Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

Peter, perhaps it's better to leave well enough alone. I don't think a new thread is likely to convince your opponent, who has demonstrated repeatedly (and I mean repeatedly) his inability and/or unwillingness to grasp the concept of natural selection. The fact that he started a thread with the subtle title of "Destroying Darwinism" should give you an idea of how open he is to honest debate.The main issue here is variation, which I argue is never meaningfully absent from the Darwinian algorithm. The tiresome series of arguments concerning whether or not evolution could take place without variation was either an intellectual parlor game or a mere exercise in futility. What could possibly be gained by arguing such an unrealistic point at such length?The greedy-reductionist definition of variation certainly tends to focus on genetic similarity. Don't forget that there is variation even in the most similar of offspring, as I myself can attest. I'm an identical twin, and so share identical chromosomes with my twin brother. However, I have a double uvula and he does not. Isn't this variation? Offspring of asexual reproduction don't demonstrate much genetic variation either, but this is no reason to pretend that genetic variation is the only basis on which natural selection operates.Natural selection can act upon environmental variation as well: cattle that graze near a cliff may be more likely to be selected out due to a landslide, for instance. If a difference in diet makes one segment of the population more prone to parasites, isn't this natural selection acting on variation too?This 'objection' to natural selection is absolutely meaningless. Variation is always present, and its degree will help determine the rate of evolution through natural selection.

This only verifies my theory that if there were no creationism, evolutionists would have to invent it. I fail to understand what possible benefit could come from debating a person whose notion of science is both completely divorced from reality and scornful toward reasonable responses. The same goes for debating those here who are quite obviously mentally ill.Before you fundie-haters get your clubs out for Seor Syamsu, I'd like to make a comment about the 'sport' involved in engaging people like your worthy opponent here: whenever I play chess with my four-year-old daughter, I win every game! You people should be just as proud of yourselves.------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-09-2003]

AutoC, your worthy opponent just proved my point.The reason you don't play chess with four-year-olds is because they're likely to move the pieces however they see fit and object to any attempt to correct their behavior. This way they can claim to be able to beat Kasparov. But they can't claim it's CHESS.You're absolutely correct that we're here to debate. What definition of debate describes the way your opponent here chooses to behave? Ordinarily if a person can't or won't agree to terms or guidelines, we decide it's a waste of time dealing with that person. Judging bya) the literally hundreds of postings that your opponent's incoherent rantings have produced, andb) the fact that his current arguments (see post #18) are absolutely indistinguishable from the ones with which he started threads such as "Darwinism and Nazism,"there's every indication that this is indeed a colossal waste of time. I keep asking what possible good could emerge from further engaging him.I have no problem with people who have a different agenda, and your worthy opponent certainly has that. I also have nothing against people with different communication skills, but your opponent has yet to demonstrate that he has any at all.------------------
Quien busca, halla[This message has been edited by MrHambre, 07-09-2003]

The following are people Brad has invoked in recent posts:Galileo, Fisher, Newton, Aristotle, Mayr, Darwin, Gould, Dawkins, Pascal, Lewontin, Russell, Quine, God, Futuyma, Wright, Gish, Parker, Bliss, Provine, Plato, Derrida, Galton, Wolfram, Croizat, Caesar, Levin, Edelman, Mendel, Hegel, Heidegger, Husserl, Kant, Cantor, Chomsky, Dyson, Eigen, Feynman, Boscovich, Pauling, Crick, Fox, Maxwell, and of course Einstein.Did I forget anyone?

quote:

---

In standard Natural Selection theory, fitness is always relative to another variant and doesn't apply when there is no variation.

---

And once again, there is never a time when there is no variation. Your hypothetical populations in which all individuals are genetically identical, look/smell/taste/sound the same, subsist on exactly the same diet, have exactly the same habits, and occupy exactly the same physical space, are nothing but a figment of your imagination.The only things that display no variation whatsoever are your arguments.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

Selection still applies to populations that have variation, it just applies individually to each variant, in stead of applying to a variational pairing.

---

Selection is the process that eliminates certain variants (and as a consequence their unborn offspring) from the next generation. Variational pairing is your own term and you alone consider it relevant.

quote:

---

Obviously when evolutionists admit that most all the time there is stasis in a population for most all traits, then Natural Selection as the description for the Origin of Species, is not applicable most all the time. So really you have it the wrong way around, the standard definition almost never applies, and my definition of selection applies all the time.

---

Anyone else would benefit from studying contemporary theories on speciation before making such a claim. I daresay educating yourself is not your main concern. The general stability of most large populations doesn't preclude isolated subpopulations from diverging to create new species. This is widely accepted as the model for speciation.

quote:

---

I wish that evolutionists would stop bringing up their often refuted arguments. It is dishonest to bring them up again and again without taking note of the counterarguments that have already been offered.

---

The irony in this statement is so overwhelming I'm quite honestly speechless.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

Why this topic is in the free for all forum is because of people like you repeating the same old refuted arguments over and over and over.

---

Well said, Sy, don't you HATE when people do that?------------------
Quien busca, halla

I wish I'd never selected 'Debbie does Nganjuk.'

At least YOU had a theater.

Okay, I admit it, I include variation in my definition. But about the murders, no comment.------------------
Quien busca, halla

quote:

---

Out of curiosity - can men be Wiccans?

---

We've been over this before. You've offered absolutely no justification for including men in the definition of Wiccan. You're just attached to the definition that includes variation so you can say that some Wiccans are better than others. You've been refuted so now why don't you go away. Same goes for you, Scraf. And if Peter's not already away, he should go away.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

Okay, you can all act superior to Sy if you want, but you'll be laughing out the other side of your pieholes when he delivers a rambling speech in Stockholm. I wonder who'll be laughing when he tells you suckers to go away in front of the Nobel Committee.I've compiled a list of Sy's pertinent arguments here
EvC Forum: Misc. side comments to things in other topics
and you've gotta admit he's a crack debater. I particularly like how if you don't mention a point you already made in a previous post, he assumes you've surrendered that point. That's ingenious.I'm not 'deep' enough to understand his slant on social Darwinism. However, his argument that variation should not be included in the definition of Natural Selection is just the sort of brilliant theory that only someone who knows jack shit about science would concoct. Hey, if a patent clerk can come up with a theory of relativity or two, anyone can work this scam.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.

All kidding aside, Sy's scientific ignorance cripples his ability to conceptualize such complexities. Studying one and only one member of a population is easier for daisy-sniffing, but it renders such concepts as 'endangered species' or even 'species' absolutely meaningless. The only reason his ideas have garnered such attention is that other creationists at this site are nowhere near as voluble, persistent, or intractable as our man Sy.------------------
En la tierra de ciegos, el tuerco es el Rey.