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

I find nothing resembling a cheap shot in my recent posts. Darwinists DO worship chance. I don't know a single Darwinist who would even conceive that evolution was (past tense) a guided process. I don't know one who would agree that evolution is finished. I don't know one who could in his wildest imagination imagine evolution without sexual reproduction. I don't know a Darwinian who would ever abandon his conviction that there was no purpose in evolution and that man was nothing but an accident. It is obvious that I am wasting my time just as did the following partial list of great scientist.William Bateson, Leo Berg, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse, Alexander Petrunkevitch, R.C. Punnett, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Henry Fairfield Osborn, and I will end this list with probably the greatest paleontologist that ever lived. Otto Schindewolf. I find it amusing that I should be regarded as ignorant of armchair theoreticians like Sewell Wright, Sir Ronald Fisher, and J.B.S. Haldane, not to mention Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould. I know all about them. The only one who ever considered Goldschmidt seriously was Sewell Wright, God bless him. My heroes were,to a man, real scientists either at the laboratory bench or dirtying their hands in the field somewhere. Also please note that the ones I just identified were professional evolutionists whose major scientific contributions were to further the Darwinian myth. Yes myth! The ones I earlier listed were, without exception scientists who achieved fame in their various fields of expertise, whether it was paleontology, experimental genetics, taxonomy, or zoogeography. It is very revealing that they, in contrast with the professional evolutionists, wrote one or a few works that in each instance and often independently totally exposed the failure of Darwinism in no uncertain terms. I am happy to include myself with some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. As I said in the Manifesto, I am the dwarf standing on the shoulders of (several) giants. If you find my language unacceptable you can always ban me. I've exiled myself from the mainstream anyway so it really doesn't matter that much. If you don't find it necessary to ban me, rest assured that I will continue to do everything in my power to restore the reputations and the contributions of those searchers for the truth that I most respect. salty

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

Thank you. I don't have a theory. I have proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis. It, unlike the Darwinian hypothesis, has to my knowledge not yet been tested. The Darwinian hypothesis has been critically tested innumerable times and has yet to be substantiated as a device leading to speciation. It is interesting to note that Schindewolf maintained that evolution was not an experimental science. He may have been correct. I just don't know. salty

Thank you. I don't have a theory. I have proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis. It, unlike the Darwinian hypothesis, has to my knowledge not yet been tested. The Darwinian hypothesis has been critically tested innumerable times and has yet to be substantiated as a device leading to speciation. It is interesting to note that Schindewolf maintained that evolution was not an experimental science. He may have been correct. I just don't know. salty

If I understand your hypothesis correctly it suggests that sexual reproduction appears independantly in each species utilising it. If this is incorrect could you please clarify the actual matter.Also, if I understand correctly you propose a form of reproduction that is not observed in any extant species. Are there any similar modes of reproduction that are actually observed (for instance the production of worker honeybees sounds somewhat similar) ?

The flagellate protozoon Spirotrichosoma reproduces semi-meiotically exactly as I have proposed. Male parthenogenetically conceived turkeys also are produced semi-meiotically. It is true that we do not see this mode of reproduction currently. That, among other reasons is why I have proposed that macroevolution is no longer in progress. Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse have also indicated the same. One of the most remarkable statements in all of the evolutionary literature is that by the author of "Evolution; The Modern Synthesis". On page 571 he clearly maintains that evolution has come to a full stop and even specifies when the stop occurred. It is no wonder that the Darwinians have elected to ignore this lapse by one of their own! There is also no doubt that Huxley got this idea from the anti-Darwinian paleontologist Robert Broom. He wisely neglected to acknowledge his source. I am convinced that sexual reproduction cannot support macrevolutionary progress which is why I was forced to propose the semi-meiotic mechanism to which I still adhere. salty

Dear paulk, There is no universal mechanism for sex determination. Since those different modes cannot be homologized, I proposed that a primary role for the sexual mode was to stabilize species and bring macroevolution to a stop. The Russian cytogeneticist N.N. Vorontsov was the first to call attention to this problem. I cited him in my 1984 and 1993 papers as well as in the Manifesto. I have speculated that the semi-meiotic and the sexual modes could have coexisted during periods of adaptive radiation. Today, with few exceptions sexual reproduction is the standard mode. When and how these changes took place I cannot say. salty

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

S:"I don't know one who could in his wildest imagination imagine evolution without sexual reproduction."Hmmmm so evolutionary biologists don't think bacteria can evolve? or viruses? other organisms that expand clonally?...that will be news to them Cooper TF, Rozen DE, Lenski RE. Related Articles, Links
Parallel changes in gene expression after 20,000 generations of evolution in Escherichiacoli.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2003 Feb 4;100(3):1072-7.Papadopoulos D, Schneider D, Meier-Eiss J, Arber W, Lenski RE, Blot M. Related Articles, Links
Genomic evolution during a 10,000-generation experiment with bacteria.
Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1999 Mar 30;96(7):3807-12.S: "I am happy to include myself with some of the greatest minds of the twentieth century. "LOL!!!!
The ever humble creationists

I have repeatedly restricted the semi-meiotic hypothesis to diploid organism, chiefly animals. Of course haploids like bacteria are evolving. I never denied that. It is also evident that they do not practice meiosis, so they certainly can't practice semi-meiosis! salty salty

Dear mammuthus, If you had read a little further you would have found that I described myself as a dwarf standing on the shoulders of several great men. Believe me when I say I am humbled by the great mystery of evolution. That is more than I can say for some of the Darwinians I have encountered. salty

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!

Admin,To salty, a radical anti-'Darwinist' (which we now see defined as anyone that does not agree with salty, for the most part) deserves to be insulted and therefore, insults are not really insults.I hope that clears things up.I was disappointed, however, that salty continues to claim that he wrote a "detailed" paper about biological information.
I read and critiqued some of it already.His "detailed" analysis of biological information was to claim that it was already there, as if by magic.Such is the science of the anti-"Darwian."[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-20-2003]

I wonder - did Broom, Huxley, and Grasse also think that population genetics were irrelevant to evolution, like l;ike-minded anti-Darwinian salty insists?

..."armchair theoreticians like Sewell Wright, Sir Ronald Fisher, and J.B.S. Haldane"Am I the only one that is shaking my head in disgust and disbelief?Admonish away, Admin, but this is pure crankery at its finest....From an article by Gardner in SciAm:

quote:

---

(2) "A second characteristic of the pseudo-scientist, which greatly strengthens his isolation, is a tendency toward paranoia," which manifests itself in several ways:

​

(1) He considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads.... (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. The recognized societies refuse to let him lecture. The journals reject his papers and either ignore his books or assign them to "enemies" for review. It is all part of a dastardly plot. It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work.... (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. When Newton was the outstanding name in physics, eccentric works in that science were violently anti-Newton. Today, with Einstein the father-symbol of authority, a crank theory of physics is likely to attack Einstein.... (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.

---