Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 181 of 192 (65565)
11-10-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Syamsu
11-10-2003 9:52 AM


Syamsu,
You are just pulling a lawyertrick because you have no argument why comparing elephants and ants is meaningless
1/ I'm not saying comparison is meaningless, you are. Though lord knows why since you agreed to #1 & #2!
2/ I'm not comparing elephants & ants.
3/ What "trick"? You made statements that you contradicted, there is no smoke & mirrors, no mystical force, you actually didcontradict yourself.
when comparing nylon eating and non nylon eating bacteria is supposedly a meaningful scientific theory.
You agreed #2. You tell me?
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Syamsu, posted 11-10-2003 9:52 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by Syamsu, posted 11-10-2003 11:32 AM mark24 has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 182 of 192 (65566)
11-10-2003 11:32 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by mark24
11-10-2003 11:15 AM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by mark24, posted 11-10-2003 11:15 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 184 by mark24, posted 11-10-2003 4:01 PM Syamsu has replied

Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 183 of 192 (65568)
11-10-2003 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 173 by Syamsu
11-08-2003 10:43 AM


Wonderful Syamsu,
You have now shown us one more area of biology in which you are completely ignorant, that of comparative biology. The fact that there are a number of meaningful comparisons which can be drawn from Ants and Elephants does not mean that any and all comparisons of anything will always be meaningfull.
It would be a basis for selection because as we all know, except possibly you, you can't select without having more than one variant. Selection between those two variants can only be gauged by a comparison such as their relative reproductive success, unless you would care to tell us how else it could be measured?
I will agree that many bacterial strains extant do not metabolise Nylon, and even that many would not ecolve a system to metabolise nylon giving extensive evolitionary time. That doesn't matter, all it takes is one or two common non Nylon metabolising strains to make your non-comparative anti-bacterial approach useless.
Why could I not compare Nylon metabolising and non-metabolising populations? I just suggested some explicitly comparative experiments a few posts back. The times comparative natural Selection as you call it fails to apply is when populations have no overlap, inhabiting entirely seperate environments, this is not neccessarily going to be the immediate result of a bacterial strain developing a Nylon metabolising system.
Since the entire point of natural selection is arguably replacement then the fact that comparisons are neccessary to measure replacement is surely argument enough. All you need to do is show us how your simplified redefinition can describe replacement/ selection without any comparisons.
TTFN,
WK
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 11-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 173 by Syamsu, posted 11-08-2003 10:43 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 6:07 AM Wounded King has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 184 of 192 (65598)
11-10-2003 4:01 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by Syamsu
11-10-2003 11:32 AM


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.
So what? In that case you are just saying the same thing using different words.
You have still contradicted yourself.
And with someone as slippery as yourself, that's the best were gonna see. After all, would you credit someones opinion when they contradict that same opinion? I wouldn't.
Mark
------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by Syamsu, posted 11-10-2003 11:32 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 186 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 6:44 AM mark24 has replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 185 of 192 (66000)
11-12-2003 6:07 AM
Reply to: Message 183 by Wounded King
11-10-2003 11:47 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Wounded King, posted 11-10-2003 11:47 AM Wounded King has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 186 of 192 (66005)
11-12-2003 6:44 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by mark24
11-10-2003 4:01 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by mark24, posted 11-10-2003 4:01 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 187 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 7:05 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 188 by mark24, posted 11-12-2003 7:08 AM Syamsu has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 187 of 192 (66007)
11-12-2003 7:05 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Syamsu
11-12-2003 6:44 AM


quote:
I reject your vague notions as unscientific, by strict standards of science.
1. Please demonstrate that you understand science and the scientific method..a couple of paragraphs will suffice.
2. Define the "strict standards of science" that you claim to adhere to
3. since you skipped this before...
provide a testable hypothesis for your scenario
show how it is falsifiable
provide evidence
demonstrate how it better explains the data/observations than other competing hypotheses.
If you cannot do any of the above then there is absolutely no reason for anyone to heed your statement
quote:
I would like for people to show some respect for this position, which is perfectly fair, and obviously meritable IMO.
and then we should have tend to conclude (or conclude yet again) that Syamsu is
quote:
just in the debate for the sake of defending
scientific illiteracy, logical fallacy, lazy scholarship, lack of detergent for his laundry
quote:
tooth and claw, in stead of aspiring for the truth about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 10:23 AM Mammuthus has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 188 of 192 (66009)
11-12-2003 7:08 AM
Reply to: Message 186 by Syamsu
11-12-2003 6:44 AM


