Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 136 of 192 (63295)
10-29-2003 9:55 AM
Reply to: Message 134 by Syamsu
10-29-2003 9:05 AM


I did not mean to say that there is no variation present, I just meant to say that mostly variation disappears without contributing to reproduction.
I don't think there is any argument with this.
That you describe the variation that is present as a resource that just incidentally can contribute to reproduction when the environment changes basicly says that the variation is not random.
Why would you conclude that? The variation is random some of it happens to contribute to reproduction, some doesn't. That is happens to contribute to reproduction later doesn't mean it was any less random in how it occured.
If it were random we should assume that variants can't deal with differing environments, because there are so many more possible variations that can't contribute to reproduction even if the environment changes, compared to variations that might contribute
Why? There may be a lot of variations which don't contribute but that doesn't mean there can't be some that do?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 134 by Syamsu, posted 10-29-2003 9:05 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 137 of 192 (63304)
10-29-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by mark24
10-29-2003 9:55 AM


Yes sure I agree. What's the point?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by mark24, posted 10-29-2003 9:55 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by mark24, posted 10-29-2003 12:43 PM Syamsu has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 138 of 192 (63317)
10-29-2003 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by Syamsu
10-29-2003 10:48 AM


Syamsu,
Yes sure I agree. What's the point?
The "point" is that adaptive evolution via natural selection requires both variation & differential reproductive success. Something up until now you have steadfastly refused to accept. It is embodied by this statement that you have agreed with:
The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
So, what was the point of disagreeing all this time? As far as I can see it was simply a pointlessly stubborn exercise on your part. For natural selection to do anything other than change population numbers there must be variation & differential reproductive success.
Mark
[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-29-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by Syamsu, posted 10-29-2003 10:48 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 10-30-2003 2:31 AM mark24 has replied

Dr_Tazimus_maximus
Member (Idle past 3217 days)
Posts: 402
From: Gaithersburg, MD, USA
Joined: 03-19-2002


Message 139 of 192 (63323)
10-29-2003 1:42 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by Syamsu
10-29-2003 1:24 AM


Re: a second opinion
Hi Syamsu, while I have said that your comments are essentially worthless, that you do not respond to the points made to you, that you are profoundly ignorant of either biology or any other area of science as far as I can tell, or that your approach to logic appears to be equally without foundation, I do not ever remember saying that I would not reply to you or your erroneous assertions. I do recall on occasion saying that I don't have time to respond but that means something a little different. Care to back at least one of your comments up and post a link to my supposed statement?
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by Syamsu, posted 10-29-2003 1:24 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 140 of 192 (63420)
10-30-2003 2:31 AM
Reply to: Message 138 by mark24
10-29-2003 12:43 PM


It's difficult to tell what you are saying, but if you are saying that an individual approach somehow describes less then a comparitive variational approach then you are simply wrong.
Again it would be no problem to describe same events without comparing, I fail to see how you can possibly think that you somehow must compare variants to be able to describe events, other then to satisfy your definitions of words which require comparison.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by mark24, posted 10-29-2003 12:43 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 3:33 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 144 by Peter, posted 10-30-2003 4:55 AM Syamsu has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 141 of 192 (63428)
10-30-2003 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu
10-30-2003 2:31 AM


Syamsu,
It's difficult to tell what you are saying, but if you are saying that an individual approach somehow describes less then a comparitive variational approach then you are simply wrong.
No, for those paying attention it's been very, very easy to see what I'm saying. Adaptive evolution via selection requires variation & differential reproductive success. Without differential reproductive success acting upon variation, all you do is change the population size, not the ratio of alleles.
Again it would be no problem to describe same events without comparing
No, it would be IMPOSSIBLE to describe the same statement of events that affects the population as a whole without comparing. You have to put the final population figures into a ratio. Of course you could describe the events of the fortunes of each phenotype separately, but the statement you agreed with compels you to describe the events as they pertain to a single breeding population, & that means a ratio, & that means a comparison.
At time 1/ I have 100 oranges & 100 apples, at time 2/ I have 1000 oranges and 50 apples. Can you tell me the ratios without comparing them? I think not.
I fail to see how you can possibly think that you somehow must compare variants to be able to describe events, other then to satisfy your definitions of words which require comparison.
You have it wrong, the definitions serve the explanation, not the other way around. It is far easier to explain the events to a layman my way, without having to tortuously avoid certain taboo phrases like you do.
When describing changes in ratios of allele frequencies in a population, it is relevant to consider fitnesses of all members of the population in order to predict which fitness is/was higher, to describe the population changes via natural selection. You cannot have a ratio without a comparison. It's IMPOSSIBLE! Hence the term, "differential reproductive success". It simply means one is fitter than the other, therefore one phenotype increases it's ratio within the population, how would you describe it in such simple terms?
Let me put it another way, in order to describe the ratio change in allele frequency you can describe that the fitness of one phenotype has increased, but since a ratio is involved, compared to what? Something must have a relatively lower fitness.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 10-30-2003 2:31 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 10-30-2003 10:35 AM mark24 has replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 142 of 192 (63436)
10-30-2003 4:51 AM
Reply to: Message 133 by mark24
10-29-2003 9:03 AM


Fair enough -- I thought Syamsu was saying that
variation disappears though (like altogether).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 133 by mark24, posted 10-29-2003 9:03 AM mark24 has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 143 of 192 (63437)
10-30-2003 4:53 AM
Reply to: Message 132 by Syamsu
10-29-2003 8:57 AM


No, my answer is A & B.
quote:
But it's just like saying that the individuals in the population have changed, but they don't change of course, a change occurs, and this change spreads, or not as the case may be.
Precisely why you cannot get useful insight from study in
this area by focussing on an individual.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 132 by Syamsu, posted 10-29-2003 8:57 AM Syamsu has not replied

