Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

How can you corrupt the relationships between spouses by proposing future criteria for choosing a mate. I would suggest that there are a number of criteria considerably more laudable than the traditional ones of money, physical attractiveness, political/social advantage or projected fertility. Quite where a catholic priest gets off on criticising interference in spouse choice is a fair question considering the traditional catholic views against 'mixed marriage', i.e. marriage of a catholic to a non-catholic. Once again you ignore the fact that the measure of fitness is almost entirely contingent on the environment. The 'best' in one environment is not the 'best' in all, I sincerely doubt you could find many evolutionary biologists nowadays who would agree that caucasians are 'the highest type of all', as the statment you so objected to in the Scopes textbook put it. The measure of fitness is not the establishment of a moral absoloute but a measure of how well adapted an organism is to its specific environment.All men being equal does not mean that all men must be the same.If you think that people don't want to categorise peoples value based on goodness then you are inhabiting a fantasy world. Have you never seen the sort of villification levelled at people who commit certain crimes or sometimes just fail to meat certain expectations of a society. If people 'throughout time' have been so concerned with equality why is there still so much homophobia, racism and sexism rampant in the world today, don't try and tell me that its because of Darwinism.People, yourself included, seem perfectly happy to judge things which are better or worse, all you seem to be objecting to is that the criteria significant for natural selection are not the ones you would choose.[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-23-2003]

Syamsu, 1: So how can you say one sub-pops population is reproductively more successful than another without comparing the two?2: Do you have a personal definition of "compare", too? Spare me the equivocation, get a dictionary & define "compare". 3: Good grief, how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole? So it is a comparison, now? Make your mind up.It was obvious when you started denying that variation & differential reproductive success weren't a part of NS, who exactly had lost touch with reality.Please respond to points 1,2, & 3, above.Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."[This message has been edited by mark24, 09-23-2003]

1) I did not say one is more succesful then another , and it is good I don't say that, because aparently colorful and camouflage each have their own niche. Colorful contributes to reproduction in relation to mating, camouflage in relation to predators. Again, it would be like saying ants are more succesful then elephants.2)I have no personal definition of compare at all. Saying "more then" is a comparison, and that is not in my post at all.3)You already admitted that there actually isn't a comparison in my post, by saying the comparison is "implicit", whatever that means.Is there any possibility that you're going to think this through, or are you once more gonna say there is a comparison in my post, without any argumentation whatsoever?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Fingerpointing is very childish. So it's your opinion that it's the pot calling the kettle black, but then you suggest that the kettle isn't really very black. I disagree. I think it's revolting to judge for marriage in the way Darwin suggests, with an eye to inheritance. I also don't agree with opposing mixing of religion in marriage, but you're right in guessing that I find judging based on inheritance a lot more disgusting then judging based on religion. It's two times wrong what Darwin says, because he not only suggests to judge inheritance, but he also suggests that morality and intellectuality is finely heritable. What your opinion is on the matter is a total mystery, because gee, then you actually might have to say something critical about Darwin.As before the judgemental words are conducive to judgementalism. Why don't you criticize Darwinists for using words which are conducive to judgementalism, in stead of defending them in saying that the intended meaning is not judgemental?Would you guess with confidence that a psychological test on it, would show no signficant manipulative effects of Natural Selection theory on moral beliefs of Darwinist scientists? IMO guessing that would equate to saying that being judgemental is not a very big temptation for people.edited to add: What would the percentage of Darwinists believing in moral absolutes be? Zero? And the population at large... 90 percent? Fitness in Natural Selection is contingent, and consequently in drawing moral implication Darwinists use a contingent notion of morality. I think relationships like that between Natural Selection theory and moral beliefs are highly probable to occur.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 09-23-2003]

Of course it is judgemental in that a judgement is being made, in the sense of "The faculty of judging; ability to form an opinion; that function of the mind whereby it arrives at a notion of anything; the critical faculty; discernment.", one of the thirteen definitions of judgement in the Oxford english dictionary.I could quite happily criticise Darwin till the cows come home, I don't consider him a sacrosanct figure to revere, similarly there are many aspects of evolutionary theory which could only benefit from rigorous testing and critical evaluation. Your theory, that the fact that darwinism shares terms with the 'language of common judgementalism' therefore prejudices people who believe in a darwinian form of evolution towards racism and being more judgemental is not only not one of those critical evaluations which might be beneficial but hinges on so many assumptions and what you admit are simple guesses on your part as to be worthless.You have not presented a shred of evidence that Darwinism engenders judgementalism, your whole argument seems to be post hoc ergo propter hoc, all racism and judgmentalism after the publication of Darwin's theories can be ascribed to Darwin's theories. Judgementalism is a big temptation for people, and it always has been, it didn't suddenly become easier once Darwin had published, it has always been a popular pastime of humanity to pass judgement upon one another.Thank you for the edit to add yet more wild guesses and unfounded assertions, when are you going to realise that these on their own are never fgoing to constitute an argument. Only if they were stupid enough to conflate fitness in terms of NS with morality. A lot of people use a contingent notion of morality otherwise why would it be alright to kill someone in self defence. The problem with moral absoloutes is where you derive them from.

