Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


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


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 91 of 192 (57458)
09-24-2003 8:30 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Syamsu
09-24-2003 7:41 AM


Syamsu writes:
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.
So despite having measured the same thing in two distinct populations you are going to not compare them? How? Are you going to get one lab to measure one and another lab the other and never ask either for the results? As soon as you have the data for both of those populations you have a comparison. You have data measuring both by the same standard, using that standard is in and of itself enough to establish a comparison, whether you mentally acknowledge it or not. Are you also going to not compare the reproductive rate before and after the introduction of the predator.
What use are any of these data in isolation? You can't draw any conclusion about the effects of predation without comparing at least the before and after introduction figures for one population.
[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 09-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 7:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 10:29 AM Wounded King has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 92 of 192 (57468)
09-24-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Syamsu
09-24-2003 7:41 AM


Syamsu writes:
to Percipient, the point is that I define competition, unlike encroachment, as having a neccesarily uncertain outcome.
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.
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...
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 7:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 9:58 AM Percy has not replied

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


Message 93 of 192 (57474)
09-24-2003 9:58 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Percy
09-24-2003 9:17 AM


But when you say that Natural Selection must be non deterministic then you would say that it was Natural Selection regardless of white or black moths becoming prevalent, the outcome being uncertain.
The trees turn black and then the color white becomes prevalent. According to you this is Natural Selection. Where Natural Selection indeterministically provided a different result.
regardless,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Percy, posted 09-24-2003 9:17 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Peter, posted 10-27-2003 5:11 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 94 of 192 (57476)
09-24-2003 10:29 AM
Reply to: Message 91 by Wounded King
09-24-2003 8:30 AM


The subject at issue is the comparison between variants, not comparison between before and after for each.
I think the analogy with income-effects explained all quite well. There is no comparison, unless you make the comparison. Why would I want to, what is the point? You are still not addressing what the point is of the comparison.
The isolated data how each particular variant functions in reproduction is useful for environmentalists in order to preserve, or for doctors in order to make a population of bacteria or something extinct, or for biologists to understand Nature generally.
So far in this thread I have.
- alle frequencies change as a rule rather then an exception to stasis
- Natural Selection is indeterministic
- You can't know how an organism reproduces if there aren't variants.
- What is the point of knowing how an organism reproduces?
These errors are not small, they are big. Whenever are any of you going to drop your prejudices and investigate the issue? Why must I ask several times what the point is of the comparison without an answer?
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2003 8:30 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2003 11:29 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 95 of 192 (57482)
09-24-2003 11:05 AM
Reply to: Message 90 by Syamsu
09-24-2003 7:41 AM


Syamsu,
Just answer the questions, point by point.
1: So how can you say one sub-pops population has reproductively affected the other without comparing the two?
2: Define comparison/compare
3:how can it be a meaningless comparison when one phenotype is increasing it's frequency within the population as a whole?
You wrote:
syamsu writes:
camouflage contributes to reproduction (a positive selective factor), and that those with camouflage diminish the chance of reproduction of those that don't have camouflage (a negative selective factor).
syamsu writes:
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.
How do you know the two phenotypes have changed in frequency due to camouflage, then? You told me that the chance of reproduction of one phenotype diminishes that of the other, how do you know this?
Tell me Syamsu, I'm utterly unable to comprehend how one determines a frequency of phenotypes within a largwer set/population, & then determining that it has changed due to predation without at some point comparing the numbers/frequencies of each? The simple act of determining that frequency has changed is a comparison by definition.
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, 09-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 90 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 7:41 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Syamsu, posted 10-24-2003 7:37 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 96 of 192 (57485)
09-24-2003 11:29 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by Syamsu
09-24-2003 10:29 AM


Could you give attributions and quotes to back up those points Syamsu?
The point of the comparison is that it allows you to compare things. As you find it useful to compare the reproductive success of identical populations in differing environments so is it useful to compare the success of differing populations, usually only minimally differing ones at that, in identical environments. The context in which it is useful is that of evolution. If you don't believe that evolution occurs then there would be an understandable rationale for your dislike of natural selection.
Syamsu writes:
The isolated data how each particular variant functions in reproduction is useful for environmentalists in order to preserve, or for doctors in order to make a population of bacteria or something extinct, or for biologists to understand Nature generally.
Not in isolation, looking at one particular clonal population of a bacteria will not tell you how to wipe out all variants of that bacteria, if it did then we would not have our current problems with antibiotic resistant forms. To understand something 'generally' it is surely better to compare a large number of examples, otherwise how can you generalise?
If comparison of similar populations in different environments is fine does that mean it is OK for me to be prejudiced against people from France?
Your analogy with income effects was ridiculous, please show me a study where such measurements were not subsequently used as the basis for comparison. Comparison is not implicit because you are a socialist it is implicit because without comparing the figures you can't say anything meaningful about the effects of the policy.
What do you do with your data once it is collected, what you seem to dislike is data-analysis, without which the data themselves are meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by Syamsu, posted 09-24-2003 10:29 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 2:49 AM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 97 of 192 (57677)
09-25-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Wounded King
09-24-2003 11:29 AM