Peter
Member (Idle past 1479 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 144 of 192 (63438)
10-30-2003 4:55 AM
Reply to: Message 140 by Syamsu
10-30-2003 2:31 AM


quote:
Again it would be no problem to describe same events without comparing,
Focussing on ONE individual tell me why there are more
camouflaged prey-animals than not witin then population.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 140 by Syamsu, posted 10-30-2003 2:31 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 145 of 192 (63448)
10-30-2003 10:35 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by mark24
10-30-2003 3:33 AM


And so what was this ratio then with the camouflaged and the colorful? What was the ratio with the nyloneating bacteria and their ancestor? It seems meaningless. I was told that the mutation that enables the nylon eating bacteria to eat nylon, makes them unable to eat what their ancestors eat. So reasonably the population splits along the lines of this mutation, where in stead you repeatedly talk about the population as a whole.
Murphy's law of worst case scenario's would state that your theory just happens to not apply in that one case of an organism causing a disease, and that because the standard theory doesn't cover it, that then the disease would be disastrously misunderstood.
Mark:
"Let me put it another way, in order to describe the ratio change in allele frequency you can describe that the fitness of one phenotype has increased, but since a ratio is involved, compared to what? Something must have a relatively lower fitness."
But I can't really describe the fitness when I'm describing the relative fitness, that is just very confusing. The colorful are fit in respect to mating, the camouflaged in respect to predators, two completely different things. Besides the predators, the camouflaged are a downward selective pressure on the colorful. Focusing solely on real relationships seems to me more easy then mixing comparitive relationships with real relationships.
I'm sure you have to argue in terms of the one replacing the other to legitimize comparing, but obviously when you do that you will just end up with a theory with a narrow scope of application that shouldn't be accepted as a standard theory of selection.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 3:33 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 1:36 PM Syamsu has replied
 Message 179 by Peter, posted 11-10-2003 7:17 AM Syamsu has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 146 of 192 (63470)
10-30-2003 1:36 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by Syamsu
10-30-2003 10:35 AM


Syamsu,
And so what was this ratio then with the camouflaged and the colorful? What was the ratio with the nyloneating bacteria and their ancestor? It seems meaningless.
How can it possibly be meaningless? Natural selection has changed the allele frequencies within a population.
You may as well say natural selection is meaningless as regards changing ratios of alleles.
I was told that the mutation that enables the nylon eating bacteria to eat nylon, makes them unable to eat what their ancestors eat. So reasonably the population splits along the lines of this mutation, where in stead you repeatedly talk about the population as a whole.
I could still make a claim that you are wrong, but we would simply be making the same claim & stating it differently. Phenotypes/genotypes changes ratios due to natural selection in the population as a whole. The difference is that you are now talking asexual reproduction, & alleles no longer have the ability to jump in & out of direct lineages (recombination aside) as they can in sexual reproducers.
If you recall, the statement you agreed with considered sexual reproducers only:
quote:
The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
This is relevant because your original claim was that variation & differential reproductive success are unnecessary for natural selection. I never denied the pure selection against the environment that you advocate, & I do understand the point you are trying to make, it's just that it is inappropriate under all circumstances. I claimed you were wrong to deny that natural selection in it's entirety could be considered exclusively of variation & differential reproductive success.
Given your response in message 137, you appear to agree.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by Syamsu, posted 10-30-2003 10:35 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 10-31-2003 5:51 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 147 of 192 (63577)
10-31-2003 5:51 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by mark24
10-30-2003 1:36 PM


As before, I only consider it possibly legitimate to include variations in so far as it describes replacement of one by the other, a replacement factor.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by mark24, posted 10-30-2003 1:36 PM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2003 8:46 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 149 by mark24, posted 10-31-2003 8:57 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 148 of 192 (63594)
10-31-2003 8:46 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
10-31-2003 5:51 AM


Well if you are looking at a proportional ratio of two alleles then you are always going to have a context of replacement as one can only go up as the other goes down.
It is reasonable to argue, as you and I have discussed before, that this proportional approach is entirely inapplicable to a situation where an organism, such as the nylon eating bacteria, breaks into a previously unexploited niche where it has no competition, but it is only inapplicable if you want to treat both the nylon eating and non-nylon eating bacteria as one population, which seems daft if they operate in completely different niches and do not compete for any resources, obviously there will be no replacement in such an example.
TTFN,
WK

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 10-31-2003 5:51 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by Syamsu, posted 11-01-2003 8:27 AM Wounded King has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5196 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 149 of 192 (63597)
10-31-2003 8:57 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by Syamsu
10-31-2003 5:51 AM


Syamsu,
As before, I only consider it possibly legitimate to include variations in so far as it describes replacement of one by the other, a replacement factor.
Suits me, like I say, adaptive evolution requires variation & differential reproductive success. Say it any way you like, it's the same thing to Mr Darwin & natural selection.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by Syamsu, posted 10-31-2003 5:51 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 150 of 192 (63786)
11-01-2003 8:27 AM
Reply to: Message 148 by Wounded King
10-31-2003 8:46 AM


A contect of replacement seems a very vague notion to me, I would want to see a replacementfactor when comparing variants, and getting this replacementfactor would then be the point of making the comparison.
I'm just going to be strict and say that the case of the nylon eating bacteria, as it was explained to me, shows that the standard comparitive theory of selection has a limited / prejudicial focus of application, and is therefore false.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by Wounded King, posted 10-31-2003 8:46 AM Wounded King has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by mark24, posted 11-01-2003 9:40 AM Syamsu has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024