Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?
mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 106 of 192 (62568)
10-24-2003 11:57 AM
Reply to: Message 105 by Syamsu
10-24-2003 9:50 AM


Syamsu,
I’ll try a different tack.
My contention is, & has always been, this: That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.
Do you agree?
The following hypothetical examples concern just two traits c & nc (camouflage & non-camouflage)
Example 1/ A population has a ratio of individuals c:nc of 10: 100. There is an environmental change & the population explodes to 100:1000. That is, relative to the environment, the entire population has experienced a fitness increase, but the ratios are still 1:10 in both cases. No adaptive evolution has taken place. c is not any more or less fit than nc.
Example 2/ A population has a ratio of individuals c:nc of 10: 100. There is are environmental changes & the population explodes to 500:1000. That is, relative to the environment, the entire population has experienced a fitness increase, furthermore, one phenotype, c, has increased it’s relative frequency in the population from 1:10, to 1:2. So, all phenotypes have increased in fitness, but c has increased in fitness by more than nc. There has been a fitness differential evident. Change in allele frequency has occurred. Adaptive evolution has taken place.
If you simply compare fitness to the environment to the exclusion of other species members, then adaptive changes in allele frequency within that single breeding population cannot occur. For allele frequencies to adaptively change within a population, the environment must act on fitness differentials within the population as a whole.
Silly question, but I have to ask it, do you agree?
Evolution & natural selection are directly concerned with alleles & their frequencies, for a selective pressure to be brought to bear on an allele, means that it contributes to reproduction in a positive or negative way. The allele will then change in frequency in that population, because a fitness differential has been introduced to individuals within the population. No fitness differential, no adaptive change in allele frequency.
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 is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Syamsu, posted 10-24-2003 9:50 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by Syamsu, posted 10-25-2003 9:14 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 107 of 192 (62570)
10-24-2003 12:49 PM
Reply to: Message 97 by Syamsu
09-25-2003 2:49 AM


Ladies and Gentlemen, I give
you proof of an unevolving and unchanging universe....Syamsu. Just as wrong and ignorant as ever and yet his is STILL not extinct.
First off logic, or the lack thereof.
quote:
It's not very convincing to say that the point of comparison is to compare things. The camouflaged reproduce 4 times more then the colorful, which means the colorful reproduce 4 times less then the camouflaged. Now what? 4 and 1/4, still meaningless as far as I can tell.
First off, while aI agree that it could have been better stated, the point was still plain. The point of comparison is to determine similarities and differences between two or more differing sets. If you don't compare these sets, i.e. perform an ACT of comparison, then you can not reach your endpoint of determining similarities and differences. You end up like Syamsu, spinning your wheels in the eternal ignorant void.
quote:
In antibiotic resistance I'm guessing that the "resistant" bacteria becomes reproductively stable at a certain populationsize in the body, and that the doctor should realise that taking out the competitors of the resistant bacteria would contribute to the reproduction of the "resistant" bacteria.
Please demonstrate where Natural Selection becomes meaningful in antibiotic resistance.
First off, when competent MDs find resistent bacteria they generally switch to a different antibiotic to kill the strain off. With that settled, Syamsu are you KIDDING me. The shift in a frequency of an allele based survivability w.r.t. outside fources is one of the key components of Neo-Darwinian NS. How many times does this need to be explained to you?
------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
and my family motto
Transfixus sed non mortis
Taz

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 2:49 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by Syamsu, posted 10-25-2003 9:16 AM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

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


Message 108 of 192 (62710)
10-25-2003 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 106 by mark24
10-24-2003 11:57 AM


I believe it doesn't make sense when you say that fitness increases relative to a variant, and then next say that fitness increases relative to the environment. The environment has no fitness, you can't increase fitness relative to the environment. Or otherwise the other one is wrong.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 10-24-2003 11:57 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 10-25-2003 11:16 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 109 of 192 (62711)
10-25-2003 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 107 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus
10-24-2003 12:49 PM


Re: Ladies and Gentlemen, I give
Selection select each individually by criteria of reproduction, and variants are an incidental environmental factor.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 107 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-24-2003 12:49 PM Dr_Tazimus_maximus has not replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 110 of 192 (62720)
10-25-2003 11:16 AM
Reply to: Message 108 by Syamsu
10-25-2003 9:14 AM


