Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB.

JA "people that died 50 years ago would agree with me" Davison:

quote:

---

Your manner borders on the pathological

---

Now THAT is funny. Yes, I suppose it would be much more sane of me to simply repeat ad nauseum the names of a few folks whom I claim would 'agree with' me when asked to support a claim, then declare anyone that does not agree to be intolerant and bigoted.Your level of projection rivals even the great Jon Sarfati...

quote:

---

Davison:
Natural selection is not a creative element. All it ever did was eliminate the defectives.

---

Nice assertion. I suggest actually trying to keep up with the sinetific literature. I have cited a paper that came out a few years ago with evidence of positive Darwinian selection, but the fringe crank must not be bothered by up to date science - especially when it subverts his bread and butter lunacy.

quote:

---

The sources of evolutionary creation remain a deep mystery. How you can marshall Denton's arguments in support of your own atheistic perspective is also a mystery.

---

There it is - the lie of the week. I made no such claim, 'salty.' It would appear that your grasp on recent history is as flawed as your armchair theorizing about populations having nothing to do with evolution.

quote:

---

Also you seem to forget that macroevolution is quite finished.

---

How can I forget something that has never been established or documented? Sorry Davison - it takes more than repeated assertions and appeals to out of date paleontologist citations to establish something. Oh - and tell your troll-pal Ilion that there is a difference between old and out of date, for he does not seem to be able to comprehend the difference. But then, it appears that you don't either.

quote:

---

By the way, Denton is very much aware of my evolutionary ideas

---

Yup... SURE he is... Just like Broom and pals would "agree with you"... Yup...

quote:

---

Sorry to disappoint you. salty

---

Oh, you never do. You continually demonstrate the impetus for your demise at UVM, the sound reasons for your characterization as a fringe crank, etc.Keep up the good work.At least us evilutionists have the sense - and the ability - to support their claims with something other than hero worship and wild unsupported assertions.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-16-2003]

Good old cut and paste Scott. You just can't help but get personal can you? You contribute absolutely nothing to our understanding of the great mystery of evolution. I can't even accept the idea that you are an evolutionist. Real evolutionists freely admit that we don't know anything about the origin of life and its subsequent change. All you are capable of is insult. You are pathetic. Why this forum tolerates you escapes me. salty

OK, Salty gets 24 hours off, and the previously beat on SLPx gets a warning to tone it down, or get the same.Adminnemooseus

So, you're still making this claim that speciation has never been observed in diploid species? Good grief, how many references from how many journals discussing how many observations and experiments do you have to be presented before you'll change your mind? For reference, my post #85 on incipient speciation due to genetic variation and Mammuthus's post #160 on sympatry in cichlids has already shown your assertion to be grossly erroneous. Even though you utterly ignored both posts, I'm reposting the links for those who haven't kept up with current events and actually think there may be some possibility of "discussing" anything with you.Of course, since you reject entirely the sciences of ecology and population genetics - because there are no "populations" according to you, I presume - I suppose the concepts of variable clines/demes, hybrid zones, karyotype divergeance due to pre- and post-zygotic isolation etc etc are foreign to you.(edited to delete gratuitous insult. I guess people can make up their own minds on the question of "Is semi-meiosis science, fringe science, pseudoscience, or crank non-science?")[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 04-17-2003]

small update to post 160 on cichlidsOrigin of the Superflock of Cichlid Fishes from Lake Victoria, East AfricaErik Verheyen, Walter Salzburger, Jos Snoeks, and Axel Meyer
Science Apr 11 2003: 325-329. Published online March 20, 2003; 10.1126/science.1080699 (Science Express Reports ) [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [Supporting Online Material] Science, Volume 300Back to lurking mode

quote:

---

JA Davison:
Good old cut and paste Scott.

---

Cut and paste? Whaaa?

quote:

---

You just can't help but get personal can you?

---

With you, there is nothing left to do BUT "get personal." You provide nothing of substance - anywhere. Yet you continue to insist that you have made some important contribution. What a laugh. Oh, I know - and Moose will surely agree - I am intolerant, bigoted, etc., for not blindly and uncritically accepting all you say - your repeated, unsupported assertions, hero worship, and utter inability to address even the simplest straightforward questions or comments.
Yup. Of course, we can always look back at your posts here and elsewhere - you know the ones - wherein you label anyone that apparently does not buy your armchair guesses as not being scientists, bigots, etc.

quote:

---

You contribute absolutely nothing to our understanding of the great mystery of evolution.

