Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 7 of 226 (34677)
03-19-2003 9:17 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
03-18-2003 2:04 PM


I have a couple issues:
  1. I see that Salty registered, but is he going to post messages himself or debate by proxy?
  2. I'd like to see the opening statement refined and edited. Starting with the first item I noticed:
    Salty writes:
    One might ask — is there such a thing as a gradual genetic change? All genetic alterations take place with time constants on the order of seconds, whether they are point mutations, deletions, duplications, or chromosomal inversions, fusions or translocations. The very notion of a gradual genetic change is meaningless. Yet that is precisely the position which the Darwinians have taken.
    Either I'm completely missing the point, in which case additional explanation is required, or this is incorrect. The duration of an event, ie, of how long it takes for a genetic error to occur during reproduction, serves only as an upper limit on the rate at which such events can occur. Darwinists believe the rate of occurence of such events is the important factor in the rate of genetic change, not the duration of the events themselves. If Salty is arguing that the perspective he characterizes is wrong then I think most evolutionists would agree with him, but it isn't a perspective any of us very likely share.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-18-2003 2:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by John A. Davison, posted 03-20-2003 1:13 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 26 of 226 (34706)
03-19-2003 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by John A. Davison
03-19-2003 10:46 AM


Re: evolution
Hi Salty, welcome aboard!
Many of the comments indicate that the senders are not familiar with my other papers.
Probably a safe bet. Ideally, the way things work here is that you describe and support your position in messages on threads using links and other references if necessary as supporting material. The posting of the verbatim text from long webpages here is strongly discouraged, but it would make perfect sense to provide links to your papers to support your points. Unless the papers are really, really short, you also need to indicate the part of the paper that is relevant.
Naturally any approach that successfully gets your point across is fine, but requiring the other contributors to this thread to first read your papers is probably a bit over the top. I know you didn't state it this way, but I wanted to offer some clarification in case there was any ambiguity.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 10:46 AM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 4:38 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 28 of 226 (34708)
03-19-2003 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
03-19-2003 12:14 PM


Re: evolution
SLPx writes:
Sorry, salty, I don't think your TalkOrigin's tactics will work very well here. You see, here there are several professional scientists. There are no overconfident "darwin attackers" like Ilion or know-nothings like Terry to offer virtual back pats to you. We can handle actual, non-censored, non-filtered disussion here.
While Salty's fame precedes him, like all other members here he is to be accorded respect at all times. We will discuss his ideas on their merits, not on the basis of what has happened in other venues.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 12:14 PM derwood has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 29 of 226 (34711)
03-19-2003 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by John A. Davison
03-19-2003 11:34 AM


Re: evolution
Hi Salty,
It must seem like I'm trying to nit-pick you to death just as you're getting started, but I'm actually, at least in my own view of things, picking up on things that often get in the way of meaningful discussion.
First, you might have missed Message 7 where I noted what appeared to be an error in your opening statement. KCdqw picked up on the same thing in Message 14. Since this statement is what we will be referring back to, it is important to get it right. The error is simple math, confusing duration of the occurrence of an event with the rate of occurence of many such events.
Second, you say you're seeking a middle ground between evolution and Creationism, yet the concluding phrase here is pure Creationist jargon:
What we are witnessing in evolutionary science is a conflict between the atheist Darwinians...
Atheist Darwinians? Since you worked in the field of biology for many years and came to know many of its practioners, you know that the majority are not atheists. And many evolutionists on this board are not atheists. And I am not an atheist. Evolutionists who are atheists and evolutionists who are theists or deists both accept the same theory of evolution. Acceptance of evolutionary theory runs largely independent of such gross theological categories.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 11:34 AM John A. Davison has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 30 of 226 (34712)
03-19-2003 5:17 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by John A. Davison
03-19-2003 4:05 PM


Re: Some
Hi Salty,
I just admonished Scott (SLPx) for taking an unprovoked shot, then you go and do the same thing:
Salty writes:
No one that is except the Darwinians who unhesitatingly ascribe everything to their own God. The Great God Chance. I find it amusing that they will attack Creationists as religious fanatics while they blandly go on worshiping someting for which not a scintilla of evidence exists. I join with Leo S. Berg,probably the greatest russian zoologist of his time. There is no place for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I anticipate an attack on Berg. Don't disappoint me.
Please don't try to pick fights. Let's keep our opinions to ourselves and stick with the issues and the evidence.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 4:05 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 7:11 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 32 of 226 (34715)
03-19-2003 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by John A. Davison
03-19-2003 7:11 PM


Re: Some
I'm not here to debate with members but to act as a facilitator and moderator. Please stay on topic and focus on the evidence. I'm not just saying this to you but to everyone so that this can be a productive discussion. Accusing evolutionists of worshipping chance is just as off-topic as accusing Creationists of being religious fanatics, plus it will just take the discussion down a rat-hole of aspersions and name-calling having nothing to do with the main topic. Your theory does not deal with these issues, and it is your theory that is the topic of this thread.
If you wish, you can open a new thread in the Faith and Belief forum to discuss whether Darwinists worship chance, but please leave that issue out of this thread. Thanks.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 7:11 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 8:02 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 34 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 8:02 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 43 by derwood, posted 03-20-2003 11:26 AM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 38 of 226 (34739)
03-20-2003 7:01 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by John A. Davison
03-20-2003 6:51 AM


Re: Some
Hi Salty!
I've noticed that you often reply to yourself when you probably intended to reply to someone else. The little reply icon at the bottom of each message is specific to that message. When you use that icon then your message is recorded as a reply to that message, and links in small text appear at the bottom of each message to the message replied to, and to all the messages in reply.
If you click on your name (or anyone's name) you'll get a list of your most recent message in up to 30 different threads, including indications as to whether there are any unanswered replies.
If you click on the mood icon of any message in a thread (it's next to the "Message 5 of 7" at the top of the message) you'll get a list of all messages in the thread.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by John A. Davison, posted 03-20-2003 6:51 AM John A. Davison has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 42 of 226 (34771)
03-20-2003 11:15 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by John A. Davison
03-20-2003 10:53 AM


Re: Some
Salty writes:
I have repeatedly restricted the semi-meiotic hypothesis to diploid organism,...
Except for your initial statement, this is the first time the word "diploid" has appeared in any message you've authored.
This is a good time to direct your attention back to my request in Message 7, and in Message 29 where it was reiterated. I would like to clarify your opening statement. Could you please respond? Thanks!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by John A. Davison, posted 03-20-2003 10:53 AM John A. Davison has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 59 of 226 (34802)
03-20-2003 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by John A. Davison
03-20-2003 1:13 PM


Salty writes:
I'm not sure what the problem is. I was referring to the time it takes for a particular genetic change (mutation) to take place.
Yes, you were, but you assigned this to Darwinians as the foundation of their acceptance of gradual genetic change:
One might ask — is there such a thing as a gradual genetic change? All genetic alterations take place with time constants on the order of seconds, whether they are point mutations, deletions, duplications, or chromosomal inversions, fusions or translocations. The very notion of a gradual genetic change is meaningless. Yet that is precisely the position which the Darwinians have taken.
Not only is this *not* the position of Darwinians, it doesn't even make sense since rate of occurrence of events and the duration of individual events are two different things.
I'm sure you agree that it makes no sense to assign your opponents positions they do not hold, and that you want to make your position as solid as possible by correcting and/or removing confusions or mistakes. Since Moose entered your first post for you you cannot edit it (you can always edit your own posts), so let me know if it's alright if I modify it for you.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by John A. Davison, posted 03-20-2003 1:13 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by John A. Davison, posted 03-20-2003 6:46 PM Admin has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 63 of 226 (34826)
03-20-2003 10:02 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by peter borger
03-20-2003 8:47 PM


Re: Some
Hi Peter,
As I already said in Message 300 of the Where is the evidence for evolution? thread, until such time as we have a clear definition of GUToB, discussion of it is restricted to the Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB. thread.
In your message you repeatedly say, "this is GUToB rule #3", but in the concise definition we're trying to develop in the Defining GUToB thread there is no "rule #3". So let's complete the definition so that people can know what you're talking about. And please keep in mind that no matter what definition you use, bare assertions like "this is GUToB rule #3" with no elaboration is a violation of the guidelines.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 8:47 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:14 PM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 65 of 226 (34830)
03-20-2003 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by peter borger
03-20-2003 10:14 PM


Re: GUToB rule #3
Hi Peter Borger,
Since I've set up the GUToB myself I do not need your agreement on it.
Okay, if you say so, but I need you to work with me, not against me, to help keep discussion on track. Think about it over the next seven days during your one week suspension of posting privileges.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:14 PM peter borger has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Mammuthus, posted 03-21-2003 3:14 AM Admin has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 226 (34889)
03-21-2003 9:20 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Mammuthus
03-21-2003 3:14 AM


Re: GUToB rule #3

All Members

Please see Message 13 of the Change in Moderation? thread.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Mammuthus, posted 03-21-2003 3:14 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 113 of 226 (35067)
03-24-2003 8:50 AM


I will no longer be attempting to moderate this thread. This should hopefully alleviate any fears Salty may have about biased treatement. The primary moderator for this forum is AdminTC (TrueCreation), and EvC Forum policy is that any moderator may moderate in any forum, so Adminnimooseus (minnimooseus) and Adminaquility (Tranquility Base) will also moderate.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 116 of 226 (35071)
03-24-2003 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by peter borger
03-20-2003 10:14 PM


Re: GUToB rule #3
Hi Peter Borger,
I'm restoring your posting privileges early because I do not believe any purpose would be served by continuing with the full one week period. The longer period was administered primarily because after your previous 24-hour suspension you commented that you didn't even know you had been suspended.
Members have expressed a sincere desire to continue the debate with you. For this reason I will no longer try to moderate discussions in which you take part, but will leave that to the other moderators of this site. However, discussion of GUToB is still restricted to a single thread (Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB) until such time as you, or someone, can make its definition clear.
Welcome back!
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by peter borger, posted 03-20-2003 10:14 PM peter borger has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 123 of 226 (35094)
03-24-2003 11:21 AM
Reply to: Message 120 by John A. Davison
03-24-2003 11:08 AM


Re: hmmm...
Salty writes:
I also find the general tenor of this forum distasteful.
To the extent the distastefulness is related to board moderation and administration, there's a thread in the Suggestions forum where your comments might prove helpful: Change in Moderation?. Links to threads at boards where your experience was more positive would be especially helpful.
------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by John A. Davison, posted 03-24-2003 11:08 AM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by John A. Davison, posted 03-24-2003 1:23 PM Admin has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024