Syamsu,
I believe it doesn't make sense when you say that fitness increases relative to a variant, and then next say that fitness increases relative to the environment.
Why not? If the environment changes in more than one way, what, fitnesswise would cause the ratio of traits to change, & at the same time allow the population as a whole, even the phenotype that is decreasing in relative frequency, to increase?
It simply requires more than one factor to be at work, one affects the whole population equally, & the other negatively affects one phenotype more than the other, just less than the positive effect of the first.
An example, a species of fish in a river see an explosion of their food source, there is a population explosion, this factor affects both phenotypes equally. All individuals produce more offspring in absolute terms as a result of this factor. They are fitter vs. the environment. But, alas, a predator then gets introduced, meaning the non-camouflaged individuals are still better off than before, but don't do as well on average as the camouflaged individuals. One phenotype proves fitter than another, as a result the population adapts. Everyone is fitter, but some more than others, & thus adaptive evolution takes place. It's actually very, very, simple Syamsu, you just have to read for comprehension.
The environment has no fitness, you can't increase fitness relative to the environment. Or otherwise the other one is wrong.
Who said the environment was fit? It is the ability to produce offspring that is fitness. The more offspring they produce, the fitter they are. If a predator vanishes, then an individual will be fitter because it's not in the intestine of another organism. I find this comment perplexing because it is you who is insisting that fitness is measured against the environment only, rather than other members of the same species.
I draw your attention back to my original contention which was: "That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others."
If you disagree, please do so with a better explanation than, "it doesn't make sense", especially after I provided a perfectly plausible scenario.
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 is a reply to:
 Message 108 by Syamsu, posted 10-25-2003 9:14 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 112 by Peter, posted 10-27-2003 5:13 AM mark24 has replied
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 10-28-2003 6:20 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 111 of 192 (63004)
10-27-2003 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 93 by Syamsu
09-24-2003 9:58 AM


Sorry to butt in, but I think the word 'determinism' was
brought in in error.
To be deterministic one must, from the same initial conditions
arrive at the same result.
Change the initial conditions and you change the result
without affecting the 'determinism' of the process.
Natural selection operates per-generation, but there are so
many possible variables (and time-dependencies)
that the outcome is always uncertain.
Uncertain, except that one can be sure that any population,
over time will tend to be dominated by the individuals
best suited to the environment in which they find themselves.
Not the BEST organism for the environment, but the best suited
of the available options.
...oh and if you look at a single individual aren't it's peers
a part of the environment (so you cannot neglect interactions
with them).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 9:58 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 112 of 192 (63005)
10-27-2003 5:13 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mark24
10-25-2003 11:16 AM


quote:
That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others."
Perhaps Syamsu missed the 'adaptive' in your suggestion ...?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 10-25-2003 11:16 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 10-27-2003 5:44 AM Peter has replied

mark24
Member (Idle past 5195 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 113 of 192 (63007)
10-27-2003 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 112 by Peter
10-27-2003 5:13 AM


Peter,
Exactly, this is why I clearly restated my position, he's not going to be allowed to argue a strawman.
Mark

This message is a reply to:
 Message 112 by Peter, posted 10-27-2003 5:13 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 114 by Peter, posted 10-28-2003 4:29 AM mark24 has not replied

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


Message 114 of 192 (63108)
10-28-2003 4:29 AM
Reply to: Message 113 by mark24
10-27-2003 5:44 AM


Perhaps Syamsu believes in Lamarkian evolution.
That's the only way that I can see an objection to what you
have said.
If all members of a population produced the same, mutated phenotype
that was a better fit for the environment.
Or of some higher being tweaked the genomes every now and then.
Maybe there's a genome configuration tool somewhere ....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by mark24, posted 10-27-2003 5:44 AM mark24 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Mammuthus, posted 10-28-2003 5:37 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 115 of 192 (63109)
10-28-2003 5:37 AM
Reply to: Message 114 by Peter
10-28-2003 4:29 AM


quote:
Perhaps Syamsu believes in Lamarkian evolution.
Unlikely. Lamark was also trying to explain the observed variation in the natural world and his mechanism was false. Sy denies the observed variation in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by Peter, posted 10-28-2003 4:29 AM Peter has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 116 of 192 (63110)
10-28-2003 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 110 by mark24
10-25-2003 11:16 AM


