Is Syamsu a creationist or an evolutionist?

Q: What sort of work that you have performed in the lab or field supports your reformulation of natural selection?A: None to date.Q: What sort of evidence would make you believe that your opinions concerning natural selection are gravely mistaken?A: None whatsoever.Q: Am I right in thinking that you are utterly and irretrievably insane?A: Yes, without a doubt.------------------
The bear thought his son could talk in space about the time matter has to rotate but twisted heaven instead.
-Brad McFall

Q: How will Syamus respond to your post?A1: You are a nazi like Lorenz
A2: I would support what I am saying but I have lots of laundry to do
A3: You should all just go away

Syamsu, Relative allele frequency is a population trait, but populations are made of lots of individuals, right? It's an extrapolation of what occurs at the genic/individual level (& I have no intention of getting into what the basic unit of selection is) into the make up of populations. Individuals do not adapt genetically, populations do, even if the selection occurs at the individuals level. But I'm not saying one variant replaces another at all. Ultimately it might, but my examples show the process occurring, not completing. Two snapshots, rather than a beginning & an absolute end. The point I am belabouring is that populations adapt via natural selection via differential reproductive success. If I only consider one variant I cannot be in a position to know that the population evolved. Remember my original contention? "That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others." How can I possibly study, or be in a position to know that the population has evolved by only considering one variant? With reference to my original contention I clearly have to have a knowledge of both in order to make a determination that the population has evolved in the first place. It is impossible otherwise. I fully understand your argument that the fitness of an individual phenotype can be measured alone without reference to the rest of the population. It's just that in this situation it is inappropriate to simply look at one phenotype, when we are concerned with a before & after relative frequency. We cannot have a relative frequency without looking at both. Not at all. How the variation occurred is utterly irrelevant to the argument.Again, I draw your attention back to my original contention which was: "That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others."Do you agree?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, 10-28-2003]

When exactly did someone say the are *for* contributing to reproduction. There are many mutations floating around in any population. Some may then become advantages under some enviromental changes. NONE of them were FOR anything. With hindsight we may see that some of them are "good" and others not good.

quote:

---

Variation does disappear, as also by the standard version of Natural Selection. I'm at a loss how you can say otherwise

---

Please provide an example of a population in nature in which each individual is an exact genetic clone of every other individual in a population.That is what you are suggesting when you say that "variation does disappear."When variation disappears in a population, that means that they must all be clones, or genetically identical.

Yes I would like those people who previously said they wouldn't reply to me anymore to go away, like MrHambre, Mammuthus, and Tazimus Maximus.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Mark:
"That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others."Do you agree?----As in the post previous, there is no adaptation in allele frequency change, that is just spreading of adaptive traits. No I don't agree.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, The spreading of "adaptive traits" IS adaptation!!! Good grief!! I can't wait to hear your tortured, twisted definition of adapted. Hey Syamsu, I would agree that the sun rises in the east, but I define sun & east differently to you so it doesn't happen, right?This is why it is so frustrating debating with you, Syamsu. If you ever found yourself as an eyewitness to an accident case, & was asked to testify in court, what would you achieve by saying "no, the bus did not run over the pensioner, I define bus differently to everyone else, so it didn't happen"? You either don't understand the topic, or are using a dishonest tactic to deflect from the true thrust of the points being made.You're equivocation aside, I'll define the term to deny you the wriggle room.Adaptation is a process of genetic change of a population due to natural selection whereby the average state of a character becomes improved with reference to a specific function. Or a feature that has become prevalent in a population because of a selective advantage owing to its provision of an improvement in some function.(Futuyma)These are common biological definitions of adaptation. I'm not interested in your personal definition, when I made my statement I did so using the definitions above (that other biologists & geneticists use).Now, I'll say it again:That adaptive changes in allele frequency within a breeding population as a whole cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.Do you agree with this, using the intended definition, rather than your personal one?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, 10-29-2003]

Schrafinator, I think Syamsu means that hypothetically, in a population where no new variation is introduced, variation is reduced via selective processes until the variation & heritability = 0. He is correct. Well, mostly, there are examples of equilibrium being maintained selectively.You are playing into his hands, you will argue past each other for several posts & waste your time. It's just the place he likes to be.Mark

quote:

---

in a population where no new variation is introduced, variation is reduced via selective processes until the variation & heritability = 0.

