Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

See this messages title.I think the above cited covers the topic title question, although there may be a few tidbits of interest further down string.Closing this one down soon - Anyone wanting to make any last comments, do it now.Adminnemooseus

I'm typing as fast as I can, both fingers even...--Percy

How do you jsfuity igonirng sccenie geivn taht yuor'e qnisotieung the sneitificc vdatliiy of eivoutoln? Wonul'dt you epcext taht rhecanig sneitificc ccsnoinluos based upon piiltoacl caitsinneoodrs wluod lead you acrbilppeay aratsy? Des'not taht hlep you uetrnnsdad why yuor'e ubalne to pdueasre anonye of yuor point of view? Aner't you ocne more mainkg the smae sanemttet taht you deeind mainkg in the Eiitslm and Nazism thread? You aapepr to ocne agian be camnilig taht baeusce eeunicgs drwas upon the terhoy of eivoutoln taht it trfoeerhe has smoe imcpat on the tr'hoyes vdatliiy. I'm afaird no one but you is rdnaieg maorl itmcpnoliias into nrauatl scoetlien. To evyeonre else it is a silmpe mehtinicasc psceors.--Pecry[This message has been edited by Percipient, 09-19-2003]

Yes, I found it fascinating. I wrote a short Perl script to do it, attached below. Of course, I first processed it with itself. --Percy

#!/usr/bin/perl
​
# Smcrbelas the lerttes in eevry wrod of a file except for the fisrt
# and last lerttes.  Does the smae scrblame for the smae wrod.  Werits
# to STUODT.
​
use sicrtt;
​
my $pormgaNe = $0;
​
my $femliaNe = $AGRV[0];
​
if ($femliaNe eq "") {
exit;
}
​
if (! -e $femliaNe) {
pirnt "$pormgaNe: Erorr - fneamile deos not eisxt: $femliaNe\n";
exit(1);
}
​
open FN, "<$femliaNe" or die "$pormgaNe: Erorr - culod not open $femliaNe: $!";
​
my $lnie;
my %adreSelWroayrlddabmcs;
wilhe ($lnie = ) {
cmohp($lnie);
my @Lnie = silpt(/([^a-zA-Z0-9\'\_])/, $lnie);
froaech my $wrod (@Lnie) {
if ($wrod =~ /[a-zA-Z0-9]/) {
if (dienfed($adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod})) {
pirnt $adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod};
} esle {
my %soWcrrd;
my @Letetrs = silpt(//, $wrod);
my $ltsaLetetr = pop @Letetrs;
$soWcrrd{"10000"} = $ltsaLetetr;
$soWcrrd{"0"} = sfiht @Letetrs;
froaech my $ltteer (@Letetrs) {
my $inedx;
for ( ;; ) {
$inedx = int(1000 * rand);
if (!dienfed($soWcrrd{$inedx})) {
$soWcrrd{$inedx} = $ltteer;
last;
}
}
}
my $nrwoeWd;
froaech my $inedx (sort {$a <=> $b} keys %soWcrrd) {
$nrwoeWd .= $soWcrrd{$inedx};
}
$adreSelWroayrlddabmcs{$wrod} = $nrwoeWd;
pirnt $nrwoeWd;
}
} esle {
pirnt $wrod;
}
}
pirnt "\n";
}

Again, every post of yours in which you express your glaringly prejudicial opinions as fact is a demonstration that neutrality is an ideal.Sometimes, in a very few number of cases, there is a variant in a population which competes other variants into extinction. Having swept to fixation relatively quickly, stasis then returns. Allelle frequencies don't generally change, that is only an exception to which you are prejudicially focused.I think you should look up what heritability means in a Darwinist context. The meaning is different from the common meaning of heritability. Genes that are fixed in a population have a heritability of zero, regardless of what number offspring are produced, regardless of genes being passed on.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In case anyone forgot or missed it the Hagen piece is here .Syamsu's use of heritability is fine here, the problem is his interpretation. The aricle states that 'genes that confer a reproductive advantage generally go to fixation.', what Syamsu ignores is the fact that not all alleles confer a reproductive advantage over their counterparts.The article finishes

quote:

---

Aside from the simple, geographically specific adaptations noted above, or genetic diseases (which also consist of one or a few genes), what kinds of traits are heritable? In general, traits that are not under selection can have substantial heritable components, because if they were under positive or negative selection, the genes underlying those traits would go to fixation or be eliminated (respectively), eliminating the heritability; it is this fact that implies that if the trait in question is highly heritable, then it is probably not an adaptation. This is not to say, however, that there no aspect of a complex adaptation can be heritable. Although vision is not heritable, if a particular visual performance parameter were measured precisely enough, a small degree of heritability in that parameter could no doubt be detected. These minor differences would usually be genetic noise, however, not adaptive differences.