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.
Notice that these numbers would have no relevancy to the present when either of them becomes extinct, as often happens. You have some odd numbers, which are likely to be consigned to history.
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.
With governmentpolicy I think most people would primarily be interested to the group they belong to, and that data is plenty meaningful already to them without comparing to different groups at all. I think you would need more data to make comparing income-effects on groups meaningful.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Wounded King, posted 09-24-2003 11:29 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2003 7:46 AM Syamsu has replied
 Message 107 by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, posted 10-24-2003 12:49 PM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 98 of 192 (57717)
09-25-2003 7:46 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by Syamsu
09-25-2003 2:49 AM


The figures ahould either be 4:1 or 1:0.25, if they were 4:0.25 then the camouflaged would be reproducing 16 times as much. Why do you think these figures are meaningless? They show that, all other things being equal, the camouflage confers a very substantial fitness advantage. By comparing the figure for both population with and without predation you could show whether the advantage is dependent on the presence of predators.
I think you would need more data to make comparing income-effects on groups meaningful.
More data is what you seem to not want, you continually argue that less data is sufficient for Natural selection.
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.
I'm glad to see that once again your inspired guesswork is coming into play. So what doctors are doing with antibiotics is to increase the size of a particular population of bacteria until it becomes 'reproductively stable', does it matter if the patient dies before the population reaches stability? How should the doctor realise that taking out the competitors should promote growth of the resistant bacteria, the only way he would know this would be from a familiarity with previous work on natural selection among differing bacterial populations. The whole concept of some bacteria being resistant and some not is intinsically comparative.
By studying the varying spectra of antibiotic resistance amongst bacterial populations doctors can work out the best regime of multiple antibiotic treatments to get rid rid of the largest numbers of bacteria.
Why are comparisons between variants pernicious but not comparisons between environments and over time?

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 99 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 8:09 AM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 99 of 192 (57721)
09-25-2003 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by Wounded King
09-25-2003 7:46 AM


As far as I know the numbers would be 4 and 1/4 because they should both be relative numbers.
You misunderstand, I guess the doctor needs to stop resistant bacteria reaching a populationsize where resistance becomes full. Again where should the comparison be specifically? I thought the doctor might have to realise that the antidote would kill non-resistant *faster then* resistant. But on second thought it seemed to me that killing any competitor would increase reproduction of the resistant.
Comparisons between variants are potentially as meaningless as comparisons between elephants and ants. It suggests that the essential differnce between elephants and ants is a generic relative measure of reproduction. The comparison obscures the physical relationships there might be between variants, or obscures that there isn't a physical relationship between variants, and obscures the actual number of organisms. It basically obscures the relationship of the particular variant to the environment in terms of reproduction.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2003 7:46 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2003 8:31 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 100 of 192 (57724)
09-25-2003 8:31 AM
Reply to: Message 99 by Syamsu
09-25-2003 8:09 AM


Not all comparisons between elephants and ants are meaningless.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 8:09 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 9:16 AM Wounded King has replied

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


Message 101 of 192 (57733)
09-25-2003 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by Wounded King
09-25-2003 8:31 AM


I would still like to see specifically where the comparsion comes in with anti-biotic resistance, and also see if my guesswork based on my conception of viewing organisms in terms of reproduction individually is correct!
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2003 8:31 AM Wounded King has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Wounded King, posted 09-25-2003 10:38 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 102 of 192 (57745)
09-25-2003 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 101 by Syamsu
09-25-2003 9:16 AM


I'm not sure how you hope to see your guesswork about looking at organisms solely in terms of reproduction substantiated unless you do it yourself, if you believe the answer is in the scientific literature all you have to do is start citing some examples, if you don't think there is any relevant research being done already then you have a much harder problem and may have to start the Syamsu Research Institute.
In the mean time a useful example of how such a study entirely avoiding comparasions might be useful in evolutionary biology, so far one has been singularly lacking.
For your antibitic resistance here is a reference relating to multi-drug regimens in order to minimise the generation of drug-resistant bacteria.
Drlica K.
The mutant selection window and antimicrobial resistance.
J Antimicrob Chemother. 2003 Jul;52(1):11-7. Epub 2003 Jun 12.
The mutant selection window is an antimicrobial concentration range extending from the minimal concentration required to block the growth of wild-type bacteria up to that required to inhibit the growth of the least susceptible, single-step mutant. The upper boundary is also called the mutant prevention concentration (MPC). Placing antimicrobial concentrations inside the window is expected to enrich resistant mutant subpopulations selectively, whereas placing concentrations above the window is expected to restrict selective enrichment. Since window dimensions are characteristic of each pathogen-antimicrobial combination, they can be linked with antimicrobial pharmacokinetics to rank compounds and dosing regimens in terms of their propensity to enrich mutant fractions of bacterial populations. For situations in which antimicrobial concentrations cannot be kept above the window, restricting the enrichment of mutants requires combination therapy.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 101 by Syamsu, posted 09-25-2003 9:16 AM Syamsu has not replied

