|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: for Mammuthus - you made the big time! | |||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Fringe crackpot John A. Davison has this to say on his pal Terry Trainor's laughable 'disussion' board:
quote: The bolded parts I found particularly funny. The projection that this old coot exhibits is phenomenal!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
Also came across this:
"Also, the XX human I described was also a male. The undeniable fact is that the female (XX) genome is capable of producing both sexes." In a meeting of the minds (Terry, Ilion, salty), salty made the above statement.... The comments were about whether or not Eve was capable of parthenogenic reproduction....
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
The bold italics were not mine. This is Scott's doing, I am sure. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I stand on my comments. If Scott would read (he is a confessed spot reader) my Manifesto he would find complete documentation for the experimental proof that the female is all alone perfectly capable of producing both sexes. I also document this in a paper which now resides in the Documents bin at Terry's forum. It's title is "Evolution and Metaphysics: A Convergence Through Parthenogenesis". At least Terry, until recently at least, tolerates differences of opinion without resorting to the kind of epithets characteristic of Scott Page. salty, the "old coot"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Why, yes they were. I should have thought that was obvious. But there was no italicization. This is italics, this is bold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote:Of course you do. that does not make them correct. quote: Oh sure. In a handful of special cases. quote: I tried to open this latest essay, but when my browser said "done" all I had was a blank screen. Prophetic?quote: Poor John Davison - he dishes it out at the drop of a hat, but gets (or tries to get) all indignant when he is the recipient. Poor fella.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7608 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:Right click on the link and select "Save target as ..." if your network (or ISP's network) is busy a dropped packet can cause the Word viewer in IE to show a blank document. Saving is more robust.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7608 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
Apart from one ambigious sentence about the maleness of God, and the usual Einstein snippets, there is no metaphysical work in the paper.
It largely concerns parthenogenesis in amphibians with a little diversion about his hunch that an XX human male could be explained by a virgin birth. I presume this is meant to be vaguely metaphysical. But as usual, salty quotes references which are well out of date and shows no sign of keeping up with current research. XX Malehttp://zygote.swarthmore.edu/sex2.html Interestingly this last paper suggest 1:20000 males are XX. If the condition is that common, all I can say is that there are a helluva lot more sexually mature virgins out there than I have come across in my time. The most recent paper he cites is his own from 1993. Apart from his own papers, the most recent is from 1969 - 36 years ago! Quite astonishing for a paper in cytology, one of the more rapidly moving sciences. However an explanation is at hand: salty is in fact a superhuman speed-reader ... quote:All the available evidence? Wow - old salty has some energy, not to mention time, and access to the entire corpus of knowledge! By all means read it. Just don't expect too much.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Coragyps Member (Idle past 765 days) Posts: 5553 From: Snyder, Texas, USA Joined: |
with a little diversion about his hunch that an XX human male could be explained by a virgin birth.
I always thought that the H in the epithet "Jesus H Christ!" stood for "Haploid." That wouldn't be XX...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
Mr. P. Thanks for the recent references. I haven't even pretended to keep up with any human research. The facts are that semi-meiotically produced frogs can be either male or female and also perfectly fertile. This proves beyond any question that the female genome is perfectly competent to produce both sexes. I guess you don't think much of frogs, especially when they disclose something that doesn't require a sex determining mechanism. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
John A. Davison  Inactive Member |
I am not indignant at all. I am just disappointed that I seem to be the only person on this forum that realizes that macroevolution (real speciation)is finished. Of course I must be daft to make such a totally stupid statement, just as were Pierre Grasse, Julian Huxley and Robert Broom. They too were crazy weren't they? Don't answer, of course they were. salty
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mister Pamboli Member (Idle past 7608 days) Posts: 634 From: Washington, USA Joined: |
quote:It's not a stupid statement - just a poorly supported one. Again and again you repeat your favourite names like a mantra - without giving any detailed account of why their hypotheses should still be considered valid today. You seem to expect us to worship at their altar unquestioningly on your say-so. The problem is, salty, we can admire Grasse's pointed criticism of Darwinism (I do) and Huxley's breadth of vision (I do) and Broom's exeptional acumen (I do) and still think salty is a waste of space. (Then again Broom was a bit cooky, was he not?) We can read Lev Berg with enthusiasm (having had a past association with sturgeon farming, I can assure you his influence is alive and well), and see him in the long line of orthogenetic thought, but still think salty is not worth reading. We can admire Schindewolf and Grasse and Remane and regard them as "unfairly maligned", as Gould did, but still not hold salty in much regard. Moreoever, we can go further and admire those that salty neglects - or should I take a leaf from his book and say he deliberately ignores them because they do not fit his views? It is frankly staggering to read some of your papers and see no detailed to references to Seilacher, the greatest post-war proponent of Berg's work who beautifully expands orthogenetic hypotheses in the language of "Bautechnische." Probably, just like Darwin, your German isn't good enough to keep up with the interesting and relevant work being done on the continent. [This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-28-2003]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6506 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
Do I get a gold statue, make an acceptance speech and get to kiss Halle Berry?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
derwood Member (Idle past 1907 days) Posts: 1457 Joined: |
quote: Should have tried that. But I am not sure if I want to waste the disc space...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1510 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Unless you've got your cache set to zero you'll use the
disc space anyhow
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024