I think the correct words are fitness (to the environment), and relative fitness (to a variant or the population whole). Your argument did make sense, but the wordusage is wrong IMO, and had me confused.
When you say that adaptive changes in allele frequency occur, then that sounds like the population is the unit of selection. Relative allelle frequency sounds like a population trait, not an organism trait.
I think you are, or should be, only referring to the one variant replacing another variant, and not referring with adaptation to "growth" of camouflaged in so far as they don't replace coloured, otherwise you are guilty of comparing apples and oranges again.
You really have no chance to argue against the broader more generally applicable individual approach without undermining essential parts of the comparitive approach as well, and I think you realise that by now.
It's a bit of a lucky coincedence in my opinion, that there just happened to be camouflaged individuals in the population when the predators were introduced. So then the adaptation occurs when the predators were introduced, but normally I would guess the point where the adaptation occurs is a mutation, for instance a mutation that gives camouflage. There is no adaptation in allele frequency change, that is just spreading of adaptive traits.
The basic setup of Natural Selection, to have potentially useful variation present just waiting for a change in the environment to become adaptive, is faulty IMO. It basicly says that the variation produced is not random in respect to contributing to reproduction, but that the variation is potentially useful in contributing to reproduction. That is of course not true, most variation disappears without contributing to reproduction at all, it's deceptive to treat them as potentially doing so.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by mark24, posted 10-25-2003 11:16 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 118 by Peter, posted 10-28-2003 7:16 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 123 by mark24, posted 10-28-2003 1:09 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 117 of 192 (63111)
10-28-2003 7:04 AM


my opinions faq
This is what I wrote as the beginnings of a my-opinions faq on individual selection (and later to add the relationship of Darwinism to Social Darwinism), to stop cluttering up of other threads with these subjects, and hopefully to raise argument to a higher level.
Q:Selection without variation?
A:That's right, basicly just each organism getting selected individually. An individual approach still applies when there is variation in a population, it just describes each variant individually, rather then describing variants comparitively.
Q: What is the definition of Natural Selection when you exlude variation?
A: The relationship of an organism to the environment in terms of reproduction, where lowering chane of reproduction means to be selected out, and making the chance of reproduction higher means to be selected in.
Q:But if there are no variants to select between, what is then being selected between?
A:Reproduction or no reproduction is what's being selected between for each organism.
Q:How do you expect me to believe that Natural Selection is wrong when every biologist says it's correct?
Af course one has to decide for oneself what version of selection is right, and which is wrong, and not base that judgement on authority, but there is some circumstantial evidence that makes it more credible that the common definition of Natural Selection theory might be simply wrong.
- Unlike in other sciences Darwinists much use prosaic books to advance their science, in stead of technical papers. Prosaic language can more easily hide technical faults in a theory.
- Most notably Popper, as well as some other philosophers found technical fault with Natural Selection, and the definition "survival of the fittest", and while these philosphers don't point out the same fault as I do, it's not like I am the first or only one to say that Natural Selection is wrong.
- There are Darwin interpreters with dissimilar opinions on what Natural Selection is. There is no great big monolith definition like F=ma in Darwinist science, and some small diversity around that one definition like you have in physics, but rather Darwinists have a set of notions what Natural Selection is about, which results in a rather vague collection of definitions of Natural Selection.
- Like any Darwin interpreter, I can also find support in Darwin's prosaic work for my definition of selection. Darwin once seriously contemplated to have the theory be named Natural Preservation, in stead of Natural Selection. When you use the name preservation in stead of selection, then you might more easily see how you can use this theory individually in stead of comparitively between variants.
- (for as far as I can tell) in computersimulations of Natural Selection there is no comparison between organisms coded. Some simulations make comparisons between variants to provide data to the user, but this comparison is not part of how the digital universe behaves. So really what is not there in the coding of a computersimulation maybe simply shouldn't be there in a worded definition either, or should it?
Q:How do you investigate the theory of Natural Selection?
A: Basicly I do this by continuously asking the question what is required to occur for the theory of Natural Selection to apply. For instance Natural Selection doesn't apply for traits that are not varying in a population. After having found the minimum requirements for Natural Selection to apply, I then make up every sort of theoretical scenario, with variants, without variants, with variants that are competing, with variants that are not competing etc. etc. and then see if Natural Selection can satisfactorily describe these theoretical scenario's.
Q: Theoretical scenario's? Isn't science supposed to be objective, why don't you use real world examples?
A: Yes, I do try to use real world examples, but I also think Nature is very rich, and every theoretical scenario is bound to have taken place somewhere in Nature. Doing this avoids being prejudicially focused on describing one particular sort of scenario, and neglecting other scenario's.
Q: But how can you describe evolution with selection, when you don't include variations?
A: I can't describe evolution with just selection, I also need mutation for that. Of course, I am defining evolution here in the sense of descent with modification, where Darwinists more commonly define evolution as a change in allelle frequency in a population.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Peter, posted 10-28-2003 7:22 AM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 121 by MrHambre, posted 10-28-2003 10:50 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 118 of 192 (63112)
10-28-2003 7:16 AM
Reply to: Message 116 by Syamsu
10-28-2003 6:20 AM


