Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8993 total)
82 online now:
Coragyps, DrJones*, Juvenissun (3 members, 79 visitors)
Newest Member: Juvenissun
Post Volume: Total: 879,206 Year: 10,954/23,288 Month: 206/1,763 Week: 173/390 Day: 62/32 Hour: 1/1

Announcements: Topic abandonment warning (read and/or suffer the consequences)


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   for Mammuthus - you made the big time!
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 20 (35481)
03-27-2003 2:46 PM


Fringe crackpot John A. Davison has this to say on his pal Terry Trainor's laughable 'disussion' board:

quote:
I predict they will ban me at evcforum. They don't handle criticism very well. I'll be darned if I will retire voluntarily. They will have to cut me off. What I can't understand is why they keep going after me. Why not just declare me daft and let it go at that, don't you know? They just can't refrain from getting personal, especially Scott. and some guy in Germany

The bolded parts I found particularly funny.

The projection that this old coot exhibits is phenomenal!


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 2:56 PM derwood has not yet responded
 Message 3 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 4:20 PM derwood has responded
 Message 13 by Mammuthus, posted 03-28-2003 3:20 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 2 of 20 (35483)
03-27-2003 2:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
03-27-2003 2:46 PM


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....


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 2:46 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 4:35 PM derwood has responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 3 of 20 (35495)
03-27-2003 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
03-27-2003 2:46 PM


The bold italics were not mine. This is Scott's doing, I am sure. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 2:46 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 4:42 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 4 of 20 (35496)
03-27-2003 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by derwood
03-27-2003 2:56 PM


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"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 2:56 PM derwood has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 4:45 PM John A. Davison has responded
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 5:38 PM John A. Davison has responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 5 of 20 (35498)
03-27-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by John A. Davison
03-27-2003 4:20 PM


quote:
The bold italics were not mine. This is Scott's doing, I am sure

Why, yes they were. I should have thought that was obvious. But there was no italicization. This is italics, this is bold.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 4:20 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 6 of 20 (35500)
03-27-2003 4:45 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by John A. Davison
03-27-2003 4:35 PM


quote:
I stand on my comments.

Of course you do. that does not make them correct.
quote:

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.


Oh sure. In a handful of special cases.

quote:

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".


I tried to open this latest essay, but when my browser said "done" all I had was a blank screen. Prophetic?

quote:

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"


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.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 5:13 PM derwood has responded
 Message 11 by John A. Davison, posted 03-27-2003 6:26 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6157 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 responded

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

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6157 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. http://www.priory.com/med/xx.htm
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 responded

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

  
Coragyps
Member
Posts: 5522
From: Snyder, Texas, USA
Joined: 11-12-2002
Member Rating: 3.1


Message 9 of 20 (35503)
03-27-2003 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mister Pamboli
03-27-2003 5:38 PM


Re: salty's 'metaphysical' paper
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...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 5:38 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 10 of 20 (35505)
03-27-2003 6:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Mister Pamboli
03-27-2003 5:38 PM


Re: salty's 'metaphysical' paper
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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 5:38 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 11 of 20 (35508)
03-27-2003 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by derwood
03-27-2003 4:45 PM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 4:45 PM derwood has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 8:15 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

  
Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 6157 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 yet responded

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5055 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 13 of 20 (35537)
03-28-2003 3:20 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
03-27-2003 2:46 PM


Do I get a gold statue, make an acceptance speech and get to kiss Halle Berry?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 03-27-2003 2:46 PM derwood has not yet responded

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 456 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 14 of 20 (35595)
03-28-2003 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mister Pamboli
03-27-2003 5:13 PM


Re: viewing salty's doc @ terry's site
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.

Should have tried that. But I am not sure if I want to waste the disc space...


This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mister Pamboli, posted 03-27-2003 5:13 PM Mister Pamboli has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by Peter, posted 04-02-2003 6:52 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 59 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 15 of 20 (36078)
04-02-2003 6:52 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by derwood
03-28-2003 10:06 AM


Re: viewing salty's doc @ terry's site
Unless you've got your cache set to zero you'll use the
disc space anyhow

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by derwood, posted 03-28-2003 10:06 AM derwood has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020