Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

Tihs snouds lkie amlsot etcxaly the same thnig you just dineed bnivleieg in the otehr tarehd. Why do you tihnk the use of the troehy of eoutvoiln by eesgticinus, or even by evtooisnuilts, bears in any way on the vliadity of the theroy isletf.--Precy

I'm typing as fast as I can, both fingers even...--Percy

How do you jsfuity igonirng sccenie geivn taht yuor'e qnisotieung the sneitificc vdatliiy of eivoutoln? Wonul'dt you epcext taht rhecanig sneitificc ccsnoinluos based upon piiltoacl caitsinneoodrs wluod lead you acrbilppeay aratsy? Des'not taht hlep you uetrnnsdad why yuor'e ubalne to pdueasre anonye of yuor point of view? Aner't you ocne more mainkg the smae sanemttet taht you deeind mainkg in the Eiitslm and Nazism thread? You aapepr to ocne agian be camnilig taht baeusce eeunicgs drwas upon the terhoy of eivoutoln taht it trfoeerhe has smoe imcpat on the tr'hoyes vdatliiy. I'm afaird no one but you is rdnaieg maorl itmcpnoliias into nrauatl scoetlien. To evyeonre else it is a silmpe mehtinicasc psceors.--Pecry[This message has been edited by Percipient, 09-19-2003]

Yes, I found it fascinating. I wrote a short Perl script to do it, attached below. Of course, I first processed it with itself. --Percy

#!/usr/bin/perl
​
# Smcrbelas the lerttes in eevry wrod of a file except for the fisrt
# and last lerttes.  Does the smae scrblame for the smae wrod.  Werits
# to STUODT.
​
use sicrtt;
​
my $pormgaNe = $0;
​
my $femliaNe = $AGRV[0];
​
if ($femliaNe eq "") {
exit;
}
​
if (! -e $femliaNe) {
pirnt "$pormgaNe: Erorr - fneamile deos not eisxt: $femliaNe\n";
exit(1);
}
​
open FN, "<$femliaNe" or die "$pormgaNe: Erorr - culod not open $femliaNe: $!";
​
my $lnie;
my %adreSelWroayrlddabmcs;
wilhe ($lnie = ) {
cmohp($lnie);
my @Lnie = silpt(/([^a-zA-Z0-9\'\_])/, $lnie);
froaech my $wrod (@Lnie) {
if ($wrod =~ /[a-zA-Z0-9]/) {
if (dienfed($adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod})) {
pirnt $adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod};
} esle {
my %soWcrrd;
my @Letetrs = silpt(//, $wrod);
my $ltsaLetetr = pop @Letetrs;
$soWcrrd{"10000"} = $ltsaLetetr;
$soWcrrd{"0"} = sfiht @Letetrs;
froaech my $ltteer (@Letetrs) {
my $inedx;
for ( ;; ) {
$inedx = int(1000 * rand);
if (!dienfed($soWcrrd{$inedx})) {
$soWcrrd{$inedx} = $ltteer;
last;
}
}
}
my $nrwoeWd;
froaech my $inedx (sort {$a <=> $b} keys %soWcrrd) {
$nrwoeWd .= $soWcrrd{$inedx};
}
$adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod} = $nrwoeWd;
pirnt $nrwoeWd;
}
} esle {
pirnt $wrod;
}
}
pirnt "\n";
}

While we're clarifying terminology, heritability isn't really part of a "Darwinist context". Heritability in the current context is a genetic, not Darwinian, term, since genetics didn't join with evolution until well after Darwin with the Modern Synthesis of the 1920's. This is the central point of your current disagreement with Mammuthus. He has cited studies indicating that allele frequencies change with time. Can you cite studies showing allele stasis with time?--Percy

Actually I wouldn't know, I haven't taken a position on this specific issue, though I *have* agreed that eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology have drawn from evolution. I wasn't attempting to comment about evolution influencing personal morality. I've only been addressing your intimations that the moral implications of evolution are a factor in the theory's scientific validity. Anything you think I said about morality had to do with morality not being part of the scientific theory of evolution.--Percy

