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

I never intended to inflame Darwinians. I actually sought to enlighten them. Alas, it only resulted in rabid responses of which this is typical. Scott you may not realize it but you are doing great harm to what you have described as a "cause". If the moderators can't muzzle you, they csn kiss me goodbye. I don't need any more of Scott Page. Neither does this Forum! I am amazed they tolerate you. salty

I never intended to inflame Darwinians. I actually sought to enlighten them. Alas, it only resulted in rabid responses of which this is typical. Scott you may not realize it but you are doing great harm to what you have described as a "cause". If the moderators can't muzzle you, they csn kiss me goodbye. I don't need any more of Scott Page. Neither does this Forum! I am amazed they tolerate you. salty

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

quote:

---

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?.

---

Salty, you need to bring the material to this forum, not just cite tough to retrieve references in obscure journals.

quote:

---

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.

---

See my previous comment. And stop behaving like a ranting lunatic. I have really tried to be your friend here, but this makes it difficult.

quote:

---

I also find the general tenor of this forum distasteful.

---

This isn't the sanitized forum that Terry's Talk Origins (TTO) is. Has there ever been any debate of substance, on your ideas, at TTO?Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

M. You,like Scott Page have not read my papers. You don't have to go to the library you know. There are two kinds of illiterates those that cannt read and those that refuse to read. I joined this Forum at the invitation of moose and all I have encountered is abuse. It is beginning to wear thin. Why don't you and Scott just declare me insane and let it go at that. By the way, I am some sort of lone wolf as you put it and darn proud to be one. Also, I don't believe that the truth is something to debate. It is only something to pursue. The Darwinians have apparently already found it, so they don't have to seek any further. Stick with the thousands that comprise the majority. Anyone familiar with the history of science knows that the majority has always proved to be correct! salty

I really frown upon the quoting of entire messages, especially if it's the previous message on the list, but I'll make an exception:

quote:

---

M. You,like Scott Page have not read my papers. You don't have to go to the library you know. There are two kinds of illiterates those that cannt read and those that refuse to read. I joined this Forum at the invitation of moose and all I have encountered is abuse. It is beginning to wear thin. Why don't you and Scott just declare me insane and let it go at that. By the way, I am some sort of lone wolf as you put it and darn proud to be one. Also, I don't believe that the truth is something to debate. It is only something to pursue. The Darwinians have apparently already found it, so they don't have to seek any further. Stick with the thousands that comprise the majority. Anyone familiar with the history of science knows that the majority has always proved to be correct! salty

---

Do you wish this to represent rational discussion, on your part?Salty, see my message 124.Other members, please don't get involved in this rant.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

There is nothing obscure about my references. My last three published papers can be read at my home page Retired Service | The University of Vermont. If you find me to be ranting I suggest that you better read my papers too. I have said nothing on this Forum that cannot be substantiated in my papers published in a refereed journal. I have yet to encounter a specific objection to a matter of published fsct. salty
P.S. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the management is preparing to ban me. I cannot imagine a better proof of the insecurity of the Darwinian model.

quote:

---

Anyone familiar with the history of science knows that the majority has always proved to be correct!

---

That's funny.You seem to not know that the vast majority of scientists accept the Theory of Evolution.

quote:

---

My last three published papers can be read at my home page.

---

So bring some of that text to this forum.It's pretty tough to get banned from this forum, but you are currently on the edge of getting a 24 hour suspension.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

quote:

---

I define a Darwinist as someone who denies purpose and plan in evolution

---

Interesting. I thought that science, by definition, did not address the supernatural. I thought that science, by definition, deals with that we can detect with our natural senses.Since evolution works just fine without any purpose or plan, it seems superfluous to include it.

quote:

---

and who therefore must by definition rely on random chance and undirected mutations as the driving forces in evolution.

---

Well, what evidence do you have that anything else is at work?If your belif is based upon faith rather than evidence, then it is religion and not science.It's fine to have this religious belief, but don't expect others to believe it just because you do.{Fixed first quote box - AM}[This message has been edited by Adminnemooseus, 03-24-2003]

quote:

---

I don't know one who would agree that evolution is finished.

---

Of course it isn't finished.I am not a clone of my parents, so I am a part of evolutionary change, at least in my genome.

You,like Scott Page have not read my papers. You don't have to go to the library you know.M: Actually, it is pretty clear that Scott has read some of your "work". I also got about half way through your Manifesto and stopped because you don't present any data or evidence to support your assertions.S: There are two kinds of illiterates those that cannt read and those that refuse to read.M: There are several kinds of intellectually dishonesty for example evading direct questions when challenged resorting to insult (hypocritical at that) when challenged for example.S: I joined this Forum at the invitation of moose and all I have encountered is abuse.M: So you consider it abuse to be asked to substantiate your statements???? That is all I am asking you to do...that is not abuse, that is the essence of scientific debate. If you can't do it then that is your problem.S: Why don't you and Scott just declare me insane and let it go at that.M: I would if you did not post unsupported statements about a field in which I work. But you do so you will continue to be challenged on your statements.S: By the way, I am some sort of lone wolf as you put it and darn proud to be one.M: So your agenda is to avoid answering questions or defending your hypothesis just to go with some macho schtick? That hardly says much for your hypothesis.S: Also, I don't believe that the truth is something to debate.M: This has got to be one of the most ridiculous copouts I have ever seen in an evolution versus creation post.S: It is only something to pursue. The Darwinians have apparently already found it, so they don't have to seek any further.M: That would be news to the thousands of evolutionary biologists still trying to figure out how evolution works. Only religious zealots such as you are unwilling to adapt their views to reality.S: Stick with the thousands that comprise the majorityM: I am, I am sticking with the majority of scientists that understand and are convinced of the validity of the thoery of evolution...and by the way, how are you a lone wolf and so darn proud if you claim to stick with the majority?S:Anyone familiar with the history of science knows that the majority has always proved to be correct! saltyM: Considering most major discoveries are not immediately accepted by the majority it seems your scientific history is rather limited.cheers,
M

There is some current commentary from Admin (Percy) on the state of this topic, at http://EvC Forum: Change in Moderation? -->EvC Forum: Change in Moderation?I suggest that the mainstream evolution side read the above cited, and follow the contained suggestions.As I now see it, Salty is NOT going to get either the 24 hour suspension or a banning that he seems to be trying for.AdminnemooseusAdminnemooseus

Salty, it seems to me that you are uncomfortable with what has actually been some pretty normal, run-of-the-mill scientific inquiry.I mean, have you ever been to a real scientific conference or been to a thesis defense for a PhD in the sciences?It's brutal. Any weakness or perceived hole in the proposal is pounced upon by one's peers and dissected. That's how things get done and the integrity of the data is maintained; stringent adherence to scientific inquiry.Having said this, insults to a person are not generally given, but distain for ideas that are unsupported is not uncommon.Why do you believe it is unreasonable for people to expect you to back up your assertions with current scientific research from independent sources? It's what scientists expect of themselves and each other; it is how science is done.[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 03-24-2003]

My sources are all dead. I see no point in debating anything. My position has been made very clearly. Instead of attacking the message you prefer to attack the messenger. Let me remind everyone that in so doing you attack not only me but all my predecessors who long ago fully exposed every aspect of the Darwinuan (sexual) myth. Also I have no intention of withdrawing from this exchange. You will have to ban me. Let me quote William Bateson, the father of modern genetics. In 1924,shortly before his death he confided to his son Gregory the following:"it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general". I agree 100%. salty