keeping my word for Salty

In the other slaty thread, I had mentioned that I might forward some of Davison's more ludicrous claims to experts to ilicit their views on salty's claims.Then I decided that it would be a waste of time. OutofDate then wrote:"I take it then Scott that you are afraid to solicit opinions from those you regard as experts. Once again, you fail to keep your word. salty "I heard from Dr.James Crow, well known population geneticist and with little artgument, an expert on the issue.His reply:

quote:

---

As for population genetics, I think it is important and in
fact is at the center of our current understanding of evolution. Of
course, evolution as a historical occurrence was quite well
established before population genetics became established, ca 1930.
If you regard evolution as the history of form and function,
population genetics has played a relatively minor role. But if you
ask about the mechanisms of evolution, population genetics has been
most important.

​

Population genetics, building on the foundation of Mendelian
heredity, has provided a quantitative theory of how natural
selection, mutation, random drift, and population structure determine
how evolutionary changes occur. Recently, population genetics along
with molecular biology has demonstrated the way evolution occurs at
the nucleotide level.

​

In short, I disagree with Dr. Davison. Contrary to what he
says, I believe (along with most evolutionists) that population
genetics has provided the mechanistic basis for evolutionary change.
Therefore, rather than being irrelevant, it is at the center of
current evolutionary theory.

---

'Nuff said, "salty"....

What baloney.Salty claimed that I was "afraid" to solicit opinions from experts regarding his claims.I got one.What is so terrible about posting it?How is that bashing?

What an incompetent fool...Go back to ARN, I think one non-scientist creationist idiot actually thinks you are onto something...

What went too far?Doing what OoutofDate I was "afraid" to do?

Much clearer.I strongly agree with wj that not responding - and not just to OutofDate - can easily be seen by lurkers and other readers as an "admission" that there is no response. I have even seen this sort of thing in board cross talk - a creationist posts some drivel on one board and it gets ignored, then he goes to another board to brag about how the "evos" couldn't give an answer. That is exactly how Borger, for example, interpreted the lack of response to those emails he had sent some author (whom I forget now), and I have little doubt that is how some would see it if salty's diatribes went without rebuttal.I agree with Mam that it is easy - and occurs too often - to derail productive threads. Can't the mods just re-direct such posts?

quote:

---

What produces a chimp or a human probably has very little to do with their respective DNAs which indeed are virtually identical. More likely, the differences result from chromosomal restructuring of identical genetic loci as first suggested by Goldschmidt. It was considerations like these that led me to postulate the semi-meiotic hypothesis

---

Goldschmidt has an excuse - developmental genes and non-developmental genes that affect development were largely unknown in his day. He died decades before it was discovered, for example, that a single point mutation in the FGF-3 receptor can cause achondroplasia.Others, writing at a time in which such things are known, do not have such an excuse.