Destroying Darwinism

Syamsu, I have to say that you are at least consistent. A couple or errors in your logic, pretty much the same ones which you make every time but I will point them out anyway.
1)

quote:

---

For instance gravity theory doesn't start and stop to apply to planets at the appearance or disappearance of some planet in the systen. Gravity theory applies continuously.

---

Yes but is the density of materials did not vary so much then the space-time continuim would be flat and featureless. What you really see is a great deal of variation in density across space and therefore a great deal of variation in gravitational fields, much like you see in a topological map of biospace. And evolution via natural selection does not appear and dissapear as you state, however its effects vary according to the biospace, rather like the changing level of gravitation depending on the varying curvature of space-time.2) this one is just plain bad

quote:

---

Let's see, we can describe white moths being adapted to white trees without referring to variation. We can describe black moths being adapted to black trees still, even if there are white moths in the population also.

---

Setting aside the fact that you are ONLY looking at variation in one small phenotypic trait. First you state a case with no variation, then you state a case with variation but ignore the consequences of the variation. With a start of 50 50 variation, if you kill off 99% of variation one (lets call them white moths) then you have a ratio of 1 to 100 breeding animals of ONE variation. You try the math. Now, if there are white and black trees and white and black moths selection based on variation in this trait will not occur. Selection will occur on the other multitude of traits. IT can occur if animals move into other demes (the answer to your error w.r.t. mass extitinction and species radiation). Variation is the raw material that changes comes from.3) Buildings. Here you flat out demonstrate your lack of undrstanding of how variation and selection work. You have a 350 meter and a 50 meter building. If your builders all live in the top floor of the building that they design and weather repeatedly knocks down buildings over 100 meters guess what will happen to building height over time.As to competition
No, in this case you would say that both are compeeting with their environment, not each other. One just does a better job.As to the misuse of Darwin, how about we discuss the misuse of religion whether it be Islam, Christianity or Judeism? It is pretty much teh same and has occured for a much longer time. SO, do we outlaw these religions because of what use peple have made of them?

quote:

---

Obviously there is no stated requirement for qualititive variation in gravity theory, as there is in the standard theory of Natural Selection.

---

Actually there is a QUANTITATIVE aspect for each, namely the variation in particle density for relativity; and the variation within both genetic and phenotypic aspects of a species relative to its environment.

quote:

---

You employ a tone of reasonability, for the hilarious absurd position that gravity theory and natural selection theory are structurally similar.

---

Tell me Syamsu, exactly which aspect of the topological map did you not understand. I am more than willing to explain this concept further J.

quote:

---

Since variation is required for Natural Selection to apply by the standard definition of it in science, NS then stops to apply when there is no differential variation present. That is simply a consequence of including variation in the definition, that the theory stops to apply when there is no variation.

---

Syamsu, I think that you have watched Star Wars Attack of the Clones one too many times. Please name a species population that does NOT have genetic and phenotypic variation. And variation does not mean your nonsensical example of a fifth leg, that is a saltational answer and has more problems then you do. Namely who does the hopeful monster breed with? [quote]There is no consequence to variation, except in cases of competition between variants, replacement, or encroachment. The consequence in the moth example is from the relationship of white wingcolor and white trees, and black wingcolor and black trees. {/quote Actually you highlight a large part of my point for me here. The main competition is not necessarily directly between variant, but between each individual variant and it’s environment. Longer or better survival means more descendents of that variant. Thank you for, unwittingly, making part of my point.

quote:

---

There is no consequence to the Eiffeltower being 7 times higher then the tower of Pisa. Obviously it is incredibly stupid to think like there is a consequence to that as you do. Your kind of logic is a common trick used in advertising.

---

If there were no selection then you would be right; however, we are discussing the role of variation w.r.t. selection based on interactions of the variant with the variants environment. And with your pathetic attempts to divert the issue I really do not think that you should be slinging terms like stupid around. You are the one who brought up a rather limited analogy, probably hoping that it could not be used against you. Don’t blame me for using it as a club against you due to your limited planning and analytical capabilities.Corrected by Taz,

quote:

---

Obviously you have no intention of seriously discussing Christianity, Judaism or Darwinism and how each affects the intellectual climate of opinion.

---

Probably more so than you are willing to discuss them relative to their same misuse as has been done w.r.t. Darwinian Theory.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Of course what you say is also false. There is no variation in most populations,

---

False,

quote:

---

or there is no variation in every aspect of organisms in a population.For instance the number of legs among sheep is a steady four in most populations

---

sloppy syamsu, sloppy. To say that there is no variation in the number of legs is not the same as to say that there is no variations in legs within a population. Length for example, or insertion point of the muscle for another.

