Syamsu's Objection to Natural Selection...

That means that almost everytime that we sequence parts of a specific organisms genome that we can find a new species. That will put a kick in the pants of systematics. Syamsu's stupidendous approach appears to be leaving modern biology in complete turmoil.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

It would proove evolution though ... all we would need to
find is an offspring with a sequence difference from
it's parent(s)....

Hey, that means most of us could apply. Maybe the new name would be Homo sapiens syamstupicus.Syamsu, if you think that this is all pointless abuse of you, you would once again be wrong. We have been picking out the more egregious errors w.r.t. biology that you have been making and playing them out. Namely your complete lack of understanding of molecular biology/molecular genetics, population genetics, ecology and general biology with special attention paid to your gross errors in what a mutation is, what the change in allelic frequency through time and location means and the interplay between genes and their expressed results.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Yes, but besides those minor quibbles, what do you think of his theories?

Other than that Mrs. Lincoln how did you enjoy the play.Actually, rather than a tragedy I consider it more of a vaudvillian farce ------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Again.... the cut-down version of selection is effectively the same as basic biology descriptions of organisms that you can find in any biology textbook... You have just refuted basic biology congratulations.... how clever you all are.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Rubbish, show us how the 'cut down version' of NS is equivalent to say, ooooh, the Michaelis-Menton equation?Or are you simply saying that the gross morphology of animals in a species is generally similar? What colour are your eyes by the way?[This message has been edited by Wounded King, 08-01-2003]

Syamsu, Please respond to this.Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.[This message has been edited by mark24, 08-01-2003]

quote:

---

Or are you simply saying that the gross morphology of animals in a species is generally similar?

---

Actually in the first incarnation of this subject Syamsu indicated that as pretty much all sheep had four legs and that there were no steady genetic varients with five that there was no variation within sheep. He pretty much ignored my reply which pointd out real variation in legs in sheep. Typical Syamsu sloppiness and doublespeak.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Mark, there is about as much chance of Siam-sue answering your post as there is of him answeringthis. He might obfuscate and dance arounfd the point but he will not discuss or answer in an intelligent fashion.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Again............................ Basic biology is just about looking at the relation of organisms to the environment in terms of their reproduction (cycle), which is the same that you get if you cut variation from Natural Selection theory.Again, to any creationists wishing to respond, the evolutionists are all just blowing hot air. The criticisms of my position can have no basis unless they have found a way to refute basic biology. Likewise the criticism that I am supposedly a woman hater has no basis whatever. It's just more Darwinistic adverserial tactics, from people who don't actually have any intellectual curiosity in pursuing an argument.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Yes small one, we have seen it all before. Redefine something so that you even have a CHANCE in open debate, and a damned small chance at that.

quote:

---

Basic biology is just about looking at the relation of organisms to the environment in terms of their reproduction (cycle), which is the same that you get if you cut variation from Natural Selection theory.

---

For the curious and potentially undecided out there, including people leaning towards either creationism or Natural Selection, Siam is using an old trick. Redefine somnething incorrectly in the hopes of shoehorning in YOUR definition. There are two large errors here that have been explained to Siam-sue repeatedly, with factual support I might add.1) Basic biology covers areas outside of the reproductive cycle. It covers the organims entire life cycle and relationship to the environment, the reproductive cycle is only a portion of that.2) and unlike what Siam says, if you cut variation from the equation what you get is a series of reproductive copies (this actually never happens, even the few multicellular organisms that essentially reproduced, i.e. a rotofer whose species name I can not recall, by cloning have a degree of variation from mutations) that until variation is present can not evolve. Sans variation there is no differences between organisms and therefore no evolutioon. Evolution is change, no differences no change. And as molecular genetics always HAS shown variation, as the papers and data presented to Siam have demonstrated, all of SIam's statements are without support and are pure hogwash.By the way Siam, whenever you decide to grow a backbone and become a chordate, would you please answer the DATA presented to you.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-02-2003]Opps, link fixed[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 08-02-2003]

quote:

---

Basic biology is just about looking at the relation of organisms to the environment in terms of their reproduction (cycle), which is the same that you get if you cut variation from Natural Selection theory.

