John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution

Scott, it would be impossible for me to reproduce the karyotypes that are represented in the Yunis and Prakash paper. I have reproduced them in the Manifesto. I can't imagine that you could look at that and see only one chromosomal rearrangement. That is inconceivable. I ask some other member of this forum to evaluate your claim that there is only one karytypic difference between man and chimp. This is not a matter to be debated. This is a matter of visual perception. salty

You mean this utterly trivial observation is your entire point? Okay, no argument. Something happened or it didn't. Duh.However, you have failed to address the substance of the post. How does the semi-meiotic hypothesis address the well-documented observation of the existence of differing karyotypes in populations (for example, in ring species), with a functioning hybrid zone, that over distance show graduation to completely different species? Your assertion that speciation doesn't occur seems contraindicated by this phenomenon - after all, there is a very limited amount of change between one metapopulation/population and another (hence the ability to hybridize), which refutes your argument that gradual change can't occur - that only instant speciation is possible in sexually reproducing species. Please address the references I posted for you. After all, if you expect people to read YOUR papers, I would expect you to read the papers people post in reply.

Well salty, your lack of response to my post 132 and your refusal to answer any of the questions I have posted to you speaks volumes for the lack of merit your hypothesis posseses. Is it really so difficult to defend it? Nobody here is attacking you personally though you seem to desire to frame it that way. We are attacking your statements and you are refusing to substantiate your assertions...simple as that.But since you will not provide anything resembling support for your own statments perhaps you would care to explain how there are no similarities in sex determination among distantly related species whatsoever given that a cursory search of medline produces several hundred references that say otherwise...for example...I am sure you will read them all plus the other seven pages worth of referenced literature in PubMed since you would never want to be an "illiterate" like you claim I am...happy reading. I look forward to your critical analysis of the papers....oh and on a tangent to this subject, of which I am sure you are aware as you claim to be a step away from the Nobel prize and I am just a "darwinist", syncytin is an endogenous retrovirus envelope gene that controls syncitiotrophblast fusion in Old World Monkeys through humans. In New World Monkey and other mammals, a different gene is responsible. Given that there is no universal mechanism for syncitiotrophoblast formation (and hence development of the placenta) could you explain to me then how could Old World monkeys through humans possibly be primates?J Exp Zool 2001 Sep 15;290(5):449-62 Related Articles, Links
Sex from W to Z: evolution of vertebrate sex chromosomes and sex determining genes.
Marshall Graves JA, Shetty S.Department of Genetics, LaTrobe University, Melbourne,Victoria 3083, Australia. graves@rsbs.anu.edu.auSex determination in major vertebrate groups appears to be very variable, including systems of male heterogamety, female heterogamety and a variety of genetic and environmental sex determining systems. Yet comparative studies of sex chromosomes and sex determining genes now suggest that these differences are more apparent than real. The sex chromosomes of even widely divergent groups now appear to have changed very little over the last 300+ million years, and even independently derived sex chromosomes seem to have followed the same set of evolutionary rules. The sex determining pathway seems to be extremely conserved, although the control of the genes in this pathway is vested in different elements. We present a scenario for the independent evolution of XY male heterogamety in mammals and ZW female heterogamety in birds and some reptiles. We suggest that sex determining genes can be made redundant, and replaced by control at another step of a conserved sex determining pathway, and how choice of a gene as a sex switch has led to the evolution of new sex chromosome systems. J. Exp. Zool. 290:449-462,Genes Dev 2000 Jul 15;14(14):1750-64 Related Articles, Links
Sexual dimorphism in diverse metazoans is regulated by a novel class of intertwined zinc fingers.
Zhu L, Wilken J, Phillips NB, Narendra U, Chan G, Stratton SM, Kent SB, Weiss MA.
Center for Molecular Oncology, Departments of Biochemistry & Molecular Biology and Chemistry, The University of Chicago, Chicago, Illinois 60637-5419, USA.Sex determination is regulated by diverse pathways. Although upstream signals vary, a cysteine-rich DNA-binding domain (the DM motif) is conserved within downstream transcription factors of Drosophila melanogaster (Doublesex) and Caenorhabditis elegans (MAB-3). Vertebrate DM genes have likewise been identified and, remarkably, are associated with human sex reversal (46, XY gonadal dysgenesis). Here we demonstrate that the structure of the Doublesex domain contains a novel zinc module and disordered tail. The module consists of intertwined CCHC and HCCC Zn(2+)-binding sites; the tail functions as a nascent recognition alpha-helix. Mutations in either Zn(2+)-binding site or tail can lead to an intersex phenotype. The motif binds in the DNA minor groove without sharp DNA bending. These molecular features, unusual among zinc fingers and zinc modules, underlie the organization of a Drosophila enhancer that integrates sex- and tissue-specific signals. The structure provides a foundation for analysis of DM mutations affecting sexual dimorphism and courtship behavior.Erickson JW, Cline TW. Related Articles, Links
Key aspects of the primary sex determination mechanism are conserved across the genus Drosophila.
Development. 1998 Aug;125(16):3259-68.
Genetica 2002 Sep;116(1):25-43 Related Articles, Links
The evolution of sex determination systems in dipteran insects other than Drosophila.Shearman DC.Fruit Fly Research Centre, School of Biological Sciences, A12, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. shearman@bio.usyd.edu.auThe multitude of sex determination mechanisms displayed in dipteran insects has usually been described in terms of variations on a single principle in which the primary signal of the primitive pathway consists of a single allelic difference at one locus. Evolution of sex determination mechanisms is thought to have occurred by the addition of genes below the top gene of the pathway. The elucidation of the complex sex determination pathway of Drosophila melanogaster, as well as recent evidence that the basal genes of the pathway seem to be conserved across metazoan genera both in structure and, to a lesser degree, in function, points towards the possibility that sex determination pathways may have evolved from the bottom-up. Further to this is the question of whether the dominant male-determining factor, M, which is found in a number of insect species, represents part of the ancient sex determination pathway or is a later addition to the pathway. This, together with the possibility that the M factors found in numerous dipteran insect species may have a common origin, is discussed. The similarities of the sex determination pathways under the control of M and the implications in relation to the construction of genetic sexing strains for biological control are also discussed.Reproduction 2002 Oct;124(4):447-57 Related Articles, Links
Vertebrate sex determination: many means to an end.Morrish BC, Sinclair AH.
Murdoch Children's Research Institute, Royal Children's Hospital, Flemington Rd, Melbourne, Victoria 3052, Australia.The differentiation of a testis or ovary from a bipotential gonadal primordium is a developmental process common to mammals, birds and reptiles. Since the discovery of SRY, the Y-linked testis-determining gene in mammals, extensive efforts have failed to find its orthologue in other vertebrates, indicating evolutionary plasticity in the switch that triggers sex determination. Several other genes are known to be important for sex determination in mammals, such as SOX9, AMH, WT1, SF1, DAX1 and DMRT1. Analyses of these genes in humans with gonadal dysgenesis, mouse models and using in vitro cell culture assays have revealed that sex determination results from a complex interplay between the genes in this network. All of these genes are conserved in other vertebrates, such as chickens and alligators, and show gonad-specific expression in these species during the period of sex determination. Intriguingly, the sequence, sex specificity and timing of expression of some of these genes during sex determination differ among species. This finding indicates that the interplay between genes in the regulatory network leading to gonad development differs between vertebrates. However, despite this, the development of a testis or ovary from a bipotential gonad is remarkably similar across vertebrates.Pask AJ, Harry JL, Graves JA, O'Neill RJ, Layfield SL, Shaw G, Renfree MB. Related Articles, Links
SOX9 has both conserved and novel roles in marsupial sexual differentiation.
Genesis. 2002 Jul;33(3):131-9.Novartis Found Symp 2002;244:115-26; discussion 126-35, 203-6, 253-7 Related Articles, LinksInvertebrates may not be so different after all.
Zarkower D.
Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis 55455, USA.Sex determination is widespread, but uses highly varied molecular mechanisms. A possible case of conservation between phyla is that of doublesex (dsx) from Drosophila and mab-3 (male abnormal 3) from Caenorhabditis elegans, genes related in sequence and some elements of function. mab-3 controls multiple aspects of male development, including sense organ formation in the tail and yolk transcription in the intestine, both similar to functions of dsx. Indeed, the male isoform of DSX can replace MAB-3 in C. elegans. Do related genes control sexual development in vertebrates, despite great differences in the biology of sex determination? We have identified several dsx-related genes in mouse and human. One, Dmrt1, appears to play a conserved role in vertebrate male gonad development. In humans, DMRT1 maps to a short interval required for testis differentiation. In all vertebrates examined, including mammals, birds, fish, and reptiles, Dmrt1 is expressed early in the genital ridge, in most cases with higher expression in future male gonads. A null mutation in murine Dmrt1 causes severe defects in testis differentiation, resembling those associated with human deletions removing the gene. Mutant females are unaffected. Other DM domain genes are expressed in embryonic gonad and are currently under study.

Since you won't even support your OWN points how about a little bit of help? Looks like there are 5 differences....and this is somehow important because???? (Note: I am assuming you have access to this and other bio journals)Genomics 1998 Jun 15;50(3):368-72 Related Articles, LinksMolecular definition of pericentric inversion breakpoints occurring during the evolution of humans and chimpanzees.Nickerson E, Nelson DL.Department of Molecular and Human Genetics, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas 77030, USA.High-resolution G-banding analysis has demonstrated remarkable morphological conservation of the chromosomes of the Hominidae family members (humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and orangutans), with the most notable differences between the genomes appearing as changes in heterochromatin distribution and pericentric inversions. Pericentric inversions may have been important for the establishment of reproductive isolation and speciation of the hominoids as they diverged from a common ancestor. Here the previously published primate karyotype comparisons, coupled with the resources of the Human Genome Project, have been used to identify pericentric inversion breakpoints seen when comparing the human karyotype to that of chimpanzee. Yeast artificial chromosome (YAC) clones were used to detect, by fluorescence in situ hybridization, five evolutionary pericentric inversion breakpoints present on the chimpanzee chromosome equivalents of human chromosomes 4, 9, and 12. In addition, two YACs from human 12p that detect a breakpoint in chimpanzee detect a similar rearrangement in gorilla.

oops..and wait, there is more Hereditas 2000;132(1):49-54 Related Articles, LinksRobertsonian translocations and B chromosomes in the Wellington tree weta, Hemideina crassidens (Orthoptera: Anostostomatidae).Morgan-Richards M.Department of Zoology, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. mary.morgan-richards@stonebow.otago.ac.nzTwo karyotypes within the species Hemideina crassidens are described, 2n = 15 (XO) and 2n = 19 (XO). These two karyotypes have a NF of 28. The 19-karyotype was found exclusively in the southern part of the species range and the 15-karyotype was found in the north. The differences between the two karyotypes are interpreted as arising from two Robertsonian translocations (fission/fusion). Laboratory matings between weta with the two karyotypes produced viable offspring. During meiosis in F1 intraspecific hybrids metacentric and acrocentric autosomes aligned to form two trivalents, confirming homologies predicted by Robertsonian translocations. The subspecies H. c. crassicruris, (confined to Stephens Island) was found to be polymorphic for a metacentric B chromosome. An unusual association of sex and presence of B chromosome was observed in this island population with Bs found only in male weta.Am J Trop Med Hyg 1992 Feb;46(2):229-37 Related Articles, LinksIntraspecific chromosomal polymorphism in the Anopheles gambiae complex as a factor affecting malaria transmission in the Kisumu area of Kenya.Petrarca V, Beier JC.Istituto di Parassitologia, Universita di Roma La Sapienza, Italy.The paracentric inversion polymorphisms of Anopheles gambiae and An. arabiensis populations in the Kisumu area of western Kenya were studied in relation to parameters of Plasmodium falciparum transmission. Anopheles gambiae (n = 1,387) was polymorphic for inversions b on chromosomal arm 2R and a on arm 2L, with frequencies of the inverted arrangements of 17% and 43%, respectively. Anopheles arabiensis (n = 484) was polymorphic for inversion b on chromosomal arm 2R and a on 3R, with frequencies of the inverted arrangements of 58% and 5%, respectively. Observed karyotypic frequencies did not deviate from Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, indicating a condition of panmixia (i.e., random mating) for both species. The overall degree of intraspecific polymorphism was low, confirming findings from other zones of East Africa. No significant differences in inversion frequencies of either An. gambiae or An. arabiensis were observed, either between collecting sites or between similar sampling periods of consecutive years. At the same time, a stable, significant two-fold difference in Plasmodium infection rates was detected among An. gambiae carriers of different inversion karyotypes on chromosome 2. A significant non-uniform distribution of human- and bovid-fed specimens was also detected among the carriers of different 2Rb inversion karyotypes in indoor resting An. arabiensis. Relationships among inversion karyotypes of the two major malaria vectors in the An. gambiae complex and key factors affecting malaria transmission intensity emphasize that intraspecific variation could contribute significantly to the diversity and stability of malaria vectorial systems in Africa.

Oh and another thing salty..having gone to the links you provided was enlightening...I encourage anyone to go and head straight to the reference sections of salty's papers or to the books where his semi-meiotic hypothesis appears...you could count with the fingers on one hand the number of actual citations to primary scientific literature i.e. devoid of references to experimental evidence...of course if this had been done he and others would have to actually explain why genetics, population biology, paleontology, zoology, etc. etc. overwhelmingly debunk his hypothesis....but substantiating his claims does not seem to be salty's strong point.No salty, I am not attacking the "messenger"...I am asking Mr. messenger to show me the data...thus far you have not...are you game now? It's a brand new day.

S: My sources are all dead.M: Hmmm and that is a qualification for verity? Ok Darwin is dead to.S:I see no point in debating anythingM: No it is clear you don't...it is so much easier to make false statements than to support a given position with actual substance.S: My position has been made very clearly.M: Hey, we finally agree!S: Instead of attacking the message you prefer to attack the messenger.M: Well, if you define attacking as not accepting what you say without you supporting your position in any way shape or form then ok..we are attacking the messenger.S: Let me remind everyone that in so doing you attack not only me but all my predecessors who long ago fully exposed every aspect of the Darwinuan (sexual) myth.M: attacking your "predecessors" as well is important because???S: Also I have no intention of withdrawing from this exchange.M: That is great..please participate in this exchange and support what you are saying.S: You will have to ban me.M: You wishS: Let me quote William Bateson, the father of modern genetics. In 1924,shortly before his death he confided to his son Gregory the following:
"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". I agree 100%. saltyM: Bateson was the father of modern genetics???...oh here is a quote for you to "I drank what?"-Socrates

Thank you Mammuthus. It is obvious that there is no universal mechanism for sex determination as your references indicate. That is a critical point. You have not produced any direct evidence that sexual forms can produce new species. It apparently simply cannot be done even with the most intensive artificial selection. To say that only 5 differences exist in the karyotypic differences between chimps and humans is absurd. Consider telomeres for example.You are correct in saying that my papers have been ignored. Have you wondered why? They have been ignored for the same reason other critics of the sexual gradualist Darwinian model have been ignored. We simply don't exist. We are blasphemers. George Bernard Shaw put it very nicely. "All great truths begin as blasphemies."All you have done is attempt to overwhelm me with a huge literature that fails to get to the point. Why has evolution stopped? Why are contemporary species for all practical purposes immutable? Why do we see only extinction when the environment is being so drastically altered? The semi-meiotic hypothesis recognizes the complete failure of the Darwinian model and offers an alternative that, like Darwinism, is testable. I recommend that if you wish to discredit my hypothesis that you get into the laboratory and test it. You can be certain that the Darwinians aren't going to test any hypothesis that would discredit their own. The neoDarwinian device has been tested to death and nothing has come of it. I think it is time to test some alternatives. Bear in mind though, it is possible as Schindewolf has claimed, evolution may not be an experimental science. Personally I think it was driven (past tense) by internal rather than external forces about which we know virtually nothing. What I cannot understand is why you and others bother with me at all. I can only presume that you harbor some pretty deep reservations about your own position. salty

S: Thank you Mammuthus. It is obvious that there is no universal mechanism for sex determination as your references indicate. That is a critical point.M: It is obvious then that you did not read any of the references. You also ignored most of my questions. A large amount of the sexual determination pathway is highly conserved even among extremely distantly related organisms. That is the critical point. And even if it was not true (but you can't say either way since you did not read anything) what would that matter? Lots of diversfied systems exist among taxa...and?S: You have not produced any direct evidence that sexual forms can produce new speciesM: cichlidsS:To say that only 5 differences exist in the karyotypic differences between chimps and humans is absurd. Consider telomeres for example.M: It is absurd that you did not read the paper...but in any case, you will have to be more specific than just saying telomeres...my telomeres are different from my parents...and are actually different than they were when I was born...so what precisely is the relevance to the chimp human debate?S:You are correct in saying that my papers have been ignored. Have you wondered why? They have been ignored for the same reason other critics of the sexual gradualist Darwinian model have been ignored. We simply don't exist. We are blasphemers. George Bernard Shaw put it very nicely. "All great truths begin as blasphemies."M: No, it is ignored like all other non-substantiated rubbish...so I don't wonder that you are ignored by real scientists.S:All you have done is attempt to overwhelm me with a huge literature that fails to get to the point.M: Ummm no I have provided supporting evidence for some of my points and asked you to do the same. You have not...and if you are such a genius how could these papers overwhelm you? They were all very basic science articles..surely an intellectual descendant of the great minds of the 20th century would easily understand them or even have read them without my having posted them?S: Why are contemporary species for all practical purposes immutable?M: Because they are not or are you a clone?S: Why do we see only extinction when the environment is being so drastically altered?M: We don't only see extinction...but in any case, extinction historically comes in waves followed by dramatic speciation once the previously occupied niches have been emptied...but of course you knew that And what about the environment has been so drastically altered..relative to what? The Pleistocene had much more dramatic temperature and environmental shifts than anything seen today.S: The semi-meiotic hypothesis recognizes the complete failure of the Darwinian model and offers an alternative that, like Darwinism, is testable. I recommend that if you wish to discredit my hypothesis that you get into the laboratory and test it.M: Then indicate how it is testable including your testable hypothesis of guided evolution.S: You can be certain that the Darwinians aren't going to test any hypothesis that would discredit their own.M: You clearly have no clue about science do you? We scientists try to tear every "established fact" we can...unlike you dogmatic religious types.S: The neoDarwinian device has been tested to death and nothing has come of it.M: Except for a theory that has more supporting evidence from more disciplines than the theory of gravity.S: I think it is time to test some alternatives.M: Then go for it rather than continuing to blather nonsense.S: Bear in mind though, it is possible as Schindewolf has claimed, evolution may not be an experimental science.M: Then it is obvious that Schindewolf had no clue.S: Personally I think it was driven (past tense) by internal rather than external forces about which we know virtually nothing.M: Well, you will continue not to know since you refuse to actually read anything that has happened in biology in the last 50 years...there are actually some scientists who are not dead S: What I cannot understand is why you and others bother with me at all. I can only presume that you harbor some pretty deep reservations about your own position. saltyM: Hmmmm that is a tough one salty...an Evolution versus Creationism forum on an internet site where people come specifically to argue their views...now why would we presume to argue with you...oh the mysteries

ooops...almost pulled a saltyre: cichlids (note the list is far from complete)Lande R, Seehausen O, van Alphen JJ. Related Articles, Links
Mechanisms of rapid sympatric speciation by sex reversal and sexual selection in cichlid fish.
Genetica. 2001;112-113:435-43.Shaw PW, Turner GF, Idid MR, Robinson RL, Carvalho GR. Related Articles, Links
Genetic population structure indicates sympatric speciation of Lake Malawi pelagic cichlids.
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Nov 22;267(1459):2273-80.Wilson AB, Noack-Kunnmann K, Meyer A. Related Articles, Links
Incipient speciation in sympatric Nicaraguan crater lake cichlid fishes: sexual selection versus ecological diversification.
Proc R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2000 Nov 7;267(1458):2133-41.Schliewen U, Rassmann K, Markmann M, Markert J, Kocher T, Tautz D. Related Articles, Links
Genetic and ecological divergence of a monophyletic cichlid species pair under fully sympatric conditions in Lake Ejagham, Cameroon.
Mol Ecol. 2001 Jun;10(6):1471-88.Danley PD, Kocher TD. Related Articles, Links
Speciation in rapidly diverging systems: lessons from Lake Malawi.
Mol Ecol. 2001 May;10(5):1075-86. Review.Schliewen UK, Tautz D, Paabo S. Related Articles, Links
Sympatric speciation suggested by monophyly of crater lake cichlids.
Nature. 1994 Apr 14;368(6472):629-32.

M: It is absurd that you did not read the paper...but in any case, you will have to be more specific than just saying telomeres...my telomeres are different from my parents...and are actually different than they were when I was born...so what precisely is the relevance to the chimp human debate?SLP:
It would appear that salty has a different definition of 'karyotype' than pretty much everyone else, as I suspected when he mentioned something about a dozen differences. It appears that salty considers point mutations nad such to represent karyotypic differences.According to actual molecular biologists, karyotype is:Number, sizes and shapes of the entire set of metaphase chromosomes of a eukaryotic cell.Taken from an undergrad/graduate molecular biology textbook.Silly me - I was going by the definition used in molecular biology, not anti-Darwinism.

M. You are sure using up a lot of cyberspace a someone for whom you have no respect. I can only wonder why. To say that Schindewolf never had a clue is pathetic. I don't care to have my views described as rubbish, but apparently that is standard on this forum. As for testing the semi-meiotic hypothesis, activate frog eggs with irradiated sperm and then prevent the second meiotic division with a heat shock or a cold shock or with high hydrostatic pressure. As near as I can tell no one has done this since 1984 when I presented the hypothesis. Of course perhaps they have but chose not to present the results. If you find a literature on this please let me know. I don't get out much any more. I overlooked another thing I now deeply believe. Natural selection never had anything to do with macroevolution. All that it ever did and still does is prevent change. I recommend that everyone read Punnett's little book on Mimicry in Butterflies. My ideas will then not seem so radical That is why all chickadees look exactly alike. A Darwinian world would be pure fuzziness. I agree with Robert Broom that there has been a plan and the plan has been completed. There is one take home lesson from this forum. "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" Walter Lippmann salty

quote:

---

Scott, now that you have vented, do you feel better? I'm afraid if I try to reply, you may come down with thundering apoplexy. I don't want that to happen I want you to go right on defending Darwinism in your own inimitable fashion

---

Continued inability to discuss and support assertions noted.

quote:

---

Scott, cretinism is due to a thyroid defect. Are you by any chance equating creationism with cretinism? salty

---

I do, frankly, think that creationists harbor some sort of neurosis, but I am still noting your refusal or inability to discuss or support your claims.

Can you explain what results your semi-meiotic hypothesis predicts for your experiment and how they differ from the expectations of mainstream biology.Can you also explain why you have not carried out this experiment ?