Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

Syamsu, A population with one phenotype was replaced by another due to natural selection, it is absolutely true! What makes you think it is false? Natural selection is invoked to explain the phenomena, it is entirely relevant that the entire population be considered, or you wouldn't know it had occurred in the first place. What is so hard to understand? What do you hope to achieve with your tiresome denials?Consider this statement:The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.Would you agree? (Or does your memory need jogging?)Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 11-01-2003]

I have no clue what you're talking about, maybe you should read up on what was said about the nylon eating bacteria before in this thread.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, I have, but I'm asking you to consider this statement:The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.Would you agree? You understood it before, why don't you understand it now? Or is this a new debating tactic? You have already agreed that the "comparative" method is true in post 137, & now it's false?You slippery eel, you.Mark

In the case of the nylon eating bacteria as it was explained to me, the population is not whole, but the population splits into separate niches.Yes I agree that changes in ratio occur when the one is fitter then the other, there is however no point to this. There is no point in the ratio of ants and elephants or to the ratio of nylon eating non nylon eating bacteria. As before, to make a point you would have to IMO make the comparison into a replacementfactor.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, But all descended from the same initial population, we now are able to note that it has changed. It's that simple. Ah, so when you said "standard comparitive theory of selection......and is therefore false", you meant true?Tell me, Syamsu, a hypothetical example. I am interested in the ratios of phenotyptes within a population & how it changes when different selective pressures are brought to bear. That is, I am interested in microevolution. Wouldn't you say that there is a point in determining relative fitnesses of the phenotypes in question to garner a more complete understanding of the processes at work? And isn't it vital to have a phenotype ratio of members of the population in question on a before & after basis?Mark

The population has not changed Mark, it has split into separate niches. You are allowing yourself to speak nonsense just to cram scenario's into standard theory that don't belong there.Again, ants and elephants, apples and oranges. All I can say is you have a peculiar interest in relative frequencies, over interest in real relationships of the organism to the environement in terms of reproduction. Sure if your interest is in relative frequencies you gain understanding by relative fitness, but what's the point of all this relativity?We all know what Darwin, Wallace, and Spencer would have answered to that, replacement throught competition is supposed to be the point of the comparing. Survival of the fittest, automatically means no-survival of the less then fittest. Now you can hope that in the meantime biologists have modernized the theory from it's original Malthusian concept, but actually all what has been done to the theory in the meantime, is some politically motivated patchwork to deal with the embarassment of Darwinists denying Mendellism for up to 70 years.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't get this sentence:
"The population has not changed Mark, it has split into separate niches"The population hasn't changed but it has split? Isn't a split a change?There was one kind of population there and now there are two and this isn't a change?

There are two populations, an old one still the same, and a new one on nylon. Are you going to equate "adaptive" population change, with the "population change" of a population splitting into separate niches? I guess you are..... I guess you must, if you want to hold on to standard theory.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

So you are suggesting that every time there is any genetic change that produces a phenotype change it is a separate population?

Syamsu, So a mutation occurring, being favoured by selection so that two sub-populations now exist instead of one isn't change? I grow weary of your mental gymnastics, Syamsu, you really are becoming a pointless waste of time.You claimed comparative analyses were pointless, please adress the following:"Tell me, Syamsu, a hypothetical example. I am interested in the ratios of phenotyptes within a population & how it changes when different selective pressures are brought to bear. That is, I am interested in microevolution. Wouldn't you say that there is a point in determining relative fitnesses of the phenotypes in question to garner a more complete understanding of the processes at work? And isn't it vital to have a phenotype ratio of members of the population in question on a before & after basis?"So, the "point" & relevance of viewing changes among populations is that that is how evolution occurs, change in populations. Populations evolve, individuals do not. Individuals may not change but the population does. Get it? Every student of Natural Selection understands this except Syamsu. Hence the study of the phenotypes & genotypes within a population & it's descendents are directly relevant to change within that population. An adaptive change in ratio of pheno/genotypes is population change. It is evolution via natural selection.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

Syamsu, Er, yes, that would be EXACTLY right. Everyone else gets it but you.It is relevant to consider one population when determining as to whether change has occurred. The original population & it's descendents. If the latter population isn't identical to the original, then there has been change. That is ALL that is relevant population wise. I, nor anyone else here denies that you could make a case for there being two populations based upon two different phenotypes, but it simply isn't relevant to the scenario.Your position is patently ridiculous. If gazelle evolved into giraffes, evolution hasn't occurred because there are now two populations & both must be considered separately. One is unchanged & the other is new. No change has occurred, right?Are you a stand up comic, or do you just entertain on the internet?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

We are arguing the technicalities of Natural Selection theory, not about evolution. You repeatedly talked about applying Natural Selection to a population whole, you even emphasized interbreeding between variants to say that the population was some kind of whole. And now they are whole, even when in separate niches. It's just rubbish.You have no case, when will you realise that the standard theory of Natural Selection simply has weaknesses? It just depends on how strict you are in applying scientific standards if or not standard theory should be discarded, and apply the standards strictly.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, Rubbish? In post 150 you went as far as to say comparative-within-population-analyses was false, in post 156 it was nonsense, whatever next? I am left slightly confused now, because you agreed to this statement:#1 For sexual reproducers: 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.And again to this one:#2 For asexual reproducers: The changes in ratios of homologous alleles/genes due to natural selection within a population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.So how long have you been in the habit of agreeing to things that you don’t agree with? You see, the nylon example meets point-of-agreement #2. So how can you agree to something & at the same time call it false, pointless & rubbish?Checkmate, mate.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

If you don't begin to address my argument that it is pointless to compare nylon eating and non nylon eating bacteria, just as it is pointless to compare ants and elephants, then I feel this discussion with you is pointless also.Percipient said that competition is the reason for comparison. However wrong this opinion of Percipient is, at least Percipient has a point in comparing. Likewise Darwin, Wallace and Spencer had a point in comparing, which was replacement. You on the other hand, you don't seem to make any point at all with comparing, and I think this is representative of the modern synthesis of Natural Selection. Indeed you willfully compare apples and oranges as per example, totally denying the meaningless of that. What stops you from comparing fitness of elephants and ants? Be precise.Based on your understanding it would be logical to say that comparing ants and elephants is macro-evolution, if you say that comparing colorful and camouflaged fish is micro evolution. It seems to me the mental gymnastics is all on the Darwinists side, trying to keep a set of notions called Natural Selection a coherent whole, where if you would take one of those notions, and in stead of treating it as a notion, you would treat it as a scientific hypothesis, and rigourously organize knowledge based on that hypothesis in a consistent way, it would lead to total absurdity.Again you are way overconfident to proclaim victory in this discussion. You will never be able to get a clear victory, because the subjectmaterial of this discussion, Natural Selection, is not clear.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, I have won.You have claimed that variation & differential reproductive success are irrelevant to NS. You then agreed that it occurred. You have said that a comparative approach is "false, pointless, & rubbish". Yet have conceded it is indeed relevant by agreeing to the previous statements.You are a hypocrite.Mark