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!
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"
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 But as usual, salty quotes references which are well out of date and shows no sign of keeping up with current research.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!
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
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
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]
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...