For Salty

None of what you have all said is of any significance whatsoever. I can only conclude that you have not read my papers, especially "Evolution as a self-limiting process." In it I present compelling evidence that there is no universal mechanism for sex determination indicating that sex has evolved many times independently an idea first proposed by the Russian cytologist Vorontsov whom I quoted in an earlier paper. I proposed further that sexual reproduction is quite incapable of supporting macroevolution (speciation). Indeed, its primary role seems to be to stabilize species and to allow the sort of small scale adaptation for which Mendelian recombination is well suited. So evolution joins embryonic development and growth as another self-regulating phenomenon which terminates itself when a suitable end has been reached. The major difficulties faced by the sexual model are due to the blind acceptance by Darwin and his followers of Lyell's Principle of Uniformitarianism. It then degenerated even further when the Darwnians embraced Mendelian (sexual) genetics. Thus just as Aristotle inhibited the growth of Physics so have Lyell and Mendel done the same for our understanding of the mechanism of organic evolution. Let me end this response by quoting William Bateson in the above cited paper ."By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general."Since my offerings have been banned at the main site of this forum I hope this will leave you with a better understanding of why I have no respect for this forum. You all really should read before you attack. salty

Evolution is finished because sexual reproduction cannot support macroevolution. I have summarized this evidence in my papers especially, "Evolution as a self-limiting process" If you could or would read you would understand why none of what you have said has any meaning whatsoever. salty

Amazing...you actually found the thread...I know it must have been difficult.Now then.."None of what you have all said is of any significance whatsoever. I can only conclude that you have not read my papers, especially "Evolution as a self-limiting process." "M: Lots has been said..please elaborate as to why the various points made are insignificant...particularly the first several posts asked specific questions of you hypothesis so it is hardly insignificant.S: ." In it I present compelling evidence that there is no universal mechanism for sex determination indicating that sex has evolved many times independently an idea first proposed by the Russian cytologist Vorontsov whom I quoted in an earlier paperM: Ummm you make assertions in your papers but provide no evidence and ignore heaps of counter evidence. Other than quoting Russian cytologists out of context how about showing us first evidence and then explaining why it is compelling.S:I proposed further that sexual reproduction is quite incapable of supporting macroevolution (speciation).M: I propose that a pink unicorn is eating Gary Coleman's testicles which makes him cranky...I can"t support that with evidence (other than Gary Coleman often being cranky which is often reported in the Michigan news) ..can you support your above statement with some?S: Indeed, its primary role seems to be to stabilize species and to allow the sort of small scale adaptation for which Mendelian recombination is well suited.M: Again, supporting evidence for this assertion, preferably evidence accumalated SINCE Mendel died would be appreciated.S: So evolution joins embryonic development and growth as another self-regulating phenomenon which terminates itself when a suitable end has been reached.M: Studied developmental bio in college...lots of pals work on dev genetics...please explain how it is a self regulating phenomenon which terminates when what end has been reached?S: The major difficulties faced by the sexual model are due to the blind acceptance by Darwin and his followers of Lyell's Principle of Uniformitarianism.M: Umm, what does uniformitarianism have to due with DNA as the basis of transmission genetics (of which Darwin and his contemporaries were unaware).S: It then degenerated even further when the Darwnians embraced Mendelian (sexual) genetics. Thus just as Aristotle inhibited the growth of Physics so have Lyell and Mendel done the same for our understanding of the mechanism of organic evolutionM: I see, so you don't accept the basic principles of genetics either...why am I not surprised?...and what the hell is a Darwinian?S: Let me end this response by quoting William Bateson in the above cited paper .M:..let me end this with a response from Socrates..."I drank what?"S: Since my offerings have been banned at the main site of this forum I hope this will leave you with a better understanding of why I have no respect for this forum. You all really should read before you attack. saltyM: Your inablility to support your arguments with anything but assertions should indicate why nobody has shown any respect for your blathering. But you can set it all straight by addressing the rebuttals and questions that came you way in a good faith manner without appeals to dead authorities that you quote often out of context and by not saying look in Volume 1 of the encyclopedia...it is all clear...some of us HAVE read your writings and they are as unclear as your posts.I also find it highly ironic that you claim we should read before we attack when you have shown utter inablility to digest any literature post 1980 on molecular biology which is highly relevant to this discussion...even when it has been spoonfed to you...Please clean up your act and make an honest attempt to somehow re-attain some level of academic integrity.

I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe. So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum. When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly. You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots. salty

I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe. So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum. When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly. You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots. salty

I must admit to really hating that word when I was younger, as it was always used in a derogatory way, usually by boys wanting to denegrate other boys.Now I know it doesn't have to be used that way.Although I wouldn't really want to use it for Salty.Let's not denigrate pusseys, OK?

So, Salty, maybe you could answer a question that nobody has ever been able to to date:How do you tell the difference between a system which has been intelligently designed and a natural one which we don't understand yet, or do not have the intellectual power to ever understand?I mean, in science (if you want to do science), you must in principal work within the idea that there is potentially alwayssomething we haven't thought of. That's why and how science is able to adapt and change when new information comes in, right?So, by what system or method do you tell the designed from the simply unknown?

"I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. "M: It appears on this board that you are unable to communicate with religious posters either i.e. truthlover.And were you not the one who objected to people resorting to denigrating others when their arugments "failed"? Your first sentence makes you a hypocrite..so chock up another personality defect among the litany that you possess.S: I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe.M: Yes, the "academic" narcoleptics over at Terry's board will surely not question anything you say since it is hard to walk on your knuckles and type at the same time...but since you mention that design is everywhere, please give an example with supporting evidence that it has been designed...if you do it will be the first ever..nice little academic challenge for you.S: So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum.M: Hmmm you failed to support your own hypothesis with anything but evasion, insult, an quote mining, you did not address a single rebuttal to your hypothesis from anyone...wow, what a triumph! but then you seem to be proud of having lost your academic position having faded into the irrelvance of Terry Trainor's board and consider that a triumph to...convenient..you lose but you say you win S: When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly.M: I have not described him as a worm...so now you have identified yourself as a poor fact checker....I don't think Terry is a worm at all...worms are actually useful organisms.S: You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots.M: At least we are intellectuals (some of the time )...you seem to be treading water in the academic kiddy pool.And now that you got your little rant out of the wayPlease show
1) evidence that any biological system has been designed by a designer of your choice
2) present the testable hypothesis for this designer and particularly, how that hypothesis could be falsified
3) How the semi-meiotic hypothesis fits in with ID
4) What would falsify the semi-meiotic hypothesisshould be easy...and it is not anywhere in your manifesto..cheers,
M

Right on Q. Remember William Bateson "Treasure your exceptions". salty

There is no need to provide evidence for a designer as it is manifest everywhere. It is a mistake for ID proponents to even debate guys like Dawkins. If you can believe Dawkins you can believe anything. As for falsification of the semi-meiotic hypothesis, it sure can't be falsified as long as it is ignored. Darwinian gradualism has been falsified so many times that it is now accepted to be true. As for a designer, I have simply asked the question "Has evolution been guided". My opinion for what it is worth is that it has been guided with H. sapiens as the ultimate product. Don't expect me to provide evidence that does not exist. Others have provided tons of evidence that chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. You and others on this forum have simply been reading the wrong literature. salty

