject your vague notions as unscientific, by strict standards of science. I would like for people to show some respect for this position, which is perfectly fair, and obviously meritable IMO. Failing that I tend to conclude that people are just in the debate for the sake of defending Darwinism tooth and claw, in stead of aspiring for the truth about it.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The scientific rigour of the individual approach is in the consistency of the theoretical framework, and the scope of applicability. For the rest it's just the same as standard natural selection, so you are equally doubting standard theory if you are doubting individual theory.Again, the opposition to an individual approach is not based on any rational argument whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu