Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for Mammuthus - you made the big time!
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 7 of 20 (35501)
03-27-2003 5:13 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
03-27-2003 4:45 PM


viewing salty's doc @ terry's site
quote:
salty: 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".
SLP: I tried to open this latest essay, but when my browser said "done" all I had was a blank screen. Prophetic?
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 4:45 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 03-28-2003 10:06 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 8 of 20 (35502)
03-27-2003 5:38 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John A. Davison
03-27-2003 4:35 PM


salty's 'metaphysical' paper
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 But as usual, salty quotes references which are well out of date and shows no sign of keeping up with current research.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 Male
http://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:
I am now convinced that evolution is largely finished. I have reached that conclusion after carefully considering all the available evidence from developmental biology, cytogenetics and paleontology.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 4:35 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Coragyps, posted 03-27-2003 5:53 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 10 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 6:14 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7576 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 12 of 20 (35517)
03-27-2003 8:15 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by John A. Davison
03-27-2003 6:26 PM


quote:
macroevolution (real speciation)is finished. Of course I must be daft to make such a totally stupid statement
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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 6:26 PM John A. Davison has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024