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

Well thanks for the explanation but there's actually no reference to competition in what I wrote also, neither did Mark mention competition.Besides, I have a good reason for omitting competition, because I think that competition should be understood as essentially random. When two organisms are exactly the same, then, in theory, they would go for exactly the same resources, which would result in the most intense competition. But when you have variation, then, in theory, you either have encroachment, or divergement into separate niches, or symbiosis, and randomness plays no neccessary part in that.So is comparison neccessary for encroachment or divergement or symbiosis? I don't think so......regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Only if they are stupid or corrupt enough, or if they just think it's a good idea. I have some evidence as mentioned previously, like Darwinists usuall putting words like "selfish" and "goodness" between quotes, which indicates that they are confusing. Besides I have direct experience of it in my own mind, it does tend to influence my view quite a lot to be talking about people as selfish, good, superior etc. eventhough I know it's intented neutrally.If a psychological study would show very significant correlation, which could be interpreted into the workings of direct relations by further interview, then that would change the balance of power in the creation vs evolution controversy entirely IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

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

Good luck with that Syamsu, I'd hate to have to do the stats on a study like that. Who are you going to use for your control group? Christian fundamentalists? Atheist anti-darwinians? Solipsists?

Syamsu, Oh, the equivocation! You said that one group affected the others reproduction, this means that because the relative frequency of one phenotype increases at the others expense. If you don't want to call that success, fine by me, then explain this reworded version, specially devised for the master equivocator himself:1: So how can you say one sub-pops population has reproductively affected the other without comparing the two? Lot's of things are comparisons that aren't in your post. But indulge me, define it, & cite your source. I admitted no such thing, in fact the exact opposite is my contention. It is pretty difficult for you to deny: Implicit means implied though not plainly exressed. So when you talk of two populations affecting each other, you HAVE to compare them in order to know that one has affected the other, even though you never used the word "compare".Please answer the question.3:how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole?Mark------------------
"I can't prove creationism, but they can't prove evolution. It is [also] a religion, so it should not be taught....Christians took over the school board and voted in creationism. That can be done in any school district anywhere, and it ought to be done." Says Kent "consistent" Hovind in "Unmasking the False Religion of Evolution Chapter 6."

Even if Syamsu isn't comparing the camouflaged and non-camouflaged populations he is still making comparisons. He compares the reproductive success of the non-camouflaged population in an environment with and without the camouflaged sub-population, this comparison must have been made otherwise how would he know that the presence of the camouflaged population acts as a negative selective pressure? Perhaps it was simply another guess.

Hi Wounded,I agree completely.He has already pointed to the link between the two phenotypes & how they affect their reproduction, hence the implicit comparison. He is just equivocating. We'll never get him to admit it, & really I'm just along for the ride to see the level he is prepared to sink to, in order to deny the obvious.Mark

So much nonsense, you have to actually address my argument in stead of trying to catch me in *wrongly* making a comparison, by performing a mystical exegesis on what I wrote. There is no comparison in what I wrote, and I gave a specific reason why it would be wrong to compare this way, because it is essentially meaningless, like comparing apples and oranges, elephants and ants. There are more elephants then ants, so what, there are more camouflaged then colorful so what. What is the point, please tell me, address my argument why don't you.When you measure the effects of some event (introducing predators) on two different items (camouflaged and colorful) using the same measuring standard (reproduction) then still no comparison is required.When you measure the income-effects on diverse groups of people of some governmentpolicy, then a comparison of the effects is only implicit in that if you are a socialist... Similarly the only reason that you see a comparison is because you are a Darwinist.to Percipient, the point is that I define competition, unlike encroachment, as having a neccesarily uncertain outcome. I don't think you would want to include competition in Natural Selection this way, unless you want to insist that the outcome of Natural Selection is uncertain, that actually it would be Natural Selection regardless if the white moths, or black moths became prevalent. Again, you need to address my argument, is there a comparison in encroachment, symbiosis etc.?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu