Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

quote:

---

It is going to be tough to do this while Syamsu doesn't understand what NS is.

---

You mean that you have not heard that Syamsu knows more about NS and understands it better than ANYONE else on this board, at least so he claimed in the parent to this thread . And that is without understanding any of my examples of populations (ie part of the gaussian curve example), genetics and molecular biology (genotypic vs phenotypic and the difference between particulate genes and the blending of phenotypic traits) or essentially anything about modern biology. He is still The Man.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

substantiate ANY of your statements. Take this statement

quote:

---

he let his values be influenced by what he considered fit

---

Where in the hell did you get this. I have several books on Darwins life and this fits none of them. For His Time Darwin was quite progressive. Yes, he considered blacks inferior, although there is doubt as to whether he truly thought that it was ingrained (ie genetic) or social(ie technology), and in that he was VERY much in line with the European thinking of the time. Unlike many in Europe, he was also against slavery and against many of the practives that were prevelant at the time with respect to the poor, practices which later became a part of group of misguided people who espoused social darwinism, something that was totally outside of the scientitif theory which they obviously did not understand. And Lorentz was not a social darwinian, although he was a nazi sympathiser, and I believe shortely a party member. If you do not believe me as to Darwin please try to read a real biography of the man, and not something in the Islamic Creationit Bookshop.By the way, are you EVER going to answer the theroetical models that deal with REAL biology which you do not understand , and by this I mean both the field biology and the models. Lets start simple, please explain the difference between genetic particulate inheritance (as you said that you read Mendel, which I doubt) and the blending of phenotypic characteristics.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

little of the discussion here is you. You seem to lack understanding in the fact that there are differeing degrees of genetic variation between every single organism within a species on this planet, even "identical" twins. You completely fail to understand any discussion of the expression of different phenotypes, about the role of this phentotypic expression on the interaction between the organism and its environment which defines the fitness of the organism, and how all of these factors define how variation within a population then acts as the raw material for the filter that is natural selection.Your statements that others do not, and can not, understand your points are so much arrogance and plain hubris based on ignorance and a religious based pomposity which feeds your pathetis ego. Many of the people who you are talking to have a much deeper understanding of biology and gentics than you ever will because they work to learn how the system works. You do not and apparently never have nor ever will. Your rantings on this subject have been repeatedly refuted with facts and published observations. When this happens you cry "appeal to Authority" or "I don't understand it so it CAN'T be important". Siam-sue, my four year old daughter debates better than you do. Please learn some biology and try again. You are certianly the weakest link, Goodbye.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazP.S. Just as nod to the forum rules, I just gave you, again, a boiled down rational for the inclusion of variation which you have NEVER addressed despite your pathetic rantings to the contrary.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-16-2003]

Hi Peter, I think that there is often a fundamental disconnect between work which is old but still valid and work which has been superseeded by later research. My doctorate is in biochemistry and my thesis has references which, at the time, ranged from 6 months old to almost 40 years old. All were relevant and all were neccessary for support of my thesis. The conclusions of some of my oldest references had obviously been rendered as invalid or had been modified in some way over the years but that did not render all of the research or conclusions invalid.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Presumably though your thesis did not rely on the older
refs, but used them as a foundational support for your
thesis.

---

Very correct. I have always thought that ignoring old material JUST because it was old to be a potentially serious mistake. That said, it always needs to be reviewed in the light of recent research, as part of my thesis dealt with.Actually I find Syamsu , and many other creationists, to have a fatal flaw in that they rely selectively on older work that supports their claims. The constant references to Newton and other pre-1800 scientists as not believing in evolution is quite idiotic. I actually prefer the more modern scientific writing style, Many earlier styles add far too much rhetorical pomp without additional data and are therefore not very efficient IMO.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

I thought that I would post two rather specific examples of the variation of a specific trait or group of traits as well as their effects both with respect to fitness as defined by Natural Selection as well as how they interrelate to Sexual Selection. These are real world examples, some of which I have posted references to in Syamsu’s earlier rant on this topic.The two species are Rana lessonae and Rana esculenta for frogs and Gryllus integer for field crickets. As I doubt that many have subscriptions I have posted links to my earlier posts of the abstracts. The main reasons that these are of interest is that, not only are there clear descriptions of genetically based variations in size, developmental speed and behavior, but there are descriptions on how the organisms interact with the environment and how the genetic variation leads to differences in the phenotypic expression that can be selected for or against in the environment. You know Syamsu, all of those things which you say do not exist or are not important.Lets start with the frogs and go over what has been mentioned in the past. Tadpoles which are either larger or mature faster have an increased rate of survival to adulthood and therefore to sexual maturity. There is variation within these survival levels and therefore variation in the survivability of the frogs to sexual maturity BASED on this differences in genetic and phenotypic makeup between individuals that is defined as the variation in the genetic and phenotypic makeup of the species population. The filter for Natural Selection therefore is towards increasing the size at metamorphosis and the rate in reaching metamorphosis. Now what keeps the frogs from becoming the size of Saturday afternoon horror flick stars, a combination of natural selection (predation on the easier to see large frogs, Burk 1982 Florida Entomologist 65:90-104) and sexual selection (females prefer frogs which are roughly 80% of their size Howard 1978 Evolution 32:850-871). An interesting thing in the last reference is another form of variation within both size and mating behavior of males which are both genetically determined examples of variation; namely, that of skulking. Smaller, silent males sit around larger singing male frogs and wait for females to be attracted, they then hop in and intercept the female and try to mate with her prior to the big male learning what is going on under his inflation sack. There is a stable but dynamic equilibrium present between these two variants, i.e. small and silent and large and singing, which can change through time as selective forces change. Just more variation for selection to act on.As for field crickets the dynamic is a little different. Male crickets sing and the females prefer a set wavelength to the harmonics in the song, therefore sexual selection pushes towards a more uniform wavelength (the wavelength of the song is genetically determined, as is the mating behaviors in most species, see G. Dovers work on flies for good examples). Natural selection however is pushing in the opposite direction. Female parasitic flies attack and kill crickets whose wavelength is near the preferred cricket female norm, and Natural Selection favors male crickets who sing a differently modulated song(Cade 1975, Science 190:1312-1313 and Cade 1979, Sexual Selection and Reproductive Competition in Insects). The result is a narrow variance in mating song within a location but which changes from location to location based on the relative populations of female crickets and female predatory flies. More variation and selection at work Syamsu.So Syamsu, are you EVER going to try to support your assertions with real world examples and data or are you just going to do more hand-waving and proposing of theories that are not only internally inconsistent, but also ignore and are often diametrically opposed to the real world.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazP.S. Oh and Syamsu, in case you cry () your usual "Appeal to Authority" BS, the references are so that you can look up the DATA for it's proper correlation of the theory to the real world. That is how science is really done.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-29-2003][This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 07-29-2003]

