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
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.
------------------ Occam's razor is not for shaving with.
[This message has been edited by mark24, 04-09-2003]
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.
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.
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)
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