---

With the somewhat curious heritability thing -- I maybe agree,
but variation does not get reduced by selective processes unless
ALL traits are subject to selective pressure -- and maybe not even
then depending upon the genetic characteristics leading to the
trait.The only way to have zero variation in any population is for
no variation to ever get introduced.This does not happen, so any hypothesis based upon such a
population is mis-leading. All you can accomplish is to say that
evolution cannot happen without variation -- and we know that
already.

quote:

---

Variation does disappear, as also by the standard version of Natural Selection. I'm at a loss how you can say otherwise.

---

Because there are few (if any) living populations that do
not exhibit variation -- even if that is marginal in their
current environment.How can you say that variation disappears, when we can observe
almost any population and see that it doesn't?

quote:

---

Again, my point is that the mutations are not really random if you say the variations provided by mutation are for contributing to reproduction when the environment changes.

---

That's not what they are FOR.IFF there are variations that increase the chances of leaving
offspring then they will appear in hindsight to be adaptive
changes.

quote:

---

Mutations are usually deleterious, and so become extinct through competition with variants, or they have no phenotypical effect whatsoever.

---

What on earth makes you think this?PS: I'm sure I already posted a response to this, but
it's not here ... hmmmm...

But it's just like saying that the individuals in the population have changed, but they don't change of course, a change occurs, and this change spreads, or not as the case may be.I must refer you to the arguments raised previous. There is no point if you just define things your way without argumentation, and then say it happened.Q What is meaningful here?A The relation of camouflage to the predators.B How many colorful there are compared to camouflaged.My answer is A, your answer is B.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Peter, The context is selection, not neutral drift, so only loci under selective pressure are considered, & it is hypothetical. Not to put words in Syamsu's mouth, but in a world where no variation is introduced, selection reduces variation. Even if we include neutral loci, it still reduces it, just doesn't take it to zero.Mark

I did not mean to say that there is no variation present, I just meant to say that mostly variation disappears without contributing to reproduction. That you describe the variation that is present as a resource that just incidentally can contribute to reproduction when the environment changes basicly says that the variation is not random. If it were random we should assume that variants can't deal with differing environments, because there are so many more possible variations that can't contribute to reproduction even if the environment changes, compared to variations that might contribute.regards,
Mohammad Nor Syamsu

Syamsu, YES!!! It's called ADAPTATION. More equivocation.The sun really doesn't rise in the east for you, Syamsu, does it?Tell me how individuals adapt genetically? They don't, do they? The population does. If a population has changed it's ratio of alleles in response to a selective pressure, it has adapted. The population now possesses a different ratio of phenotypes. I am not defining it my way, I am taking sciences definition, it is you who are equivocating. But this is a meaningless response, the argument is whether differential reproductive success is required for natural selection to change allele frequency in a population, not the definition of adaptation.Regardless, having defined my terms, it is utterly irrelevant as to whether you agree with my definition, because the important thing is that you are able to clearly understand what I mean. You have everything at your disposal to understand me, you know precisely what I mean. So why not answer?Consider the example I gave last post. Everyone else says a bus ran over a pensioner. You claim you don't define bus in the same way as everyone else, so you disagree. Someone defines bus for you, & asks, "using this definition, did a bus run over a pensioner", you claim you still don't agree with the definition & refuse to address the question. Can't you see how dishonest this is? No one is asking you to accept their definition except for the purposes of that one statement. I define bus as a large red double decker vehicle which carries passengers from a to b. The contention is that a large double decker vehicle ran over a pensioner, in fact it did, so when asked if a large double decker bus ran over a pensioner are you still poncing around refusing to to address the issue? Because you define bus as an aquatic fish with purple spots, so therefore a large double decker vehicle couldn't have run over a pensioner, right? Or is it that you refuse to understand what is meant? My answer is both A & B, yours is just A.A is meaningful because it introduces a fitness differential that explains changes in B.Your answer refuses to address the entire contention, because the relative allele frequency within the population pertains to that population as a whole, & not one phenotype independently (we are noting that the ratio has changed & are asking why). The ratio of phenotypes HAS changed from a previous population ratio, so colourful/camouflaged is directly relevant. It is the observation being explained, for chrissakes! What don't you understand about that?Let me put my original contention another way:The changes in ratios of alleles due to natural selection within a breeding population as a whole, cannot occur unless there are members of a population that are fitter than others.There, you now have nowhere to go with your equivocation, the word adaptive has been removed from the equation. Whether you consider that adaptation is neither here nor there.Do you agree with the statement in italics?Mark[This message has been edited by mark24, 10-29-2003]