"There is no need to provide evidence for a designer as it is manifest everywhere. "M: There is no need to provide evidence that an invisible four assed monkey magically steals a sock out of the laundry at regular interval as it is manifest everywhere....this is the equivalent of your logic or rather lack thereof.If it is manifest everywhere, you should be able to provide an explicit example of design..your evasion of this suggests you cannot.S: It is a mistake for ID proponents to even debate guys like Dawkins.M: Yes, because they end up looking like the fools that they are.S: If you can believe Dawkins you can believe anything.M: No, nobody believes you.S: As for falsification of the semi-meiotic hypothesis, it sure can't be falsified as long as it is ignored.M: Then get cracking man..you are not getting any younger and the data is not accumulating by itself.S: As for a designer, I have simply asked the question "Has evolution been guided".M: Show how this is testable and falsifiable as I asked or just admit that it is based purely on irrational fundamentalist religious views.S: My opinion for what it is worth is that it has been guided with H. sapiens as the ultimate product.M: Your opinion is worth little as you have not or can not support it with fact and there is an enormous body of counter evidence.S: Don't expect me to provide evidence that does not exist.M: LOL!!!!!!!! Why the hell should anyone take you seriously when statements like this come from you...paraphrased "believe what I say without any evidence of my being correct or even knowing what I am talking about"....Drink a case of beer and you won't get drunk salty...but don't expect me to provide any evidence that this is true..at least not until the weekend S: Others have provided tons of evidence that chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny.M. others have provided tons have they? How about sharing some of this tons of "evidence"? Or do you mean the baseless musings of other cranks and creationists..and creationst cranks?S: You and others on this forum have simply been reading the wrong literature.M: Actually, most of the evolutionists on this board are familiar with most of the common creationist arguments whereas most of the creationists (you included) are completely ignorant with regards to what evolution is...the reading deficit is entirely on your side salty...that is the one piece of evidence you HAVE provided on this forum.cheers,
M

In the interests of accuracy, Salty is not banned from any forum at this site. I believe he's referring to the The Nature of Mutations thread. Concern had been expressed that the thread was in danger of drifting off topic. A warning was posted in Message 169 of that thread that future non-substantive posts would be deleted. Subsequent to that Salty posted two messages that didn't address either the topic or any of the current points under discussion. The first message merely reiterated his position that he believes he is under no obligation to discuss or debate or do anything beyond citing his papers. The second was a general insult. In keeping with the earlier warning, both messages were deleted.To repeat, Salty is under no ban. However, it would be nice if at some point he decided to follow the forum guidelines and actually engage in discussion and debate by supporting his many assertions with evidence.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Hi Admin,"To repeat, Salty is under no ban. However, it would be nice if at some point he decided to follow the forum guidelines and actually engage in discussion and debate by supporting his many assertions with evidence."M: And this is the purpose of this thread..to give salty an outlet and to let salty be salty without derailing the more serious and interesting threads in the evolution forum....It will likely be a bit..ahem..slapstick in this thread But there are some good questions awaiting answers...they will either be addressed by salty or not..it is his choice...and that is why this thread is "for salty".thanks for the clarification Admin.

It is obvious to me and should be to others that you reject my fundamental assumptions which are 1. Macroevolution (speciation) is no longer in progress. 2. Sexual reproduction prevents rather than promotes macroevolution. 3. There is no room for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. 4. Intelligent Design is obvious everywhere in nature. I see no reason to defend that which to me and to any serious student of evolution should be obvious. Oh yes I forgot number 5. Population genetics has nothing to do with evolution. salty

"I see no reason to defend that which to me and to any serious student of evolution should be obvious. Oh yes I forgot number 5. Population genetics has nothing to do with evolution. salty "M: That you see no reason to defend your assertions is one of the critical reasons that you are a quack rather than a scientist.You have made assertions that are not obvious to any student of evolution and go counter to the evidence that we (meaning practicing scientists and informed laymen) learn. The last assertion, number 5, is a common creationist debating tactic which is to mis-define evolution to construct a strawman that can be argued against. It very nicely demonstrates the weakness of the creationist position that this tactic appears to be a requirement.But I find you amusing....so let's go through your assumptions1-4, again, I know what you assume and assert..that is irrelevant at this point since you have repeated these assertions multiple times..they are not becoming any more valid with time.Please show the evidence for 1-4.As to point 5..first, show us your evidence of this disconnect. And second please cite a commonly used definition of evolution that agrees with this disconnection between populations and evolution that you have made.....my assumptions now
1. salty will not provide the requested evidence
2. salty will write a typically short response possibly off topic
3. salty will post an out of context quote
4. salty will repeat one of the assertions made in this post again after yet again failing to provide a compelling reason why it should be taken seriously.
5. salty will rely on insult.If you shuffle around 1 to 5 you can re-create every post of salty's since he came to EvC