Change in Moderation?

I just want to object here to the closure of my new thread about cutting variation from the definition of natural selection.Yes much of what I wrote there has been written before by me, but now the emphasis is on the importance of the subject, rather then on technical details about if or not selection without variation is valid science.I also think it is inappropiately sarcastic to say of the admin to be glad I won the debate.There really are no technical arguments anymore which I already haven't refuted numerous times. The last time the reason for including variation in the definition was because there most always is variation in a population. My counterargument, among others, to that was that this variation is most times irrellevant, and that actually stasis is most times observed in populations. There was no response to this counterargument of mine. Maybe the subject should be entered into the great debate forum, with close moderation control to the point where arguments are structured, so that it is more clear that I have really nullified all counterarguments. But really Quetzal, Peter and John have already agreed that selection without variation is valid, so there is really no need to discuss technical details anymore unless someone brings up a new reason why in all cases variation is required for Natural Selection to apply.So I think the sarcasm is misplaced, prejudicial, and the emphasis on the importance of the subject makes it new enough to be talked about from that angle. It's really quite difficult to have to argue the importance of something. After it is agreed that selection without variation is valid, then variation should simply be cut from the definition, case closed. That is how it should work, but in stead I'm confronted with indifference to the rules of organizing knowledge, which are applicable in all science except Darwinism. How to deal with indifference is by posting on the importance of the subject, which was what I was doing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

As far as I can tell, Salty was criticizing Darwinists to describe genetic change as gradual when it is known that a single genetic change only takes a moment. He's in effect saying that rate of beneficial mutations is a wrong/deceptive way to look at genetic change, an arguable point, not an error.For as far as moderation goes, if you only enforce general civil conduct in all forums, and only closely moderate debate in the great debate forum, then that would be more effective IMO. Something like that you can use a discussion in the great debate forum as some kind of faq on the subject afterwards.You have not replied at all to my objection to the closure of the cut variation... thread, why is that?regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

In stead of looking at automible crashes, look at the development of automobiles, would that also be good to represent in terms of rate of change/mutations? It's all arguable still IMO.Sure I would be responsive to administrative requests, but before you make a list of administrative requests, I suggest you read the 2nd paragraph in my post nr 25 in the thread:http://EvC Forum: Racism -->EvC Forum: RacismI'm not at all sure you understand what selection without variation is about. It is very basic biology, which would be very very difficult to deny the scientific merit of IMO.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

The rate of change / gradualism / etc. is tied in historically with the blended inheritance theory, where heridity is fluid and not discrete. Darwin observed all kinds of slight (gradual) differences among finches which later were mostly found to be non heriditary. I would say it can be deceptive to present quality changes in terms of a gradual rate of change, since the rate of beneficial mutations is random, and not gradual.Even so this argument of mine may be wrong.... it is not obviously wrong, which is why it's arguable IMO.I think most everybody is engrained in the Darwinist conception of selection, where selection is between one or the other type, where in my selection, selection is between reproduction or no reproduction of the one type. But reasonably this different formulation is understandable to anyone. Why not stop Peter from once again trodding out an old argument that ignores my counterargument that I mentioned to him about 5 times before, in stead of stopping me to post about it in the first place? How about stopping yourself in your persona as Percipient from posting that variation is required in the definition because variation is most times present without addressing my counterarguments at all why that is false, which I already mentioned about 5 times before?http://EvC Forum: Quetzal, John, Peter and other non-variationist Darwinists -->EvC Forum: Quetzal, John, Peter and other non-variationist DarwinistsYou "forgot" to address that:
- stasis is most times observed in populations, not any "meaningful" (scientifically interesting) evolution.
- that you still need to describe how a trait functions in reproduction even if it's not varying
etc.So whose at fault here, me for endlessly repeating arguments like that, or you and others for endlessly ignoring arguments like that? And what if you hadn't ignored arguments like that, wouldn't then my case be seen to be a lot stronger, so it might interest creationists in the merits of my case when it comes to how this small difference in the fundaments of the theory affects religion?Sorry but I can't consider your closure of the thread fair play, several things point towards it being prejudicial.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't quite understand how you see the role of a moderator, but since the thread is opened again I guess it's not worth going into.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Only in your fantasy Dan. Read the forumrules, then try to apply them to the postings in the thread impartially.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

You all have no case whatsoever. An adminstrator would actually have to be specific about forumrules I violate, and not pluck things from fantasy like you all do. Case in point I have never said that anyone who accepts Darwin's theory is therefore a Nazi, that is just a fantasy. Come on up and show all those forumrule violations.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I don't know what you're talking about in the first part.I did answer the rebuttals, by saying it was in relation to the creation vs evolution controversy.As before MrHambre's list doesn't contain insults, I'm just trying to dismiss people from the thread who contribute nothing meaningful, such as people who don't believe Darwinist ideology exists.I supported arguments when asked. I referenced an appraissal of the discipline of ecology and an appraissal of the discipline of extinction to support me. Quetzal and Mammuthus however, didn't reference any appraissal whatsoever, eventhough I explicitly asked them to about 7 times.As before you have no case whatsoever.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

How you and other people manage to ignore the main originator of fundamentalist opposition, William Jennings Bryan, is beyond me. It's fine by me if you start a separate thread, especially if you then leave your drivel outside a thread which is meant for serious discussion of things like Gasman's essay on Haeckel's influence on the volkish movement, or indeed William Jennings Bryan's opposition to fanatical Darwinist ideologists.regards,
Mohammad Nor syamsu

All fantasy, I don't break the forumrules. If it were the other way round, if I'd said that Dawkins says people are born altruist, then you would simply accuse of misrepresenting Dawkins also. Similarly if Quetzal and Mammuthus referenced some appraissals to support them, and I had referenced a bunch of paperwork to show how underdeveloped it is, then you would consider me to have broken forumrules again, because I would have to show how the paperwork supports my position. It's simple prejudice in a lively imagination, nothing more.I'm happy that most all evolutionists got their come-uppance in the end. There still remains the problem that these same evolutionists will continue to derail threads I start with posting huge amounts of drivel in them. Effectively surpressing a point of view that is highly critical of Darwinism. I think we can all agree that this kind of surpression is against forumrules, and that in future only serious counterarguments may be entered into threads I start.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

I didn't actually propose not posting in other threads, but it's fine by me if that what it takes to have a clean thread about darwinist ideology.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Hey enforce the guidelines stricter all you want, and equally. I can do without Mammuthus talking about my ass all the time. The amounts of parody is also not really appropiate, when someone wants to have a serious argument. Neither is referencing huge amounts of papers without actually saying how exactly it supports their position in line with the guidelines.Mammuthus simply wanted to play the streetfighter, and have the authority of a credentialled scientist as well. Not very smart. I considered writing to the Admin coz he was talking about my ass all the time, really sickening. But it's such a staightforward violation so why write to the Admins about what they could well see already. And I thought no, I am on the streets so to speak, Mammuthus doesn't know anything about the streets. He acts as though the streets are for fighting, how uncivilized. I can handle this guy, and wow!, there he went down and out with a bunch of evolutionists, amazing.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu