|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
KCdgw Inactive Member |
quote: There also Robertsonian polymorphisms in the English shrew, as I recall. KC ------------------Those who know the truth are not equal to those who love it-- Confucius
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
It was hard for me to realize that Will Provine could not even scratch the surface of the touch tone conversation he had with Sewall Wright after he hardened around an idea that genetic reversiblity in the plethora of adaptations was little probable no matter the mutation rate agreed apon.
I am still not certain this idea has anything to do with Wrigt's reading of fisher and not merely in the mutation anymore than the older generation of evos mole bio competes with that Fisher by modification was able to pen his opinion on which is not the any quantification however many seconds it takes a mutation to show up that there are some non-creationist spatial alternatives that are readable and yet still underrepresented though I have tried this presenation time and time again. My grandfather did not have the notion of regualtory genes but then again no matter the rotable if mutation Galton's notion is FAR superior to Darwin's. Gould simply wanted more time than may be available molecularly which he admitted he did not prob prehaps to the cofidence and quality of posters here can do. When Galton related Pascal's Triangle to Normal distributions the causation of all correlations in soma immediately, then and there became a matter of language no more and yet the Provine's of this world of post-Morganists want to teach graduate students. They faile with the undergrads.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
With respect to karyotype differences in mice, I specifically indicated in the Manifesto that all such rearrangements need not result in speciation. The fact remains, that the most obvious features that distinguish us from our primate relatives resides in the restructuring of otherwise very similar if not identical chromosomal elements. In short, we are distinguished by position effects. This is exactly what Goldschmidt proposed in 1940. What we are witnessing in evolutionary science is a conflict between the atheist Darwinians, who deny any role for purpose or design and at the other extreme the fundamentalists who tend to deny evolution altogether. I have tried to present a compromise view, apparently with little success. I will keep trying however. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:http://EvC Forum: Terry at the Talk Origins board -->EvC Forum: Terry at the Talk Origins board 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. [This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Hi John,I can understand why Judy van Houten would be uncomfortable with you after reading this. It is absurd on the face of it. Of course genetic changes take place in individuals. This is no revelation, and if you think it is, I suggest you become familiar with the writings of population geneticists. However, single 'mutant' individuals do not a new species make, whether we are talking gain, loss, or rearrangement of information. This should be fairly obvious. In order for there to be speciation, the 'mutant' must be able to reproduce and pass on its' traits. That is, its complement of unique alleles must get 'spread out' in a pre-existing population, or it must establish a new population of its own (hard to do, I would imagine). Thus, of course evolution and population genetics are intertwined. I am flabbergasted that you can, apparently with conviction, utterly deny so self-evident a fact. quote: That is right. And what do the individuals that result from this reproduction become part of? Why, a population. quote: Please define for us 'macroevolution.'quote: Your essay was nearly devoid of convincing scientific discourse. It consists primarily of unsupported assertion.The only times you mention 'biological information' is to claim that it already existed and that 'no new information' is added or needed. For example, you ask the rhetorical question: "...What is the origin of the preexisting information?" But you do not even attempt to answer. Following this question, you launch into a spiel about how God might fit into the picture. You write in the conclusion to this essay: "I find it fascinating that it is the physicists who postulate God while biologists typically remain atheists or agnostics." after having cited Einstein's famous quip about God not playing dice. I suggest you lookinto Einstein's other writings to discover what he really meant. Einstein was certainly do theist. Your essay amounts to little more than the usual anti-Darwinist fare. Some wild extrapolation, attempted argument from (dubious) authority, and assertion. Not impressed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
(Addressed to all, not just SLPX - posting this in a "semi-admin" mode)
I have previously held off posting anything to do with Salty's position, because up to his releasing the material of message 1, his content was in rather massive works (ie. his "manifesto"). Now, the paper quoted in message 1 gives a concise starting point for discussion. Personally, my biology knowledge is pretty limited. I realize that it is difficult to present material of a complex subject, in a way that the "ignorant masses" can understand, but I can hope that the more knowing can give it an attempt. I know that the Darwinist side finds much not to like about Salty's position. I think that, first of all, I would be interested in finding out if others from the evolution side find anything they do like in Salty's postition. Salty, you need to extract the relevent points from your larger works, and present them here. Just citing those works doesn't cut it. Cheers,The much ignorant Moose Added by edit - note to Salty - You have indicated that you had password problems. I thought I'd point out that it is possible to change the password from the original offering to a personal choice. Click on "profile", at the upper right of many of the pages, to start the process of doing such a change (assuming you haven't done it already). ------------------Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment. My big page of Creation/Evolution Links [This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-19-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1876 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Why do you assume that I am a "Darwinist"? Frankly, I do not even know what a "Darwinist" is. Maybe you can define it for us, Moose?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Minnemooseus Member Posts: 3941 From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior) Joined: Member Rating: 10.0 |
I should have put that "Darwinist" in quotes.
Anyhow, my intent was "Darwinist" = "mainstream evolutionist", as opposed to Salty's "Anti-Darwinist" saltationistic evolution. Moose
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I have been very specific as to the source of biological information and written a paper about it. "Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information. It is on my home page. For those who choose not to read it, I have suggested that the information has been present from very early on in the evolutionary process, thereby comparing evolution with ontogeny where the information is also present from the very beginning. In both cases I have suggested that the information is expressed by derepression from a large yet limited storehouse of available information. This concept can go a long way toward explaining what has been (erroneously) assumed to be convergent evolution. Information must have a source and there is virtually no evidence that new information has been added during the differentiation of the genera Pan,Gorilla,Pongo and Homo. In fact I can't think of an example demonstrating the addition of meaningful new specific information anywhere. Perhaps someone can enlighten me. For those who choose not to read the Manifesto, you will find my core convictions summarized in the three published papers on my home page. I hesitate to answer questions that I have already dealt with in those three short papers. If in my papers, I have misrepresented factual material please call that to my attention. I never pretended to be perfect. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I define a Darwinist as someone who denies purpose and plan in evolution and who therefore must by definition rely on random chance and undirected mutations as the driving forces in evolution. There is not a single example of such mechanisms producing anything beyond the level of subspecies just as Goldschmidt claimed in 1940. Also, let me ask a question for a change. How can Nature, being all that has been somehow created, become the Creator? I cannot imagine a more ridiculous demonstration of circular reasoning. The real issues here have nothing to do with evolution. They have to do with the way man regards his position in the universe. Gould claimed intelligence was an evolutionary accident. My response in the Manifesto was that it was SOME accident. Mayr described himself as a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian. Such statements have no place in any serious discussion of one of the greatest mysteries in all of science - organic evolution. The simple facts are that know one knows anything about the forces that have produced organic diversity. No one knows how or even how many times life has arisen. 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. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
Dear Forum administrator, I agree. I learned a long time ago that "You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read (or comprehend) it." salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 12998 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
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
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024