OK Syamsu, you made a statement that

quote:

---

I think it can be persuasively shown that there is a pattern of corruption among Darwinian scientists to manipulate the politics and or religious beliefs of it's audience by their usage of the "is better then" language in Darwinism. Not always has this been to support Nazi or racist ideas, but you would be very hardpressed to find a single influential Darwinian scientist whose political and religious views are not intimately interwoven with their personal conception of Darwinism in their socalled works of science.

---

is a valid reason for the removal of the teaching of and use of the Darwinian model of evolution (I will not address your erros w.r.t. influence of specific scientists here and their social views).Here is my question, the following passage from the Qoran

quote:

---

4 "Therefore, when ye meet
The Unbelievers (in fight)
Smite at their necks;
At length, when ye have
Thoroughly subdued them,
Bind a bond
Firmly (on them): thereafter
(Is the time for) either
Generosity or ransom:
Until the war lays down
Its burdens: Thus (are ye
Commanded): but if it
Had been God's Will,
He could certainly have exacted
Retribution from them (Himself):
But (He lets you fight)
In order to test you,
Some with others.
But those who are slain
In the way of God,
He will never let
Their deeds be lost.

---

(Sura 4 I believe), as well as similar passages, has been used as justification by certian Moslems for acts of murder against civilians. Some moslems disagree and say that this is a misreading or misinterpretation. Based on your statements re: Darwinian evolution we would be morally justified in trying to remove Islam fomr the earth. Do you agree or disagree? Please explain your reasons?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Actually, the acting was so bad that I would say once was one time too many .Actually I think that Syamsu is suffering from replicant fading, he has cloned that sad, sorry, disproven arguement of his a few times to many .His grasp on physics and chemistry appear to be a little weak as well.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

I wouldn't say that it is useless, it just adds more illustrationof the deficiencies in what Symasu says. Not to mention that he totally misses the point. When buildings were made of less strong materials taller buildings either had to be VERY wide or they fell down due to simple gravity or other natural forces. Variation in building materials (ie steel) allowed for differences in structure heights to width ratios for stable buildings.If you hand a man a club Syamsu and then taunt him, do not be suprised if he bashes you over the nogin' with it.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Actually Syamsu is pulling a Salty. Kind of like a Flying Circus
"I Told You Once" arguement, in this case for an arguement. Many people, myself included have provided papers and data to Syamsu which he cheerfully ignores. He has provided no data, example that are used to club him over the head due to the errors that he inserts, ect and still be makes the same statements sans supporting data and in teh face of contrary data. Rather sad actually.And now for something completely different.A man with two buttocks( * )( * )------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Hi Syamsu, rather then engage in the dataless, concept-less and generally pointless verbal and mental masturbation that you appear to prefer I though that I would just provide another reference to show that you really have NO clue as to what you are talking about.

quote:

---

Evolution: Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 872—882.

​

PATTERNS OF NATURAL SELECTION ON SIZE AT METAMORPHOSIS IN WATER FROGS
Res Altwegg,a, 2 and Heinz-Ulrich Reyera

​

aInstitute of Zoology, University of Zrich, Winterthurerstr. 190, CH-8057 Zrich, Switzerland

​

ABSTRACT

​

Strategies for optimal metamorphosis are key adaptations in organisms with complex life cycles, and the components of the larval growth environment causing variation in this trait are well studied empirically and theoretically. However, when relating these findings to a broader evolutionary or ecological context, usually the following assumptions are made: (1) size at metamorphosis positively relates to future fitness, and (2) the larval growth environment affects fitness mainly through its effect on timing of and size at metamorphosis. These assumptions remain poorly tested, because data on postmetamorphic fitness components are still rare. We created variation in timing of and size at metamorphosis by manipulating larval competition, nonlethal presence of predators, pond drying, and onset of larval development, and measured the consequences for subsequent terrestrial survival and growth in 1564 individually marked water frogs (Rana lessonae and R. esculenta), raised in enclosures in their natural environment. Individuals metamorphosing at a large size had an increased chance of survival during the following terrestrial stage (mean linear selection gradient: 0.09), grew faster and were larger at maturity than individuals metamorphosing at smaller sizes. Late metamorphosing individuals had a lower survival rate (mean linear selection gradient: 0.03) and grew more slowly than early metamorphosing ones. We found these patterns to be consistent over the three years of the study and the two species, and the results did not depend on the nature of the larval growth manipulation. Furthermore, individuals did not compensate for a small size at metamorphosis by enhancing their postmetamorphic growth. Thus, we found simple relationships between larval growth and postmetamorphic fitness components, and support for this frequently made assumption. Our results suggest postmetamorphic selection for fast larval growth and provide a quantitative estimate for the water frog example.

---

I also refer you to the concept of a topological landscape which can be used to deal with particle density or biological landscapes.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Do you honestly believe that the tower of Pisa and the Eiffeltower are related?