I completely understand. Syamsu spent a lot of time bleating (good word ) about why didn't other people put up models concerning the need for or the reason for variation in evolution. When I described a general population model based on a statistical distribution of genetic and phenotypic characteristics he complained that he did not understand it, and then went on to say that it was immaterial. A model that he does not understand is immaterial, now THAT I consider a telling statement.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

I don't think he sees the difference between natural selection
and evolution by natural selection.

---

Actually he does not understand science very well at all IMO. When I tried to explain the differences between particulate genetic inheritance and the actual blending of observed phenotypic traits which can occur for certian different combinations of particulate genetic inhertance he never appeared to get it. At that is first year genetics. His understanding of many other areas which impinge on the Neo-Darwinian synthesis also are on very shaky ground, ie ecology, general bioogy, developmental biology et.

quote:

---

Ah well, maybe in time, when he starts to understand
things ...

---

You have more hope that I do in this area .------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Why didn't I see it, a new paradigm. Theories which not only have no data, but go stictly AGAINST the currently available data. It is a mind-numbing new approach. And you are so right about his cracked approach to debates as well.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

That means that almost everytime that we sequence parts of a specific organisms genome that we can find a new species. That will put a kick in the pants of systematics. Syamsu's stupidendous approach appears to be leaving modern biology in complete turmoil.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Hey, that means most of us could apply. Maybe the new name would be Homo sapiens syamstupicus.Syamsu, if you think that this is all pointless abuse of you, you would once again be wrong. We have been picking out the more egregious errors w.r.t. biology that you have been making and playing them out. Namely your complete lack of understanding of molecular biology/molecular genetics, population genetics, ecology and general biology with special attention paid to your gross errors in what a mutation is, what the change in allelic frequency through time and location means and the interplay between genes and their expressed results.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you enjoy the play.Actually, rather than a tragedy I consider it more of a vaudvillian farce ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Or are you simply saying that the gross morphology of animals in a species is generally similar?

---

Actually in the first incarnation of this subject Syamsu indicated that as pretty much all sheep had four legs and that there were no steady genetic varients with five that there was no variation within sheep. He pretty much ignored my reply which pointd out real variation in legs in sheep. Typical Syamsu sloppiness and doublespeak.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Mark, there is about as much chance of Siam-sue answering your post as there is of him answeringthis. He might obfuscate and dance arounfd the point but he will not discuss or answer in an intelligent fashion.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Yes small one, we have seen it all before. Redefine something so that you even have a CHANCE in open debate, and a damned small chance at that.

quote:

---

Basic biology is just about looking at the relation of organisms to the environment in terms of their reproduction (cycle), which is the same that you get if you cut variation from Natural Selection theory.

---

For the curious and potentially undecided out there, including people leaning towards either creationism or Natural Selection, Siam is using an old trick. Redefine somnething incorrectly in the hopes of shoehorning in YOUR definition. There are two large errors here that have been explained to Siam-sue repeatedly, with factual support I might add.1) Basic biology covers areas outside of the reproductive cycle. It covers the organims entire life cycle and relationship to the environment, the reproductive cycle is only a portion of that.2) and unlike what Siam says, if you cut variation from the equation what you get is a series of reproductive copies (this actually never happens, even the few multicellular organisms that essentially reproduced, i.e. a rotofer whose species name I can not recall, by cloning have a degree of variation from mutations) that until variation is present can not evolve. Sans variation there is no differences between organisms and therefore no evolutioon. Evolution is change, no differences no change. And as molecular genetics always HAS shown variation, as the papers and data presented to Siam have demonstrated, all of SIam's statements are without support and are pure hogwash.By the way Siam, whenever you decide to grow a backbone and become a chordate, would you please answer the DATA presented to you.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-02-2003]Opps, link fixed[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-02-2003]