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


Message 103 of 192 (62543)
10-24-2003 7:37 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by mark24
09-24-2003 11:05 AM


As before, if your argument is how you can make a comparison without making a comparison then your argument is meaningless, so I wasn't addressing that, I was just making a description of same events without comparing.
In my description the frequency of camouflaged increased in real terms, not relative to the population as a whole. You might imagine a scenario where something changes in the environment and the numbers of both variants decrease, but one decreases less then the other, so you have differential reproductive success. You will then say that one of them increases it's fitness, because the relative share in the population of the one variant becomes larger. IMO that is deceptive, that you note a variant having increasing fitness, just before it might actually become extinct.
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by mark24, posted 09-24-2003 11:05 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 10-24-2003 8:53 AM Syamsu has replied

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


Message 104 of 192 (62554)
10-24-2003 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 103 by Syamsu
10-24-2003 7:37 AM


Syamsu,
In my description the frequency of camouflaged increased in real terms, not relative to the population as a whole.
But you didn't do this. You DID describe the population as a whole, those that have camouflage, & those that don't. Did I leave any out? No, that's the entire population of breeding individuals accounted for.
Syamsu writes:
camouflage contributes to reproduction (a positive selective factor), and that those with camouflage diminish the chance of reproduction of those that don't have camouflage (a negative selective factor).
How can the frequency of camouflaged individuals change when you are only looking at individuals with one trait & not the other!? It will always be 100%, surely? I'm sure you mean absolute numbers, rather than frequency? If the guppy population exploded by a factor of 10, both populations can increase whilst the frequency of one rises at the expense of the other. Why did you think you could cop out on absolute numbers when you don't know what the figures were? The frequency observably changed, the absolute numbers may have gone up or down.
Tell me Syamsu, I have 100 oranges & 10 apples, what is the frequency of oranges alone? Do you see how stupid your above statement was? Here's another problem, tell me what the [1]frequency of apples are to oranges, [2]later on the numbers of both oranges & apples are 100 each, the frequency has changed from your answer in [1] to a new value, what is it? Show your work.
You were asked to explain the relative frequencies of the camouflaged vs. the non-camouflaged sub-populations with regard to the presence/absence of predators. Let me put it another way so that your childish equivocation is eliminated. How can you know that the relative frequencies of the camouflaged vs. non-camouflaged guppies have changed without counting one population, then the other, & then dividing one by the other?
You will then say that one of them increases it's fitness, because the relative share in the population of the one variant becomes larger. IMO that is deceptive, that you note a variant having increasing fitness, just before it might actually become extinct.
Nope, I would say the traits possessed by the sub-population that increased in frequency are better adapted than the one that decreased in frequency, hence the population as a whole evolves because allele frequencies have changed. In other words, one sub-population is fitter relative to the other. The fitness relative to the environment has decreased overall, but adaptive evolution in the population has taken place because one sub-population enjoys differential reproductive success over the other. How could such a phenomena occur without differential reproductive success? The two sub-populations are able to freely interbreed, after all.
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 103 by Syamsu, posted 10-24-2003 7:37 AM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Syamsu, posted 10-24-2003 9:50 AM mark24 has replied

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


Message 105 of 192 (62561)
10-24-2003 9:50 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by mark24
10-24-2003 8:53 AM


As before, if your argument was how can you make a comparison without making a comparison, then your argument is stupid. I didn't address that, and won't address that, I'm just showing how you can describe the same events without making a comparison, and explaining why this is better then describing comparitively, which is deceptive.
I make a distinction between frequency and relative frequency, and by just frequency I mean the absolute numbers yes. You're still trying to catch me in wrongly making a comparison, in stead of addressing the merits of describing without comparison. Do you think it's somehow impossible to describe the relationship of organism to the environment in terms of reproduction without comparing to a variant organism?
When one mountain succesfully enjoys greater height then another then this isn't a "phenemona", it's a comparison. Same with organisms.
(edited to add darwinspeak...)
regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu
[This message has been edited by Syamsu, 10-24-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by mark24, posted 10-24-2003 8:53 AM mark24 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 106 by mark24, posted 10-24-2003 11:57 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