---

Only in the same way that your four legs comment had any validity, as a starting point. They, Pisa and Eiffel, are both towers.You are getting almost unbearably sloppy in your logic recently Syamsu.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-23-2003]

Depends on the definition of the data sets.I mean come on child, that is elementary logic and math. Once again Syamsu tryies analogies and gets his points refuted using them because he does not understand what he is talking about.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
TazPS,
I also noticed that once again you skipped replying to real world info and data. Typical.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-23-2003]

Once again we see how poor comprehension w.r.t. reading and a totally ossified mindset can lead a person to make absolutely stupid statements

quote:

---

First of all this abstract doesn't say how size contributes to reproduction.

---

Well Syamsu, unless dead things propagate where you are from I think that even you should see the ridiculous nature of your statement. Size is, to a degree, heritable. The surviving frogs, a greater percentage of these will be those individuals with a combination of traits and environmental conditions which allow for earlier metamorphosis and greater size, will live to sexual maturity and be able to sire offspring, and pass on any traits which they posses. On a side note, from other references in the article and in info, which can be obtained on line, the sexual selection acts as a partial brake on size in opposition to natural selection. Female frogs prefer mates who are roughly 80% of their size, a ratio that results in a larger percentage of the eggs being fertilized. However, they also will select for males with more song (generally larger) and larger males will often displace the smaller males from the female ensuring that their genes will be passed on rather than those for the smaller male. Unless of course Suyamsu’s dead frogs really CAN have offspring.

quote:

---

Of course you chose a convenient gradualist example of size. The holes in the method is more clearly demonstrated with a more specific variation such as a specific chemical produced, something with a specific function, which then the other variant does not have.

---

Actually, I chose one that I felt that you could understand and handle, guess that I was wrong. And if you have such a CLEAR cut case, as you indicate above, why do you not supply it. And please avoid the dren that you have supplied in the past, where you claim that this something must surely be out there but fair to provide specifics. Here is a specific variation, look up serine protease and clotting and you will find some of what you are referring to, except that it runs counter to your stated position re: evolution.

quote:

---

You seem to be reifying gradualism into a scientific hypothesis, but it's merely a notion. While it may not happen very much that something with a new and specific function is produced, it does happen very much that something that functioned in the parent is mutated and doesn't function anymore in the offspring.

---

First off child, do you even know what reification is? Some aspects of gradualism in biology are quite real, they are often an expressed phenotype from a blending of multiple genotypes and the environment. Second, what do you mean by specific function. Are you off on that old, discredited, Aristotelian BS wagon again?

quote:

---

So you see you still have some form of "negative" saltation all the time, and also some "positive" saltation that is more rare. To deny that would mean that you have to find a theoretical reason why differences cannot be very distinct.

---

So, now any change is saltation; please go on, you only demonstrate your total ignorance of biology everytime that you open your mouth. Saltation, in biology at least, has a very specific meaning. Do you know what that is?------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

As far as I can tell, you have no point

---

And that Syamsu is the most telling point concerning your lack of understanding.

quote:

---

Of course it is not good enough to bring out the old, it survives longer and therefore it reproduces more, to adequately describe how large size contributes reproduction.

---

Guess that means that your dead frogs are reproducing, eh Syamsu. The paper, and the abstract, refered to the linkage of size and timing of metamorphasis to the survival of individuals to sexual maturity (I can explain that term to you if you like although your parents should have already).

quote:

---

We don't want all our biologypapers to contain the exactsame words, with the only difference being the name of the trait in question

---

Reading comprehension problems again Syamsu, the abstract clearly states that it was demonstrating something which was assumed, but never demonstrated.As to your comments re: mutation and blending. Syamsu, I do not know which is more amusing, your ignorance or your arrogance surrounding your ignorance. In my experience that arrogance in support of ignorance can ONLY have a religious underpinning. OK, I will go slow here so that maybe you can understand this. A gene is a particulate entity as, by itselt, it has a well defined number of potential outcomes. Potential outcomes are: it is not turned on and produces nothing, it is turned on to varying degrees and produces one of a predefined set of proteins (a "single" gene can produce more than one protein based on different sites for the arrangement of the introns and exons in the mRNA as well as different polyadenylation sites for the tail), it is fully turned on and produces protein as described in the previous example. Now, here is where it gets even more interesting. Phenotypic expression can be particulate w.r.t. observed phenotype, i.e. Mendels peas, or it can be blended w.r.t. observed phenotype from several different genes which effect that particular phenotype , i.e. size, certian aspects of coloration, et., or from blending of the effects from teh same genes but from incomplete dominant/recessive traits where a blending of traits is observed. I used blended rather than mixed becasue mixed can result in a paticulate pattern, i.e. calico cats, whereas blended truly results in a gradient of effects based on teh interaction of the particulate genes.Boy, I suggest that you do not try to teach me, or many of the others on this board, genetics, molecular biology, or biochemistry until you understand them. Which you patently do not.

quote:

---

I use saltation the way you used the word to refer to a sheep with 5 legs.

