Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-25-2019 2:53 PM
21 online now:
AZPaul3, DrJones*, edge, JonF, PaulK, ringo, Thugpreacha (AdminPhat) (7 members, 14 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 852,035 Year: 7,071/19,786 Month: 1,612/1,581 Week: 434/393 Day: 25/43 Hour: 3/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Cuvier, Owen and Agassiz were correct!
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 1 of 8 (36631)
04-09-2003 8:58 PM


Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen and Louis Agassiz were the three greatest zoologists of the nineteenth century. They all denied evolution. Let me tell you why. It is because sexual reproduction cannot support macroevolution (speciation). In short they were correct because evolution is no longer going on. Darwin and Wallace by comparison, were mere naturalists with overactive imaginations at best. Of course I do not deny the fact of evolution, only that it is no longer going on. That is what forced me to give serious consideration to the semi-meiotic hypothesis. I thought I would offer this little tidbit as a proof that I am daft. Have fun poking fun at this one as you have with all my previous posts. I have presented the evidence for sexual reproduction as an anti-evolutionary device in my 1998 paper as well as in the Manifesto, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any further clarification on my part. Read and enjoy! salty
Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by mark24, posted 04-09-2003 9:41 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 04-09-2003 9:42 PM John A. Davison has responded
 Message 4 by Brian, posted 04-10-2003 5:04 AM John A. Davison has not yet responded
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 04-10-2003 6:25 AM John A. Davison has responded

mark24
Member (Idle past 3336 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 2 of 8 (36633)
04-09-2003 9:41 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John A. Davison
04-09-2003 8:58 PM


Salty,

quote:
Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen and Louis Agassiz were the three greatest zoologists of the nineteenth century. They all denied evolution. Let me tell you why. It is because sexual reproduction cannot support macroevolution (speciation).

Utter, absolute, cobblers. They denied evolution for no such reason. None of them were privy to knowledge of chromosomes, genes, let alone recombination. How could they possess such knowledge in order to make such a claim? Good grief.

Mark

------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-09-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John A. Davison, posted 04-09-2003 8:58 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12596
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 3 of 8 (36634)
04-09-2003 9:42 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by John A. Davison
04-09-2003 8:58 PM


Salty writes:

I have presented the evidence for sexual reproduction as an anti-evolutionary device in my 1998 paper as well as in the Manifesto, so there is absolutely no reason whatsoever for any further clarification on my part.

When you joined you agreed to follow the forum guidelines. Rule 2 states Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.

Rule 4 states Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.

This is a debate board, not a "battle of the references" board. Positions and evidence should be described in messages here, not referenced to in papers. Papers should only be referenced to support, not define, your position.

Unless you're interested in stating your premise (not referencing your papers) and addressing rebuttals through argument and presentation of evidence (not through referencing your papers), there seems little reason to keep this thread open.

Please let me know of your intention to engage in discussion and debate, else I will close this thread.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John A. Davison, posted 04-09-2003 8:58 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by John A. Davison, posted 04-10-2003 7:57 AM Admin has not yet responded

  
Brian
Member (Idle past 3100 days)
Posts: 4659
From: Scotland
Joined: 10-22-2002


Message 4 of 8 (36654)
04-10-2003 5:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John A. Davison
04-09-2003 8:58 PM


Hi Salty,

I am not a scientist, but this quote from your post:

Georges Cuvier, Richard Owen and Louis Agassiz were the three greatest zoologists of the nineteenth century.

Now I really do not need to be a scientist to see that this post is verging on the desperate.

You say that these zoologists denied evolution and that they were writing in the 19th century, maybe I am mistaken but hasn't science progressed a great deal in the last 100+ years?

Ths reminds me of inerrantist argument that no archaeological find has ever disproven anything in the Bible and this is usually supported by a very out of date quote by Nelson Glueck.

This may have been true, or at least appeared true, 50 or 60 years ago, but it is no longer the case, yet some people quote a very out of date source and do not read the most recent data available.

This is just a suggestion, but maybe it would be a good idea to read some of the more recent data available. I know that, as far as archaeology is concerned, that there are new finds virtually every other week, so it is probably fair to say that science has had some new discoveries in the last century that, if available to the guys you mentioned, may have changed their opinions regarding evolution.

Brian.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John A. Davison, posted 04-09-2003 8:58 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

  
Wounded King
Member (Idle past 2235 days)
Posts: 4149
From: Edinburgh, Scotland
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 5 of 8 (36658)
04-10-2003 6:07 AM


Dear Salty,

In your essay on Ontogeny and Phylogeny you mention the lack of swim bladders in Darters and state that a Darwinian interpretation insists on a gradual loss of the bladder. This is not true for a neo darwinian interpretation however. Developmental genetics shows that only a very few mutations may be sufficient to cause the loss of a specific organ with no gradual transition required. A recent paper in Nature showed evidence that Stick insects have lost and regained wings several times in the course of their evolution. Has there been any genetic work done to look for genes related to swim bladder development in Darters?

MICHAEL F. WHITING, SVEN BRADLER & TAYLOR MAXWELL
Loss and recovery of wings in stick insects
Nature 421, 264 - 267 (2003)


  
Peter
Member (Idle past 2064 days)
Posts: 2160
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 6 of 8 (36660)
04-10-2003 6:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by John A. Davison
04-09-2003 8:58 PM


Could you please point me to your paper in which
this is discussed, perhaps then I can make approriate
comment
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by John A. Davison, posted 04-09-2003 8:58 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by John A. Davison, posted 04-10-2003 8:01 AM Peter has not yet responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 7 of 8 (36665)
04-10-2003 7:57 AM
Reply to: Message 3 by Admin
04-09-2003 9:42 PM


This is pure hypocricy. I have been bombarded with references presumably refuting my posotion. When I offer you a paper a touch of your mouse away, you accuse me of not following the rules. If that is your concept of a forum, close me down. I don't need that kind of a discussion. salty
This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Admin, posted 04-09-2003 9:42 PM Admin has not yet responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 8 of 8 (36666)
04-10-2003 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Peter
04-10-2003 6:25 AM


www.uvm.edu/~jdavison. The particular paper is "Evolution as a self-limiting process". salty
This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Peter, posted 04-10-2003 6:25 AM Peter has not yet responded

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019