quote:
It basicly says that the variation produced is not random in respect to contributing to reproduction, but that the variation is potentially useful in contributing to reproduction. That is of course not true, most variation disappears without contributing to reproduction at all, it's deceptive to treat them as potentially doing so.
You almost had it there!!!
Variation does NOT disappear. Variation is present in almost every
population of organisms.
Question: Are you identicle to your a) Mother
b) father
c) siblings (if applicable)
d) children (if applicable)
If the answer to any of the above is 'No', then there IS
variation within your population, even amongst directly
related individuals.
Variation does not disappear.
Whether or not that variation will influence reproductive rates/
outputs depends on the environment (and if you are looking
at an individual that includes the rest of the population).
Simplified examples of the relationship with the environment
include for example anything that helps to stop you getting
killed without leaving young, or anything that makes you more
attractive to a potential mate.
Whether the variation arose ten generations ago and just hung
around in a small group of the population, or just arose last
breeding season -- if it makes you more likely to leave
viable offspring then the effect on the population will be
that that trait will increase in frequency given sufficient time
under the prevailing enviroment.
Evolution is founded in lucky coincidence -- we tend
to call that random mutation + selection.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 116 by Syamsu, posted 10-28-2003 6:20 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by Syamsu, posted 10-28-2003 9:08 AM Peter has replied

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


Message 119 of 192 (63113)
10-28-2003 7:22 AM
Reply to: Message 117 by Syamsu
10-28-2003 7:04 AM


Re: my opinions faq
quote:
Q: But how can you describe evolution with selection, when you don't include variations?
A: I can't describe evolution with just selection, I also need mutation for that. Of course, I am defining evolution here in the sense of descent with modification, where Darwinists more commonly define evolution as a change in allelle frequency in a population.
Again you nearly had it ... what you are mainly describing IS
natural selection (I've said this to you before), but you
are using a differing view of fittness.
What is descent with modfication if it is not a change in allele
frequency in the population .... as soon as you have offpspring
you are no longer focussing on an individual but on a population.
Individuals do not evolve, populations do.
The reason that ToE focusses on populations is that it is
a populational effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by Syamsu, posted 10-28-2003 7:04 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 120 of 192 (63117)
10-28-2003 9:08 AM
Reply to: Message 118 by Peter
10-28-2003 7:16 AM


Variation does disappear, as also by the standard version of Natural Selection. I'm at a loss how you can say otherwise. Again, my point is that the mutations are not really random if you say the variations provided by mutation are for contributing to reproduction when the environment changes. Mutations are usually deleterious, and so become extinct through competition with variants, or they have no phenotypical effect whatsoever.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Peter, posted 10-28-2003 7:16 AM Peter has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 124 by NosyNed, posted 10-28-2003 2:31 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 125 by nator, posted 10-28-2003 9:28 PM Syamsu has not replied
 Message 131 by Peter, posted 10-29-2003 7:11 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