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

SLPx if you see only one karyotypic difference you better have your prescription changed. I don't have to go back where I came from as I never left. Moose invited me here and I thank him. I think I have offered this forum about all I can so I recommend we let all this just die on the vine. If it makes you feel better just declare victory. I will be happy to respond to any civil queries via my email jdavison@zoo.uvm.edu salty

I would say that anytime you start with one species, and then you end up with two species, you've automatically got an increase in information. Just like almost any mutation will increase the information content of the gene pool. Please keep in mind the particular way in which a genome is organized also contains information. If you don't agree, then what you're saying in effect is that any collection of a set number of A, T, C, and Gs contains the same information as any other. Obviously, that's not the case. Gene order is important in some cases for how the genome works (and certainly the order of nucleotides within a gene is), and I don't think anyone doubts that chromosomal rearrangements can be important in evolution. They're not the only thing that's important mind you, but why you would claim that they represent "no new information" puzzles me. Are you really saying that if you started with a genome of size X with a given sequence, and then you rearragned it numerous times to create millions of other genomes of size X but with different sequences, that you haven't gained any information? Please note that it's possible to get absolutely any sequence you want, as long as the relative abundance of nucleotides remains the same, simply by rearranging a genome if you do it enough times. It just doesn't figure that you can't get information by rearrangement. The irony here is that if rearranging the genome really couldn't change its information content, according to either Shannon theory or Kolmorgorov-Chaitin, then it would have almost no information at all. (In case anyone's wondering, a low Shannon-information genome would extremely simple, like containing nothing but As, whereas a low K-C information genome would be a near-random collection of nucleotides. It's only in cases like these that rearrangments wouldn't matter.)If you want to continue with the information claim, you've got to do what I suggested earlier on this thread, and that's provide a rigorous metric of information that's relevant to biology. Maybe you've tried to do so in one of your papers, but regardless you should briefly do so here. I'll admit that I haven't read through all of your papers (nor am I likely to do so) but there's no reason why I should have to put myself through that. I haven't read any of Claude Shannon's papers either, but I have no trouble understanding Shannon information when it's explained in layman's terms. Okay, how do you define "True Speices"? Is that similar to how some people define "True Christianity", which is to say whatever they think it is whenever it suits them? Are you not aware the the very concept of species is itself problematic? By hanging your claims on what does and doesn't constitute speciation, you've set yourself up a moveable goal post. It would be more fruitful to focus on adaptive morphological and genetic change, which is the really interesting part of evolution IMO. People have already posted examples of speciation that did not require chromosomal rearragnements. What's wong with those?Once again, we run into a bit of irony. The whole reason that the definition of a species is hard to pin down is because of evolution. Species don't suddenly cleave asunder as your hypothesis seems to maintain that they should. Rather they tease apart slowly, and we often witness them in any one of a myriad of stages during that teasing. I for one think that they can also separate rapidly under certain circumstances, but the fact that they don't always do this would seem to defeat your hypothesis.

If my hypothesis has been defeated it won't survive. If anyone refuses to read my papers there is nothing I can do about it. There is an old saying "You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read (or comprehend) it." There wouldn't be any point in reading my papers anyway without first reading the works on which I have based my thesis. Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to offer my heresies. salty

Moose it is interesting you mention Phillip Johnson. I have had mixed feelings about him, but he has changed substantially in recent years. I sent him the Instant Evolution paper as an attachment just two weeks ago. I received a very cordial reply in which he hoped it would be accepted for publication. Phillip Johnson is one sharp cookie and like myself a great admirer of Pierre Grasse. Another lawyer, Norman Macbeth also did a masterful job of exposing the Darwinian myth. I realize that the "professionals" discount Johnson and Macbeth just as they have traditionally ignored all their critics from Mivart right up to the present. It is a shame but it is only human nature I guess.To get to your question, the semi-meiotic hypothesis is eminently testable. I am now without a laboratory and I will not go into the sordid details of that as I am sure it would be interpreted as paranoia by Scott Page or someone else. Amphibians are ideally suited to test it and sooner or later it will be done. I don't know of anyone doing it right now. They are missing the boat because if the semi-meiotic hypothesis can be substantiated it would earn the Nobel prize. Steps in that direction are going on right now with yeast. salty

M: That was a huge copout Salty. You might want to reconsider your motivations for debate if you cannot even address a simple post like mine...it is the minimal expected of anyone in science so if you are attacking a theory you have to at least support your statements and as yet I do not see you demonstrating any desire to do so...bald assertion does not a semi-meiotic thoery make.Salty:I suggest you supply the evidence supporting what you believe.M: I can, I have often, and I will.Salty: If I cannot support my statements it is because I don't know. Don't expect me to produce definitive evidence that is not before us.M: Yet you make unsupported assertions without any data or observations to back them up yet claim that nobody else knows anything about evolution? Some of us clearly know a lot more than you and are in a position to at least propose testable hypotheses and then go and do the work to back them up. You are conceding in your statement that you only have a religious fundamentalist agenda to say evolution is false, provide no substantive reason that is false (other than some people who agree in parts with what you say said so to) and then refuse to actually support your own semi-meiotic "theory"..and you wonder that you are greeted with hostility?Salty: Can one understand with certainty a process that is no longer in operation? That is what you are asking me to do. IM: No, I am asking you to support the first sentence. I can send you to a biology library for a couple of months with references to studies that prove that your statement is wrong if you would like. I ask you to show me the supporting evidence that shows that all of this meticulously collected data is false...saying I don't know is inexcusable for someone making the assertion that a theory is wrong regardless of the scientific discipline.In response to my asking you to support your own rantings you have adopted the creationist tactic of ignoring my questions and asking me to support myself..though I have not directly attacked anything excpet YOUR statements. I am not the one claiming that evolution is false so I suggest you back up your statements. Then I will be happy to come back with my own and hundreds of other studies from "greatest minds of the 20th century" to support what I say and refute statements that you make that I think are false. I can do it...can you?

M. When did I ever say evolution is false? I am an evolutionist. You obviously have not read my papers or you would never make such an unsubstantiated statement. I have maintained that sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting macroevolution. I have maintained that macroevolution is no longer occurring. I have maintained that micromutations have little to do with evolution. I have maintained that population genetics offers no explanation for macroevolution.I have presented evidence that much of the information for evolution has been present from very early on in the evolutionary process thereby agreeing with the conclusions of Berg, Grasse and Goldschmidt. I have suggested that the information has been derepressed just as it so obviously is during ontogeny. I have even suggested that evolution may have been guided!! Horror of horrors!! I stand on what I have published. I notice that no one on this forum or anywhere else has exposed an error of fact in my papers. All you are able to do is attack my interpretations of those undeniable facts. Here are some of those undeniable facts. There is no universal mechanism for sex determination. The definitive gametes of vertebrates are not homologous with each other indicating a correlation with the independent origins of sex determination. This has led me to the conclusion that a primary role for sexual reproduction is to bring evolution to a halt. Horror of Horrors!! What I cannot understand is why you and others insist on exposing me as some kind of nut, at the same time that you refuse to consider the evidence on which my heresy is based. It seems to me you must be pretty darn insecure. Terry Trainor, whom I am certain you probable despise, described me as "the Darwinians worst nightmare". I am beginning to believe it. In the meantime I recommend you all go to http://www.laurelhighlandsmedia.com and unload Phillip Engles "Far From Equilibrium". Just unload it as far as the dedication and you will discover that there are some that take my semi-meiotic hypothesis seriously. salty

Hi Salty,Again, you have completely evaded my questions! So here we go again.S: I have maintained that sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting macroevolution.M: Then supply the data if this is such a no brainer.S: I have maintained that macroevolution is no longer occurringM: Again, supply the data. What is your testable hypothesis here?S: I have maintained that micromutations have little to do with evolution.M: Then it should be of little problem for you to support this with experimental data (and refute the data that suggests that you are in error).S: I have maintained that population genetics offers no explanation for macroevolutionM: That is convenient of you to maintain this position but how about supporting it? Since most population geneticists would quite disagree with you please show how the both the theoretical framework and the data fails to offer an explanation for evolution since evolution and population genetics are the same thing.S:I have presented evidence that much of the information for evolution has been present from very early on in the evolutionary process thereby agreeing with the conclusions of Berg, Grasse and Goldschmidt.M: You have made assertions. You have not presented any data. Go for it. A large majority of us would be interested to see this data.S: I have suggested that the information has been derepressed just as it so obviously is during ontogeny. I have even suggested that evolution may have been guided!! Horror of horrors!! I stand on what I have published.M: You have suggested and and suggested and you stand by...now make the extra leap into science and show supporting evidence.S: There is no universal mechanism for sex determination.M: There is no universal mechanism of locomotion, some organisms have mitochondria some don't...there are extreme thermofiles and methanofiles..so what?S: This has led me to the conclusion that a primary role for sexual reproduction is to bring evolution to a halt. Horror of Horrors!!M: Yes, horrors of horrors. Because just stating this conclusion does not make it correct..horror of horrors! I asked you a number of questions regarding primate speciation and sexual versus asexual reproduction...you ignored me...you did the same to SLPx...if you do not or cannot support your claims then of course you will get attacked.S: What I cannot understand is why you and others insist on exposing me as some kind of nut, at the same time that you refuse to consider the evidence on which my heresy is based.M: I am not trying to expose you as some kind of nut salty. I am trying to get you to demonstrate supporting evidence and to show specifically where I and thousands of other scientists are wrong specifically. Thus far you have ignored my questions, gone into a tif of feeling insulted, and come back with incredulity that I and others do not just accept what you say at face value. Would you accept at face value that you should give up your religion because I say the universe is controlled by a giant pink monkey and then accuse you of narrow mindedness for not just considering it as the most likely alternative?S: It seems to me you must be pretty darn insecure. Terry Trainor, whom I am certain you probable despise, described me as "the Darwinians worst nightmare". I am beginning to believe it.M: This sounds like kindegarten chest beating salty. If you wish to be taken as seriously as you obviously feel you deserve to be then you have to go through the rigors of meticulously backing up your assertions with substance. You are not some lone wolf to whom special rules apply as this applies to anyone who wishes to make any point in science....sorry but science is not easy.S: Just unload it as far as the dedication and you will discover that there are some that take my semi-meiotic hypothesis seriously. saltyM: Just a hint, pleading to authority or saying that some take your hypothesis seriously does not make it correct either. I have read some of your writing and it is not much different than your posts. As SLPx pointed out..it contains frequently re-iterated assertions without factual support. Even if I ultimately conclude you are wrong, providing evidence for your assertions would at least your position debateble and would go a long way to alleviating your feeling of being thought of as a nut as you claim to feel.cheers,
M

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

delete.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-24-2003]

quote:

---

Davison:
I have even suggested that evolution may have been guided!! Horror of horrors!! I stand on what I have published.

---

Personal web page essays are not really counted as publications, at least not by mainstream scientists with legitimate ideas.

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

quote:

---

S: It seems to me you must be pretty darn insecure. Terry Trainor, whom I am certain you probable despise, described me as "the Darwinians worst nightmare". I am beginning to believe it.

​

M: This sounds like kindegarten chest beating salty. If you wish to be taken as seriously as you obviously feel you deserve to be then you have to go through the rigors of meticulously backing up your assertions with substance. You are not some lone wolf to whom special rules apply as this applies to anyone who wishes to make any point in science....sorry but science is not easy

---

Indeed - salty's friend Terry allows salty ot insult and attempt to browbeat anyone that is not a fringe nutcase at his TalkOrigins board.Salty, on that board, boasts of having as his mission "inflaming Darwinists", whom he labels bigots, says are 'not scientists', etc.
Of course, from what I have seen, salty is just exhibiting some textbook projection and megalomania. Odd how so many "anti-Darwinists" seem to have these qualities.As Salty refuses or is unable to address simple, straightforward questions, I have put him in a box alongside Sarfati, Woodmorappe, Wells, etc.And I am not poking air holes in it....

Salty Davison,You wrote:"If I cannot support my statements it is because I don't know. "And then"SLPx if you see only one karyotypic difference you better have your prescription changed."Ignoring for now the usual content-free insulting bilge from this... individual, shall I conclude that you simply don't know what karyotype differences you see between humans and chimps and were just blowing smoke?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-24-2003]

And I am not poking air holes in it....They would still survive on all the hot air they produce {Note from Adminnemooseus - The above is a pretty minor slur of creationists (especially with the added), but in the context of this topic, it leaves me in a clumsy position as a moderator. Please desist.}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-24-2003]

Scott Page. you have just proved once again that you have not read my published papers. Davison 2000 "Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Bioogical Information." Rivista di Biologia 93, 513 - 523. On page 521 at the top of the page you will find 3. HAS EVOLUTION BEEN GUIDED?. Keep up the good work. You are a poster boy for Darwinian insecurity. It is getting tiresome being attacked by those who refuse to read. I have challenged every conceivable aspect of the Darwinian myth, as have several of my predecessors. I recommend you provide the evidence supporting a completely discredited hypothesis. I have already presented my case in five published papers. I also find the general tenor of this forum distasteful. salty