You're not very specific. Labeling physical properties with names like "god" and "soul" does sound very unusual to me, but I'd have to see the actual context in order to judge. After all, quarks have properties with names like strangeness and charm, and that doesn't mean that quarks are strange or charming. They're just labels. I don't think I've given any hint of confusing the possibility of a role for evolution on the development of a moral sense with the social/political impact of the concept of the theory of evolution. If you want to think so I won't try to persuade you otherwise. It is only your belief that the existence of such influences is somehow part of the scientific validity of their work that I disagree with. Lorenz's work on instinct would be valid whether he was a man or a monster. E would equal mc² even if Einstein had been a Nazi. If you don't like the science then you must address the science, not the men and the culture from which the science sprang. Your approach seems like an extended ad hominem.--Percy

But you keep bringing up the "moral implications" anyway.I can't escape the feeling that you're stuck on this "comparative versus individual" red herring because there's something about population genetics you just don't get. It sounds like your interests run more to the impact of scientific knowledge on society than to the science itself. I have no objection to either one.--Percy

You're talking about Message 328 of the Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection... thread. It wasn't a case of I said you were right and Quetzal said you were wrong. It was a case of I said you were right and Quetzal pointed out that I had actually misinterpreted what you said and that you were still making the same incorrect statement as before, just in a different way. I have to concede that the ambiguity in your phrasing was apparent once pointed out, so that now I can't be sure what you meant. Without knowing what you meant there's no way to tell if you're right or wrong.If you meant that individuals in a population with camouflage diminished the fitness of those without it, then I think you're right.If you instead meant that the absence of expression of camouflage in some individuals directly diminished their fitness independent of the degree to which camouflage is exhibited by the rest of the population, then I think you're wrong.So it wasn't a case of me thinking you're right and Quetzal thinking you're wrong. It was a case of me thinking you said one thing and Quetzal thinking you said another.You never did clarify. Which way did you mean it?--Percy

That's fine, I was wrong in my interpretation of what you said. And if you recall, you said this in Message 60: But you're saying I misinterpreted you when I thought you were right, so in that case both Quetzal and I think you're wrong, and therefore Quetzal and I are not in disagreement. The apparant disagreement between me and Quetzal was the reason you cited for not providing an answer to Mark, and so since this obstacle is now removed you are free to give Mark an answer to his Message 59.--Percy

Let me merely plead nolo contendere at this time in order to step aside and permit you to reply to Mark's Message 59.--Percy

Darwin expressed his fury at the criticism? Really? Darwin is reknowned for his reticence toward directly confronting critics, leaving that task to supporters like Huxley. I'd be very interested in learning more about this. Where did Darwin express his fury? Is a quote available?--Percy

Implicit means that something is inherent or is part and parcel of something. For example, implicit in the statement "I just flew in from California" is that this person traveled on an airplane. Mark is saying that as soon as you address the qualities of two or more of something in the same context that you're making a comparison, whether you state that you're making a comparison or not.Competition is an inherently comparative enterprise. Whenever one organism benefits at the expense of another, their relative fitness in the environment is being compared. You can only deny comparison if you deny competition.--Percy

And I never said there was. You're confusing paragraph 2 of my message, where I mentioned competition as a form of comparison, with paragraph 1, where I explained why comparison was implicit in what you wrote. Contrary to what you say here, two organisms do not have to be exactly the same to compete for the same resources. Every summer Japanese beetles eat my rhododendrons. The beetles are not identical, yet they all compete for the same resource. The variation within the beetle population is not sufficient to cause them to occupy separate niches, and so they all want the same rhododendron leaves. If rhododendrons were a scarce resource then those beetles which outcompete their brothers will survive to pass on their genes. The competition for rhododendron leaves is, in effect, a comparison of relative fitness within the environment.--Percy

Addressing this directly would require first figuring out how you're defining "competition" and "encroachment", because applying the normal definitions of these words doesn't yield anything I can make sense of. Of course competition *is* an integral part of natural selection, and of course the outcome is *not* deterministic.Since competition is part of natural selection, and since competition is a comparision of fitness, natural selection is therefore an inherently comparative enterprise.--Percy