---

Actually Syamsu, you were the one who brought up the 5 legged sheep, whether from ignorance of what I was discussing or in an attempt to redirect the discussion from the area where you where gittin' a whuppin'. Here was your post
Another error by Syamsu
Here was were you first mentioned saltationism
Another Syamsu goof. I actually posed my question in response to your statement.
Syamsu, is the logical foundation to your arguements so lame that you are loosing track of your own statements?
No wonder your house of supposition is so rickety.[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]Links corrected[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]

Actually I believe that you are more correct than you give yourself credit for.He, Syamsu, learned nothing and was therefore able to assimilate the same into his "thinking". ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Behold the textbook creationist. Syam-sue, you have just included a number of standard creationist tactics in your last response. Lets enumerate them for our studio audience.
1) Accusation of Plea from Authority. This one is generally, but not always followed at some point by pointing to the bible, Koran. Holy scroll or voice from above as the ULTIMATE AUTHORITY. Syam-sue employs a nice variation here but it is still the same old thing.

quote:

---

You're just trying to turn this into something about authority, trying to avoid actually engaging in argument. You still haven't provided any justification at all for including variation. Crashfrog did provide one, the one that Darwin also provided, which was then refuted, or actually crashfrog discarded his own justification.

---

Actually Syam-sue what I presented you with was data but that actually leads to your blending of Plea from Authority with
#2) Mis-statement of presented data.

quote:

---

You have to describe how the size interacts with the environment, and basically what you're saying is that it survives longer then the smaller ones, and therefore reproduces more.

---

when what was said was not survive longer but

quote:

---

Individuals metamorphosing at a large size had an increased chance of survival during the following terrestrial stage

---

i.e. they had MORE survive. I also included a summary of data gathered fro the web concerning the reproductive rates and sexual section effects. Please not that this was data and not as Syam-sue cries a plea from authority. The paper also described some of effects and relationships of size and the increased fitness to survival of froglets vs environment (ex. Being trapped in colder water) with respect to predetation and the relationship to the froglets arthropod prey. In other words, a number of the factors that MADE size a relevant factor in fitness. It also illustrated, much better than I could describe, WHY variation can play a role in selection. As I described earlier. Some of the variation was form genetics.
Now we move on to creationit tactic number 3, misrepresentation

quote:

---

I made the reference to the sheep with 5 legs, and then you called that saltation.

---

Now, while this one may be an honest error on Syam-Sue’s part, namely he could have thought that my reference to Salty that is a bit of a stretch. However, as we already know that Syam has reading comprehension problems I can see where he made his error. I have already pointed out the real first mention of saltationism in my last post
He continues with his misrepresentation here by setting up some of the most ridiculous strawmen that I have seen in a while

quote:

---

How do you believe the genetic basis for legs to be organized anyway? It seems you believe that each leg has a completely different genetic basis, in stead of the legs using the same genetic basis, or similar genetic basis. That's the only way I can understand your insistence on gradualism in opposition to sheep with 5 legs. Of course the genetic difference between 4 and 5 legged sheep can be quite small, so apparently you don't use a genetic definition for gradualism. Your notion of gradualism is then completely from pre-Mendellian times.

---

When what he was really talking about in his four leg vs three leg comment was variation or at least his poor understanding of it. I guess that an sheep with legs an couple of inches longer and with muscle insertion points that generate a greater force per square inch can not run any faster than sheep with shorter legs and less force per square inch; or wait a minute, is this what variation is all about. As to the rest of his misrepresentation, here is a little info concerning Mendelian genetics, particulate genetic inheritance vs. particulate phenotypic expression or
non-particulate expression, ie blended phenotype with particulate genotype phenotype , the examples of mixed, incomplete or blended phenotypic expression are down near the bottom of the presentation including a gradation of a specific phenotype.I told you boy that if you even attempted to play at teaching me genetics and biochem that I would slap you down. Take your lying creationist crap away and please go learn some science. Here endeth the lesson.To the people who dislike the tone of this post, I dislike it as well. However I dislike someone misrepresenting my statements even more.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 05-28-2003]

Crashfrog,this

quote:

---

Population is the key to this. If mortality factors strain the population without really changing trait frequencies in any survival-related way, it's simply not selection.

---

is one of the most succinct phrasings of this concept that I have heard. IMO, Syamsu has such a limited comprehension of the systems that he is studying that he has to simplify them to the point of unreality.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz