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

The Shrike can not be controlled. My only hope is to defeat him in battle.FK

I have read it - all the way through. I have called you on your mis-statements concerning both instant speciation vs gradualism, and karyotype differences between populations as evidence of said gradualism. I have provided several references to support my contentions. You have, as yet, failed to even address any of my comments. The Manifesto presents no facts at all - merely assertion, special pleading, and appeal to authority. You have been asked repeatedly by me and others for specific examples or observations to support your theory, which you have failed to provide. End of story.

Hi Moose,
I made several specific points and provided references including posting the abstracts (not sure about copyright rules regarding posting the entire article) to demonstrate that unlike salty, I can actually support my assertions with experimental evidence and facts...I even cited an article and posted the abstract SUPPORTING a point salty made regarding chimp and human karyotype differences...and was attacked by salty himself for it!When faced with specific quesitions salty either ignores them or says to read his long winded manifesto (not a specific part addressing the questions but the entire thing. This is his answer to any question where he is asked for references) so I do not see myself as guilty of anything remotely similar to salty's avoidance tactics.I see that this thread will be closed and that parting potshots are being discouraged. However, I would like to make a few comments (not cheap shots) regarding how I see this thread in general. Quetzal's last post summed it up very nicely but I will expand a bit since I have seen Quetzal, Taz, SLPx, Percipient and myself all running into exactly the same problems repeatedly with salty.I attempted futiliy to engage salty in a discussion of his specific hypothesis because I wanted to both understand his position and the basis for it and to discern where his particular confusion regarding evolution stemmed from. This did not seem to be something that should have been so challenging. Peter Borger makes his position clear (sometimes) and makes it clear why he thinks the way he does. He also likes to argue and accepts that his ideas will be challenged. He tries in his own way to defend them including attempts at providing supporting data, observations etc. Thus, one can ACTUALLY have a two way debate.None of the above applies to salty and that is why this thread has not progressed. The argument has been mostly attacks against Darwin, vague references to a creator being responsible for evolution and then there is a bizarre description of semi-meiosis which is also poorly explained here in the thread and in salty's manifesto.No testable hypothesis has been presented to debate. Of the many assertions made no supporting evidence has been provided of any kind. When specific questions have been asked the responses have been indignation, insult, complete avoidance, usually followed by repetition of the assertion that led to the questions in the first place...sometimes a threat to leave the forum is thrown in for good measure or a plea for support from the apparently surpressed masses that agree with salty's position. Any counter claims or counter evidence is completely dismissed while at the same time salty whines that nobody reads his materials (which is false as Quetzal has, I have read most of his manifesto, Taz is reading it, SLPx has read it). Salty appears to be either unable or unwilling to debate his own points.Salty, as you are not a scientist and do not appreciate science, I will tell you that uncritical hero worship of dead scientists is not considered a source of factual support for a hypothesis. EVERY idea at some point is faced by challenges as science (unlike religion) is not a static entity. We do not take things at face value. Everyone from a first year student to a Nobel Prize winner is expected to clearly state their hypothesis and DEFEND them with data, experiments, etc. and take into account and debate facts that contradict their ideas, hypotheses, theories. That you refuse to do even the minimal required is why this debate has been so difficult for you and why you probably constantly feel insulted.Hopefully if you ever decide to engage those who disagree with you in the future, more will read your manifesto. However, you will have to actually do some work and avoid this lazy scholarship you have been practicing and actually take into account and address the criticisms that your hypothesis has and will undoubtedly continue to produce. It is your choice. Good luck.[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-26-2003]

M. Q. or anyone else who might be interested. The semi-meiotic hypothesis is as clear as day and requires no further explanation from me. Would anyone refuse to read material which is a touch of his mouse away? The answer unfortunately is yes. My "long winded" Manifesto is shorter than most novels. Every thing in it depends on hard cold facts from developmental biology, cytogenetics, sex-determination and paleontology. My references are scholars of the first rank. Even now with your parting shots you disclose not a single error of fact from my papers. I conceived my hypothesis after finally realizing that the neoDarwinian, gradualist, mutation / selection hypothesis was a complete failure. Of course I am defensive of it, just as you continue to defend your convictions. What I cannot understand is why you must go to such great lengths to discredit me and my references without at any point revealing a single matter of hard cold fact on which my hypothesis securely rests. It is you that are not being scientific. You pretend reality does not exist. I have accepted a great deal of abuse from this forum in the vain hope that someone might find merit in my work. It is obvious that has not been the result. What I can't understand is why it takes so much of your valuable time and energy to make it so indelibly clear that you regard me as some kind of nut. Samuel Johnson once said "The applause of a single human being is of great consequence". I was hoping I might find that single human being on this forum. Well I haven't, but apparently I already have found him in Phillip Engle. Now find some other dissenter to abuse. salty

S: M. Q. or anyone else who might be interested. The semi-meiotic hypothesis is as clear as day and requires no further explanation from me. Would anyone refuse to read material which is a touch of his mouse away?M: Because we did not refuse...and in case you cannot read, Quetzal read the entire thing from front to back. Regardless, if your hypothesis was clear and required no explanation there would not be so many questions about it on this forum. If you do not care to explain what you say then you should have said so from the outset so everyone could have just ignored you. Why would anyone creationist or evolutionist have any interest in talking to you if you do not wish to explain yourself?S: Every thing in it depends on hard cold facts from developmental biology, cytogenetics, sex-determination and paleontology. My references are scholars of the first rank. Even now with your parting shots you disclose not a single error of fact from my papers.M: There are no errors of fact in your papers as you do not present any! You make unsupported assertions with absolutely no citation of relevant literature or experiment. That was the main point of my "parting shot" which you appear not to have grasped.S: I conceived my hypothesis after finally realizing that the neoDarwinian, gradualist, mutation / selection hypothesis was a complete failureM: Yet you refuse to elaborate the reasoning behind your criticisms or please succinctly show where in your posts you have.S: Of course I am defensive of it, just as you continue to defend your convictions.M: I don't criticize that your are defensive per se but the methods you have chosen to defend your hypothesis.S: What I cannot understand is why you must go to such great lengths to discredit me and my references without at any point revealing a single matter of hard cold fact on which my hypothesis securely rests.M: Show me where you have presented a hard cold fact in anything you have posted in this 214 post long thread. I and the others have been trying to get you to do so since the get go.S: It is you that are not being scientific. You pretend reality does not exist.M: Demonstrate how I have not been. For scientific hypothesis or theories I have been supporting I have provided experimental evidence in the form of written studies from actual field observation and lab experiments...where are yours? Unlike what you have engaged in, part of science also includes taking into account conflicting data and either dumping a favored hypothesis or modifying it depending on the that conflicting evidence which I have also had to do in my career. You cannot even acknowledge when there is a challenge to your ideas...so you obviously fail to grasp what being scientific means.S: I have accepted a great deal of abuse from this forum in the vain hope that someone might find merit in my work. It is obvious that has not been the result.M: Perhaps someday you may understand the reasons why.S: What I can't understand is why it takes so much of your valuable time and energy to make it so indelibly clear that you regard me as some kind of nut.M: You have repeated this assertion mutliple times. Yet like everything else you say, there is no evidence for this. I and others have tried to get you to present the reasoning and evidence behind your hypothesis. Really personal attacks have mostly come from you.S: Samuel Johnson once said "The applause of a single human being is of great consequence". I was hoping I might find that single human being on this forum. Well I haven't, but apparently I already have found him in Phillip Engle.M: I think it is fairly telling that other creationists have not come to defend you. This board has its fair share of very vocal creationists who are not shy about engaging the other side. However, this may also have to do with the way the thread was set up since it was basically intended for you to explain and defend your hypothesisThread title: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant EvolutionThat you did not do so is a pity.S: Now find some other dissenter to abuse.M: Abuse? Not really. But challenge certainly.Cheers,
Mammuthus

quote:

---

My short papers also seem to be unread. I want someone to show me a fact which I have misrepresented in my papers or the Manifesto. My conclusions are based on facts. Facts don't have to be acceptable as they stand on their own.

---

False.
EvC Forum: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant EvolutionI don't think anyone said you misrepresented anything. What has been DISCUSSED is also a fact - the fact that you seem to rely upon outdated conjecture for 'evidence', name-dropping (as if that is supposed to impress people), and unwarranted extrapolations.The facts do stand on their own. Your interpretations/conclusions do not. And that is what you are refusing to discuss, preferring to prattle on about how you agree with Robert Broom and how Haldane and such are 'armchair theoreticians'.Can't you see that? Or does this 'poor victim me' seem to work better for you?

Salty, I was going to let this die out after the posts from last night, and in response to Adminnemooseus's request that there be no parting pot shots, but after seeing your rant this morning I have to respond. First, for you to make a final spurious rant after agreeing to close the thread is bad enough. If you had just got on and Stated your position and or reasons forthem it would have been enough. But to state, without basis, that your positions were "as clear as day" and "require no further explaination from me" are so arrogant as to be incredible. You have answered NONE of the questions posed to you by people who have obviously read your manifesto. And as for error of fact, numerous ones have been pointed out including a few by myself, both in the logic of some of your statements as well as your mis-representation of standard, modern, neo-darwinian theory (Post 204). So there is another falsehood, error or ommision from you. I will finish your manifesto and, if I find anything of value, I will ask Adminimoosus to let me open a positive thread. But I would not hold my breath if I were you. Adminnemooseus, sorry if this has put you in a difficult position but I could not let his spurious assertions and accusations go without a reply. Go ahead and take whatever action you feel is justified and I will try to understand.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz[This message has been edited by Dr_Tazimus_maximus, 03-26-2003]

This has been commented on already, but this attitude seems so alien that I just had to add my own.Uncovering new evidence and forumulating a theory around it is often just the beginning of the process. Following the first paper are presentations, discussions, emails, arguments, all trying to persuade others to the new idea. The originator of a new idea must be prepared to explain it over and over and over agin. There are few ideas so compelling that they're accepted at first sight.What's more, a scientist who has put in the necessary time and effort to develop the idea has great confidence that it will stand up to scruitiny, and he's excited about the possibility that his idea will influence the field, so he is not only willing but eager, often over-eager, to talk about and explain his idea at every opportunity to anyone qualified who will listen.But no one really understands your semi-meiotic hypothesis, not in a way that makes sense. Why aren't you eager to explain it, perhaps in different words or by trying different explication approaches or with new metaphors? Perhaps the problem is that you just haven't found the best way of presenting your ideas yet.--Percy

I would add that it is the responsibility of the proponents of a hypothesis to gather the supporting evidence and to answer the problems with that hypothesis.The (apparently) sole proponent of the semi-meiotic hypothesis does not appear to have done that in the last 18 years and does not appear to be interested in doing so now. And since the problems are very serious I am not surprised that it is not taken seriously by anyone else. The only thing that surprises me is that the proponent does not take his own hypothesis - which he has supposedly championed for the best part of twenty years - seriously enough to do the work that is needed to make it viable.

I thought this thread was to be closed. I have nothing more to say. As I said, find someone else to abuse. I have never seen such a collection of like-minded ideologues. Stick to it folks. I'll just go right on publishing my garbage. Remember what your position was in the future. Or better yet, do what no one yet has demonstrated the guts to do. Take my work to task in refereed papers instead of taking anonymous pot shots in a forum that will never see the light of day anyway. I am too busy with real research to spend any more time on the blind and the deaf. My next paper is titled "Is Evolution Finished?". The inescapable conclusion is YOU BET IT IS. salty

I thought this thread was to be closed. I have nothing more to say. As I said, find someone else to abuse. I have never seen such a collection of like-minded ideologues. Stick to it folks. I'll just go right on publishing my garbage. Remember what your position was in the future. Or better yet, do what no one yet has demonstrated the guts to do. Take my work to task in refereed papers instead of taking anonymous pot shots in a forum that will never see the light of day anyway. I am too busy with real research to spend any more time on the blind and the deaf. My next paper is titled "Is Evolution Finished?". The inescapable conclusion is YOU BET IT IS. salty

S:I thought this thread was to be closed. I have nothing more to say.M: There are 10 sentences after this suggesting salty indeed has more to sayS: I have never seen such a collection of like-minded ideologues. Stick to it folks.M: idealogues for trying to get you to actually back up your claims? We will definitely stick to it.S:I'll just go right on publishing my garbageM: That is a funny goal...I intend to continue publishing science...but hey you are free to do what you wish S: Remember what your position was in the future.M: Sitting in chair, slightly reclining, left leg crossed over right..got it committed to memory alreadyS: Or better yet, do what no one yet has demonstrated the guts to do. Take my work to task in refereed papers instead of taking anonymous pot shots in a forum that will never see the light of day anyway.M: First off, I have quite a few more refereed publications than you do. So does Scott. Most of your "publications" are unrefereed posts..the manifesto comes to mind...and finally, what work? You have made multiple baseless assertions without supporting them...there is no evidence that you have ever done any work.S: I am too busy with real research to spend any more time on the blind and the deaf.M: LOL!!! You claimed in one post that you do not have a lab and in another that you do not get out much..and in yet another you claimed to be overwhelmed with the paltry list of references I provided for your much needed edification..so what "real research" would you be doing?S: My next paper is titled "Is Evolution Finished?".M: A better title would be "Ranting for novices: How to make assertion without support"S: The inescapable conclusion is YOU BET IT IS.M: ..or more likely that you have very little clue regarding the subject you claim to be doing so much "real research" in.

Ya know Salty, for someone with nothing more to say you sure say it a lot. Actually, I agree that a hiatus is a good idea. This is a discussion board, and part of that is anwering questions. You really need to work on that aspect a bit, then maybe you can get you ideas accross better. Just a suggestion.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

Now that you have once more thoroughly exposed me as a damn fool, why not let this be the last word. What do you say moose or were you just kidding about closing this thread? salty

The plan (as outlined in the other notice topic) was, and still is, to close this topic as of noon today. That is still an hour away.Adminnemooseus