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.
If you consider it meaningless why did you agree to #2? Very puzzling!
Please, please, please, Syamsu, for the edification of us all, please tell us why a "comparative method" is "false", "rubbish", "pointless", & now unscientific, & yet you agreed to such a description?
Anyone who can agree to disagree with himself in such a way can only lead onlookers to conclude your own POV is "false", "rubbish", "pointless", & "unscientific". Such blatent hypocrisy is rare enough, Syamsu, to see you attempt to defend it is highly entertaining.
I reject your vague notions as unscientific, by strict standards of science.
I'm not comparing elephants & ants in the first place, making your comment moot. I am comparing pheno/genotypes within a population & how they change........
1/ What is unscientific about comparing ratios of geno/phenotypes in a given population before & after a selective pressure is brought to bear?
Furthermore natural selection is not necessarily "replacing", it can lead to equilibria, thus trashing your latest misunderstanding regarding "replacement factors".
2/ Specifically, how do you have an ESS within a population without one phenotype being directly relevant to others?
If you can't show my POV to be unscientific, then I do not accept your conclusion. Why don't you show that I'm being unscientific?
Mark
------------------
"The primary purpose of a liberal education is to make one's mind a pleasant place in which to spend one's time" - Thomas Henry Huxley
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-12-2003]
[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-12-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 6:44 AM Syamsu has not replied

Syamsu 
Suspended Member (Idle past 5590 days)
Posts: 1914
From: amsterdam
Joined: 05-19-2002


Message 189 of 192 (66023)
11-12-2003 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 187 by Mammuthus
11-12-2003 7:05 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 7:05 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 11:14 AM Syamsu has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 190 of 192 (66026)
11-12-2003 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by Syamsu
11-12-2003 10:23 AM


I see, so you avoided questions 1, 2, and 3 (presumably because you cannot answer any of them) after your special pleading for people to respect your assertions... and this is your "evidence" in support of your assertion?
I think mark24 knocked you around so badly in your recent exchanges that you are becoming even more incoherent than usual...better run now Sy...I think I hear the final spin cycle of your washing machine starting.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by Syamsu, posted 11-12-2003 10:23 AM Syamsu has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by MrHambre, posted 11-12-2003 12:03 PM Mammuthus has not replied

MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 191 of 192 (66032)
11-12-2003 12:03 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Mammuthus
11-12-2003 11:14 AM


Around and around and around
Mammuthus,
You think it's easy to get the laundry done without sorting the stuff? Judgmental language like 'whites' and 'darks' is just what Darwinism leads to. I don't think it's even meaningful to compare wet and dry clothes.
regards,
All Temperature Colorfast Syamsu (now with Stain Stopper!)
PS. Do you have any idea what the replacementfactor is on my crew socks??
------------------
America is like watching a symphony conducted by the tuba player. -Dow Mossman, The Stones of Summer

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Mammuthus, posted 11-12-2003 11:14 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 192 of 192 (66033)
11-12-2003 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 178 by Adminnemooseus
11-10-2003 3:57 AM


Closing topic
quote:
Minnemooseus tells me that he suspects the title question was answered no later than page 2 of this topic.
I'm pretty sure the Phoenix will rise again, under a new topic name.
Adminnemooseus
------------------
Comments on moderation procedures? - Go to
Change in Moderation?
or
too fast closure of threads

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Adminnemooseus, posted 11-10-2003 3:57 AM Adminnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024