---

Which shows several specific situations in which genes would not have a heritability of zero.

While we're clarifying terminology, heritability isn't really part of a "Darwinist context". Heritability in the current context is a genetic, not Darwinian, term, since genetics didn't join with evolution until well after Darwin with the Modern Synthesis of the 1920's. This is the central point of your current disagreement with Mammuthus. He has cited studies indicating that allele frequencies change with time. Can you cite studies showing allele stasis with time?--Percy

It is a Darwinist understanding of heritability because the understanding is more or less comparitive between variants, just like Natural Selection.Mammuthus has cited no studies which give a general overview on stasis vs allelle frequency change. It's not the point to reference single cases of frequency change, or stasis. I referenced Hagen saying heritability is generally zero ( I never said always zero), and Gould etc. talking about the prevalence of stasis. That is about the subject at issue, at least.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Well you are plainly wrong. People generally do let Natural Selection influence their moral judgement. Aside from the historical evidence which you seem to ignore by wrongly referring to the question of scientific validity, this could be proven with a psychologial survey among Darwinist scientists for instance, although I'm a bit in the dark still about how such a test would look like. I have little doubt that continuously talking in terms of selfishness, goodness, success etc. on a subject which is as highly emotive as life is, will in conjuction with the seductive authority of the science label, lead to very great manipulative effects on people's personal subjective beliefs.Would you in principle accept such evidence like a psychological test, or what kind of evidence would you accept that people generally do take significant moral implication from Natural Selection theory? I have to ask since it seems you don't accept any kind of evidence whatsoever to the point at issue.regards,
Mohamad Nor Syamsu

Actually I wouldn't know, I haven't taken a position on this specific issue, though I *have* agreed that eugenics, social Darwinism and Nazi ideology have drawn from evolution. I wasn't attempting to comment about evolution influencing personal morality. I've only been addressing your intimations that the moral implications of evolution are a factor in the theory's scientific validity. Anything you think I said about morality had to do with morality not being part of the scientific theory of evolution.--Percy

You can still reject theories regardless of content when words such as god, or soul are used in them to denote physical properties. In the same way Natural Selection is also questionable for wordusage such as goodness, selfish, success etc.Would you then deny evolutionist teaching of Darwin and the like about the evolution / descent of morality?And again, would you in principle accept the findings of a psychological survey among Darwinist scientists on the influence of Darwinism on personal beliefs? Would you accept any evidence whatsoever about that?As before, it seems to me that there is more then enough evidence to suggest that the personal beliefs of Darwinist scientists tend to become drenched in Darwinism, like Lorenz, Darwin, Haeckel, Galton, Dawkins etc.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You're not very specific. Labeling physical properties with names like "god" and "soul" does sound very unusual to me, but I'd have to see the actual context in order to judge. After all, quarks have properties with names like strangeness and charm, and that doesn't mean that quarks are strange or charming. They're just labels. I don't think I've given any hint of confusing the possibility of a role for evolution on the development of a moral sense with the social/political impact of the concept of the theory of evolution. If you want to think so I won't try to persuade you otherwise. It is only your belief that the existence of such influences is somehow part of the scientific validity of their work that I disagree with. Lorenz's work on instinct would be valid whether he was a man or a monster. E would equal mc² even if Einstein had been a Nazi. If you don't like the science then you must address the science, not the men and the culture from which the science sprang. Your approach seems like an extended ad hominem.--Percy

As explained countless times before, the comparison in Natural Selection is faulty regardless of any tendency for moral implications. This was quite clear to me from the beginning of the debate that when someone explained to me Natural Selection with the peppered moth example. The explanation struck me as meaningless in so far as origins are concerned, as it does so many people. There were black and white moths at the start, and there are black and white moths at the end. There are more black then white, this mountain is higher then that mountain, this star is brigher then that star etc........ meaningless.I think such a psychological test, could well put all the evolutionary psychology theories in a proper perspective. That something like the personal effects of a science theory could have much more significant influence on behaviour then most all of specific gene based behaviour.The test doesn't neccesarily only have to be taken by Darwinist scientists, but I think if it wouldn't be done on Darwinist scientists, then people would (wrongly) say that it's just because lay people don't have a satisfactory grasp of Natural Selection that it influences their personal beliefs much. It wasn't my intention to stigmatize Darwinist scientists by suggesting the test should be done on them.It seems that you would support evolutionary psychology research, but not support Darwinism research. That could be intrepreted as prejudice towards genetic explanations for behaviour.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, If the comparison is so faulty, why were you utterly unable to explain the changes in colouration of the guppy populations without effectively mentioning variation within a population, & differential reproductive success, here?Mark

.... I already did explain that, and then Percy said it was right and Quetzal said it was wrong. I didn't explain it comparitively but independently.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu