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

I was going to scientific conferences when most of you were in diapers or perhaps yet to be conceived. Do you think Einstein or Mendel got their brainstorms at scientific conferences? Quite the contrary, they were able to see the truth because they were not exposed to the GROUPTHINK that characterize scientific conferences and academe generally, not to mention certain forums which will of course remain unidentified. salty

Well, before you leave evcforum in disgust or head to Stockholm, I'd appreciate it if you'd answer the questions and address the evidence I posted for you in message number 85 of this thread. Thanks.

My quarrel is not with the administrators but with some of the participants who cannot refrain from personal insults. I have tried very hard to limit my criticisms to neoDarwinism, not to those who adhere to it. Scott Page seems to imagine himself as the self appointed "defender of the one true faith". salty

Dear Schrafinator. Since when do I not believe in evolution? I guess what you mean is I don't believe in the Darwinian version. You bet I don't. salty

The only question Q asked was what I mean by all-or-none. I simply mean for example that a chromosomal segment has either undergone an inversion or it hasn't. Does that do it for you? salty

quote:

---

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.

---

Wrong. In fact, I did read it and I commented on it earlier in this thread. It is clear that you simply ignore the bulk of posts directed at you. You provide no explanation whatsoever for the "Origin of Bioogical Information". As such, the title of that essay is disingenuous. Rivista, it seems, is not exactly a clearinghouse for high falutin science. Seems more like an outlet for malcontents.Again - what is it now, like 5 times? - we can all see that you are refusing to address simple, straightforward questions. This is a DISCUSSION board, not a 'direct the masses to my high-and-mighty-yet-unheard-of papers' board.Please simply engage in DISCUSSION, not ego stroking.

quote:

---

I never intended to inflame Darwinians.

---

From the Terry board:"I am happy to report that I have not lost my capacity to inflame Darwinian mystics."

quote:

---

I actually sought to enlighten them.

---

Oh, thank you oh great scientist and admirer of Robert Broom! Scientists can be enlightened by reasoned discourse and EVIDENCE. Repeated assertions and claims of some obscure anti-Darwinists "agreeing" with you is not all that impressive.

quote:

---

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".

---

Please cite me wherein I have claimed to be supporting a 'cause.' As your 'cause' is, in your own words, to "inflame Darwinists" , you seem to be doing a top-notch job.
So, do you intend to DISCUSS anything, or are you content to simpy re-assert and blabber on about 'nobody read my papers(sic)!'?

quote:

---

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

---

Muzzle me? For asking you to answer questions? And you said that I was intolerant? Amazing...

quote:

---

You,like Scott Page have not read my papers

---

This is false. I have read your "Ontogeny..." essay. I have read parts of your "manifesto...".
You can keep writing this (as I am sure you will - standard creationist fare to whine that all others have not bowed down to your superior scientific acumen), but it will still be false.Have you read mine?No?Gee - what does that make you?

The old Salt hasn't changed his stripes...

quote:

---

I cannot imagine a better proof of the insecurity of the Darwinian model.

---

So the fact that creationist "moderators" are so quick to threaten and ban people that disprove cretinism really means that they are iunsecure about their beliefs?

quote:

---

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.

---

... then he can't run back to Terry's board and cry 'Martyrdom!'

quote:

---

I have tried very hard to limit my criticisms to neoDarwinism, not to those who adhere to it. Scott Page seems to imagine himself as the self appointed "defender of the one true faith". salty

---

This IS interesting - Davison is trying to blame me for the fact that he can't or won't support his claims. I have been responding in kind.Of course, I am doing no such thing. I am trying - unsuccessfully, it seems - to get you to actually DISCUSS something, rather than just engage in these short, insulting, content-free dodges that seem to be your calling card. I and others have asked simple, straightforward questions about your claims, and you have seen to it that these simple questions are ignored or, at best, we are admonisshed to 'read your papers.' Problem is, your 'papers' don't contain the answers. That is the point. Take your claims regarding human v. chimp karyotype. You claim that there are on the order of a dozen differences. I ask for them. You refuse. I ask again, stating that I see only one karyotypic difference. You insult me but deign not to actually address the issue. And that type of behaviour from you is typical - and not just on this forum. That you are now trying to clai that you are all about the science and that I am the cause for your nastiness is something else - I don't know if I find iut comical or grotesque. Probably a little of both.You can play your little martyr game, but you are not fooling anyone.At least I answer questions put to me and support my "matter of fact" statements with something other than simply writing it again or claiming that some other scientist agrees with me.Can't you?

Scott, now that you have vented, do you feel better? I'm afraid if I try to reply, you may come down with thundering apoplexy. I don't want that to happen I want you to go right on defending Darwinism in your own inimitable fashion. Keep up the good work. I am truly sorry for you that they haven't banned me yet. It is obvious that is what you deeply desire. salty

Could I suggest that another thread be started, preferably in the Free For All forum, to discuss the debating techniques of the participants? That way this thread can more readily stay on-topic.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Scott, cretinism is due to a thyroid defect. Are you by any chance equating creationism with cretinism? salty