What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'

P. In my view evolution is a thing of the past and Darwinism was a myth dreamed up to explain it.

Believe me I am quite sincere. Darwinism has never explained anything and macroevolution is finished. If you don't like my answer that is unfortunate. salty

Mr. Pamboli, I have reviewed your recent comments and offer the following response. If you will note I have allowed Grasse, Berg, Goldschmidt, Broom, Bateson, Schindewolf, White, Burbank and all my other references to speak for themselves. Since they often agree with each other it should surprise no one that I have been profoundly influenced by them. I am unimpressed with your revisionist attempt to redefine what any of my references meant especially since I have quoted them directly. Their words define their position. I just happen to agree with them. Besides all that, what have my views on the nature of a Creator have to do with evolution? Nothing. What counts are the facts. Here are a few. Macroevolution is apparently finished. Sexual reproduction has never been demonstrated as a macroevolutionary mechanism. In my view it never will be. There is abundant evidence that evolution has involved, like ontogeny, the release of preformed information. Natural and artificial selection have never produced a new species. There is no demonstrable role for chance in either phylogeny or ontogeny exactly as Leo Berg expressed it in 1922. Now you are trying to tell me that Berg's students somehow corrected his errors. I say nonsense to that idea. You have no business making such a suggestion. I am constantly being accused of making unfounded assertions. What are you and Scott Page doing I wonder. The simple truth is that no one understands evolution, not me, not you, not Scott Page and certainly not Richard Dawkins or Ernst Mayr or any other living soul. One thing is for sure though. neoDarwinism is a total failure as an explanatory hypothesis.The conclusion that I have drawn is unavoidable. Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change. I am confident that that day is not far off. salty

I see you still insist on equating Darwinism with evolution. That is utter nonsense. Darwinism has never had any explanatory power for evolution. Macroevolution is a thing of the past. That does not mean that evolution has not occurred. It most certainly has. salty

Yours is a remarkable statement especially coming from one who couldn't produce a single documented example when challenged. Go back and review that little tidbit please. salty

Percipient, evolution was very real but is no longer in operation except at the subspecific or varietal level. Darwinism is a fable dreamed up by a couple of naturalists. At least Wallace finally abandoned the whole thing as evidenced in his last book the preface to which I quote in the Manifesto. I recommend you read it for an antidote to neoDarwinism. Of course he was in his 90s at the time and undoubtedly senile! salty

Percipient. Evolution was the transformation of life forms from one to the next. Darwinism is an hypothesis which claims to provide the mechanism by which such transformations took place. It is probably the most tested hypothesis in the history of science. It has never been demonstrated. Nevertheless, the Darwinians maintain that it is going on all around us even as I respond to your post. Does this help explain the difference? salty

I notice threads get closed when things don't favor the gradualist camp, which seems to be the only group represented here. I have never seen such a glowing example of GROUPTHINK in my life. You might just as well close this thread also. I'm through trying to communicate with you all. I'm busy writing a paper entitled "Is evolution finished?". Of course it will never be published. The subject title is certainly appropriate - truly incredible. Right on! salty