---

Are you saying that in "basic biology" they ignore predation, for example?If one gazelle is able to run faster or change direction faster or hear or see the lion coming sooner, due to VARIATION, than another gazelle, which subsequently gets eaten by the lion, isn't going to be able to pass on it's genes as well as the faster, more agile gazelle with better hearing or vision.

quote:

---

The criticisms of my position can have no basis unless they have found a way to refute basic biology.

---

I repeat: Are you sying that predation is ignored in "basic biology?"

quote:

---

Likewise the criticism that I am supposedly a woman hater has no basis whatever.

---

Hey, turnabout is fair play.If you get to call all of us Nazis and racists for no good reason, then I get to call you a woman hater.See, you refuse to accept that Biological Darwinism has nothing to do with Social Darwinism, and in fact, Social Darwinism is a perversion, an abuse of Biological Darwinism, a misuse of the theory that was never intended.I linked you to the sites which explicitly explain this in Evolutionary Psychology, yet you take the fact that they deny any social darwinist connection as a strong indicator that they ARE, in fact, Nazis and racists.So, I refuse to accept that your religion has nothing to do with the hatred and mistreatment of women. Any specific denials you give only confirms in my mind that you are a sexist woman hater.See how it works? Turnabout is fair play.

quote:

---

It's just more Darwinistic adverserial tactics, from people who don't actually have any intellectual curiosity in pursuing an argument.

---

No, it's just using YOUR OWN TACTICS on you, Syamsu.

Wow, you actually made an argument to the subject at issue in your post, good for you.Gazelles do not differ much actually and not differentially, and hence it is not discussed in basic biology about differing sorts of gazelles. Of course it's debatable what's basic biology and what isn't but since you can't very easily apply differential reproductive success of differing gazelles in the field, I think that fairly discounts it as basic. Predators would still influence reproduction even when there is no difference between gazelles....When you are actually going to get round to describing a gazelle, that's when you are doing basic biology, and then you would describing the organism in terms of reproduction, with negative and positive selective factors which inhibit or contribute to reproduction.Your view on gazelle's is now very peculiar, and well false, since gazelle's aren't actually different the way you imagine them to be different. They are the same generation, after generation, after generation, as the evo psych site you referenced said heritability is generally zero.....The rest of your post is dross. Basicly you imagine I argue like you do, by saying I call evo psychs nazi's. Why would I want to argue like that? That's pointless drivel.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamasu writes:

quote:

---

Gazelles do not differ much actually

---

But they do differ.Since they differ, there is variation.Since there is variation, there is selection among the variants.Hence, evolution.

quote:

---

and not differentially,

---

Excuse me? Are you saying that the gazelle that gets eaten by the lion is not differentially distinct from the gazelle that manages to escape?

quote:

---

and hence it is not discussed in basic biology about differing sorts of gazelles.

---

Only because our instruments are insufficiently sensitive to detect the difference. That doesn't mean the difference isn't there...we just can't tell simply by glancing at a herd thundering past.There's an old joke that the reason all squirrels look the same is because you're not a squirrel.

quote:

---

Of course it's debatable what's basic biology and what isn't but since you can't very easily apply differential reproductive success of differing gazelles in the field,

---

Sure you can. You simply watch the population over time and make observations about which ones reproduce and which ones don't. Again, you're not seriously trying to say that the gazelles who get caught and eaten by the lions are in no way distinct from those that escape, are you?

quote:

---

Predators would still influence reproduction even when there is no difference between gazelles....

---

Indeed. But if there is no difference between gazelles, there is no evolution over time. But we do see evolution, so it cannot be that there is no difference.That is, the predators can only catch those that are slow enough to be caught. If your idea of "no variation" were true, we would eventually be left with a population that is too fast for the predators to catch. Since the predators are under the same restriction of no variation, they will eventually die out because they will be unable to catch any prey.But since we see that the predators are still around, since they still manage to catch prey, then we must realize that there is variation. Some the prey are slower than the others. Some of the predators are faster than the slowest prey.------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!