---

Perhaps that is because it is not this great mystery you seem to need it to be. Are all 'questions' answered? Not at all. But then, claiming that it is "obvious" that a creator is necessary - as you have done - is hardly any sort of rational contribution.
Of course, unlike you, my lab research papers actually did deal directly with evolution at the molecular level.

quote:

---

I can't even accept the idea that you are an evolutionist. Real evolutionists freely admit that we don't know anything about the origin of life and its subsequent change.

---

Please do not paint all folks with the same brush that you paint yourself with. Real evolutionists actually understand that abiogenesis is not within the realm of the theory of evolutiuon. In my experience, it is only creationists and other anti-science nitwits that insist that it is. Real scientists - at least those cognizant of the biological literature - know that, in fact, we do know a bit about how evolution works. Real up to date scientists that understand that evolution occurs - not in the bones/fossils, but in the genome - know that we have some understanding of all this. All questions answered? Not at all - never said or implied any such thing. another of JA Davison's fabrications.

quote:

---

All you are capable of is insult. You are pathetic.

---

Your projective abilities have come a long way. No longer subtle, but blatant. very good.

quote:

---

Why this forum tolerates you escapes me. salty

---

see above. When you actually get around to discussing something on this or any other discussion board, you let us all know. Read through the threads, charlie - every single person involved has commented on your inability/unwillingness to ctually discuss anything. all you do is repeat your mantras, play martyr, and engage in out of date hero worship.Why anyone tolerates you at all in any circumstance escapes me.

Testing, testing to see if salty is readmitted

Mornin'
Now that you are back I wonder if you could make a comment on post 136 namely how such a massive radiation of fifferent species and body forms immediately pre and post cambrian explosion fits in with your comments re: sex and evolution.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 04-18-2003]

Hi again, I want to make sure everyone understands my position on evolution so I won't have to repeat myself. Macroevolution is finished and man was apparently the ultimate product. Sexual reproduction cannot support macroevolution (speciation). The primary role for sexual reproduction is to stabilize the species, a condition which usually results in extinction. Macroevolution took place between one individual and the next. Populations never had anything to do with macroevolution and very little to do with microevolution. Most important, chance had virtually nothing to do with macroevolution just as it has nothing to do with ontogeny. Both processes have been driven by preformed elements about which very little is known. Natural selection does nothing but eliminate the defective. The only good micromutations are the ones that return the genome to the original wild type. All others are deleterious or at best neutral. Now I have presented all this in my published papers and in the Manifesto. I see no reason to further comment on what is in hard copy. Find someone else to abuse. Ciao, salty

Taz,Don't bother looking in Davison's 'published papers' (the ones in that Italian theoretical biology journal - I thought salty thought lowly of theoreticians?).They contain nothing of substance either.Apparently, repeated assertions and hero worship count as evidence in the dank tunnels of Davison's mind...

Actually I was refering to his paper in J of Theoretical Biology wher he apparently first brought up his ideas.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Yes, well it doesn't seem to matter. He responds the same way regardless of the genesis of your inquiries.

Salty says: The only good micromutations are the ones that return the genome to the original wild type. All others are deleterious or at best neutral.This is of course a falsehood, and easily demonstrated as such.Are Mutations Harmful?There are 6 examples listed there. I am aware of others.Salty: I see no reason to further comment on what is in hard copy.Yes, I see a pattern here. I have been watching your exchanges for a while. It seems that you assert, assert, assert, and then refuse to back up those assertions when pressed. This is a discussion board, where you would ideally be expected to defend your position.FK

I have defended my position in my publications. Do you really think I was not sincere? Where are your published views on evolution? If you have some would you feel obligated to further defend them? I have better things to do in my life than to try to convince someone of my version of the truth. Go on believing in your mutationist, selectionist, atheistic, formless, purposeless and random view of the world. It has led you nowhere and it never will. salty