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

[Redundant message deleted. --Admin][This message has been edited by Admin, 04-01-2003]

There is no evidence that macroevolution (true speciation) is in progress today. The primary role for sexual reproduction is to bring macroevolution to a halt and thereby stabilize species. When macroevolution did occur it apparently resulted from the expression of preformed information a view first proposed by Leo Berg. I agree. Ontogeny and phylogeny both proceed by the derepression of information present at the onset of each phenomenon. Chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. I refer you to my home page Retired Service | The University of Vermont especially to the paper "Ontogeny phylogeny and the origin of biological information". I discuss this matter in greater and well documented detail in the 56 page Manifesto. I am convinced that evolution has been guided with the primary purpose being to produce a rational creature capable of understanding the nature of that teleological finality. salty

I'm sorry John - were you trying to reply to my last post? If so, what you wrote is utterly irrelevant.If you want to discuss the repeated assertions and wild extrapolations form your online essays, feel free to do so ina new thread. I see little reason to reply when all you seem willing or able to do is trot out a link to your essays and imply that you have 'proved' it all therein.Many have commented that your essays lack substance as well as your posts do.Time for a change.

I gave this forum plenty of time to expose a single matter of fact on which my conclusions are firmly based. It still has found none. Instead you rant on about lack of support. Where is the support for gradualisn or contemporary speciation? I understand your position very well Scott. You go ballistic when someone suggests non-randomness. If something is non-random it is ordered. As far as I am concerned that implies an intelligence. So I am not surprised that you would really go bananas at the notion of planning or purpose. Also, I think this thread is just fine. It seems to be dealing with something very basic. I also refer you to the title of this forum or is that without any significance? salty

Hi Page,PB: I was a bit surprised by you response to:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Quote) PB: How can I be sure? Or do you simply apply a preexisting program to your data?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: "All programs are pre-existing, that is, they have all been written prior to use. That is how programs work."PB: At last we have Page to admit that "ALL PROGRAM ARE PRE-EXISTING". Since Page talks about "ALL PROGRAMS" and "ALL HAVE BEEN WRITTEN PRIOR TO USE" that must also include genetic programs.So, 'genetic programs have also been written prior to use' but can be subject to change (=GUToB).I rest my case.Best wishes,
Peter

Hi Page,
PB: I was a bit surprised by you response to:--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Quote) PB: How can I be sure? Or do you simply apply a preexisting program to your data?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Page: "All programs are pre-existing, that is, they have all been written prior to use. That is how programs work."PB: At last we have Page to admit that "ALL PROGRAM ARE PRE-EXISTING". Since Page talks about "ALL PROGRAMS" and "ALL HAVE BEEN WRITTEN PRIOR TO USE" that must also include genetic programs.So, 'genetic programs have also been written prior to use' but can be subject to change (=GUToB).I rest my case.Best wishes,
PeterM: I think this post is telling of the absolute lack of scientific merit of Borger's discussions. Scott Page was answering a question in post 37 about phylogenetic programs and Peter claims he is implying and agreeing with his dillusional assertions about biology...you should not rest your case Peter, you should actually develope one..or rest your head...this was pretty low even for you...we could out of context quote you as well to change your position if that is what you prefer...but on the other hand, your ideas are dumb enough even IN context without additonal effort to make you look bad.

non-random doesn't mean ordered ... it means deterministic.

quote:

---

Mam:
Scott Page was answering a question in post 37 about phylogenetic programs and Peter claims he is implying and agreeing with his dillusional assertions about biology...you should not rest your case Peter, you should actually develope one..or rest your head...this was pretty low even for you...we could out of context quote you as well to change your position if that is what you prefer...but on the other hand, your ideas are dumb enough even IN context without additonal effort to make you look bad.

---

Indeed...But I did find the quip about exposing computer programs to radiation to make them handle data was oh so clever...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-02-2003]

quote:

---

John A. 'salty' Davison:
I gave this forum plenty of time to expose a single matter of fact on which my conclusions are firmly based. It still has found none.

---

Was this a Freudian slip?You are right, John. Nobody here has been able to find a single matter of fact on which your claims stand. I could not agree more. Afterall, assertions and hero worship are not facts.

quote:

---

Instead you rant on about lack of support.

---

There were no rants - there were simple statemnts of fact and legitimate yet ignored questions.

quote:

---

Where is the support for gradualisn or contemporary speciation?

---

Fossil record, genetic data, cichlids (for one example). These were all provided to you. You deigned to ignore them, apparently. Ignoring something does not make it go away.

quote:

---

I understand your position very well Scott. You go ballistic when someone suggests non-randomness.

---

I do? Ballistic? can you provide an example of this, or is this just the usual baseless assertions that have become your calling card? In reality, John, nobody denies the non-random nature of some mutations. What there is no evidence for is Non-Random mutations, that is, deterministic mutations. We do, of course, get frustrated seeing already debunked claims trotted out time and again as 'proof' of claims. Wouldn't you?

quote:

---

If something is non-random it is ordered. As far as I am concerned that implies an intelligence.

---

Coming from a guy who considers Haldane, etc. to be "armchair theoreticians" and that population genetics has nothing to do with evolution, this does not surprise me in the least.
Apparently, in sall your years of 'wet bench work', you never heard of hot spots and the like. Probably never worked with DNA.

quote:

---

So I am not surprised that you would really go bananas at the notion of planning or purpose. Also, I think this thread is just fine. It seems to be dealing with something very basic. I also refer you to the title of this forum or is that without any significance? salty

---

A baseless rant is irrelevant in any thread.

Scott, my online essays except for the manifesto are published papers. Somebody thought they had merit. There are evolutionists that do not subscrbe to the gradualist, mutation / selection model that has yet to receive a scintilla of experimental or fossil verification. You, like all neoDarwinists, are chasing a phantom. I also find your general demeanor most unpleasant. salty

Scott, my online essays except for the manifesto are published papers. Somebody thought they had merit. There are evolutionists that do not subscrbe to the gradualist, mutation / selection model that has yet to receive a scintilla of experimental or fossil verification. You, like all neoDarwinists, are chasing a phantom. I also find your general demeanor most unpleasant. salty

Haldane has contributed nothing to our understanding of evolution. I repeat my assertion that population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of true species. Sewell Wright would be the first to agree with me, along with Goldschmidt, Grasse, Berg, Broom and Schindewolf. Why must you insist on being so obnoxious?

quote:

---

Scott, my online essays except for the manifesto are published papers. Somebody thought they had merit.

---

From this thread:
Oops! We ran into some problems. | Internet Infidels Discussion Board"I too glanced at his "manifesto", and he seems like a run-of-the-mill, though rather confused, supporter of preformationism/orthogenesis (which may explain why all 3 papers he has published in the past 19 years are in the "Rivista di Biologia", an Italian journal edited by Sermonti, noted antidarwinian of the same persuasion). He has not published a research paper since the 70s. "

quote:

---

There are evolutionists that do not subscrbe to the gradualist, mutation / selection model that has yet to receive a scintilla of experimental or fossil verification.

---

From what I have read, this appears to be an absolutley false claim.

quote:

---

You, like all neoDarwinists, are chasing a phantom.

---

Yeah, but I think that is better than engagin in hero worship.

quote:

---

I also find your general demeanor most unpleasant. salty

---

And I yours. In fact, I think the consensus is that your demeanor is most unpleasant.

quote:

---

I repeat my assertion that population genetics has nothing to do with the origin of true species.

---

At lewast you agre it is nothing but an assertion.

quote:

---

Sewell Wright would be the first to agree with me, along with Goldschmidt, Grasse, Berg, Broom and Schindewolf.

---

I am not so sure that what paleontologists and such have to say on the topic warrant serious consideration, but I am quite doubtful that Sewell Wright would agree with you:
Page not found – Department of Statistics – UW—Madison"From assisting Prof. Castle, I learned at firsthand the efficacy of mass selection in changing permanently a character subject merely to quantitative variability. Because of this and a distaste for miracles in science, I started with full acceptance of Darwin's contention that evolution depends mainly on quantitative variability rather than on favorable major mutations..."". I did not derive any such expressions since under my view, evolution advanced by irregular, wholly unpredictable steps -- the occasional occurrence off a peak-shift in some locality at some time, followed by relatively rapid spread throughout the species. "So you can see, I don't think Wright would agree that a macromutation (i.e., a chromosomal rearrangement) would produce a new species in one individual, as you do, rather he would agree with me, that changes must spread throughout a population in order for speciation to occur. Claim falsified.

quote:

---

Why must you insist on being so obnoxious?

---

I had considered asking you the same thing.

What is a change passing through a population got to do with evolution? That is pure smoke and mirrors. Those words are utterly meaningless. I can't believe some of the things I read on this forum. Evolution is the production of a new species. It has nothing to do with populations or their presumed properties. Also please demonstrate for me any genetic change that did not originate in an individual. Your reasoning is truly scary. In the meantime I will stick with basic genetics. salty