Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
65 online now:
Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK (2 members, 63 visitors)
Newest Member: MidwestPaul
Post Volume: Total: 893,277 Year: 4,389/6,534 Month: 603/900 Week: 127/182 Day: 7/27 Hour: 0/4

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   keeping my word for Salty
derwood
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 1 of 19 (40586)
05-18-2003 4:21 PM


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"....


Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by AdminTC, posted 05-19-2003 11:49 PM derwood has taken no action

  
AdminTC
Inactive Junior Member


Message 2 of 19 (40707)
05-19-2003 11:49 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by derwood
05-18-2003 4:21 PM


Has the condition of salty's credibility not been substantiated enough?

-AdminTC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by derwood, posted 05-18-2003 4:21 PM derwood has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Adminnemooseus, posted 05-20-2003 12:58 AM AdminTC has taken no action

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3959
Joined: 09-26-2002
Member Rating: 5.8


Message 3 of 19 (40711)
05-20-2003 12:58 AM
Reply to: Message 2 by AdminTC
05-19-2003 11:49 PM


I second that thought, AdminTC. I say, let the Salty bashing cease.

Adminnemooseus


This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by AdminTC, posted 05-19-2003 11:49 PM AdminTC has taken no action

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 4 of 19 (40759)
05-20-2003 12:10 PM


Salty bashing???
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?


Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-20-2003 1:46 PM derwood has taken no action
 Message 8 by AdminTC, posted 05-20-2003 9:26 PM derwood has taken no action

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20761
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 5 of 19 (40766)
05-20-2003 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
05-20-2003 12:10 PM


Re: Salty bashing???
There can be no pride in pounding on someone already so battered and bloody, no matter that he doesn't seem to realize how beat up he is.

Or another way to look at it, there seems little point in continuing to blaze away at someone who obviously no longer has his wits about him. He's probably just a lonely old man craving attention and relief from boredom. You should feel sorry for him. He tries to make it seem like his avoidance of discussion of his ideas is just a debate tactic, but clearly he has lost the ability to engage in meaningful discussion. I think he's merely parrotting ideas and terminology burned into his mind during his adademic career, but which he's no longer capable of examining critically or even describing. No one takes him seriously - let him be.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 05-20-2003 12:10 PM derwood has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by John A. Davison, posted 05-20-2003 3:15 PM Percy has taken no action

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended Member


Message 6 of 19 (40775)
05-20-2003 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by Percy
05-20-2003 1:46 PM


Re: Salty bashing???
Dear P. I took genetics with Jim Crow in 1948 at the University of Wisconsin, so I am sure he is even older than old senile me. The simple fact is that Mendelism (sexual genetics) never had anything to do with evolution except to bring it to a screeching halt. Bateson realized that in 1924 as I pointed out in my 1993 paper which I recommend you all read. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Percy, posted 05-20-2003 1:46 PM Percy has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by derwood, posted 05-20-2003 7:06 PM John A. Davison has taken no action

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 7 of 19 (40813)
05-20-2003 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by John A. Davison
05-20-2003 3:15 PM


Re: Salty bashing???
What an incompetent fool...

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


This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by John A. Davison, posted 05-20-2003 3:15 PM John A. Davison has taken no action

  
AdminTC
Inactive Junior Member


Message 8 of 19 (40835)
05-20-2003 9:26 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by derwood
05-20-2003 12:10 PM


Re: Salty bashing???
quote:

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?



--Well, its 'bashing' because you continually hit him in the face with something else he may not know(or want to know, for all I am aware of) around every corner. It seems that whenever salty makes a comment, some of our evcforum participants are right there to show him up--with considerable and even caustic force. I know it has been exceedingly enjoyable for some of you, but really when will it end? What will quench your thirst, or must we continue poking fun and charring salty's carcass? As an admin of the board and from my readings of his posts I must say it has been well substantiated that he well lives up to his name--he irritates. What good is reasoning with the unreasonable?

--The last thing I wish to do is exercise my (and the other admin's) authoritative hands on your participation at this forum. You have many intelligent things to say and I know that from first hand experience with discussing various topics with you. But I think it is time we let the ignorant be ignorant and move on. If there is one attribute salty lacks which doesn't agree with his name is preserve the integrity of this forum. Certainly that last thing we would want to do is lower ourselves to that level by bickering with him?

--AdminTC

[This message has been edited by AdminTC, 05-20-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by derwood, posted 05-20-2003 12:10 PM derwood has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-21-2003 4:12 AM AdminTC has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5713 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 9 of 19 (40854)
05-21-2003 4:12 AM
Reply to: Message 8 by AdminTC
05-20-2003 9:26 PM


Re: Salty bashing???
Hi AdminTC

Ok, this post was fairly convincing that things have gone to far..and I am one of the key perpetrators....I will desist from posting to or about salty. Actually I will qualify that. If there is a scientific reason to talk about something salty says, has said, or has written I will bring it up but will refrain from antagonizing the man...As Percipient points out...it is becoming a bit like beating up someones senile grandfather for kicks ...Though I ask the Admin's to please help insure that he does not derail threads in the other forums as my attempt to get him to stay in the Free for All did not work for long.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by AdminTC, posted 05-20-2003 9:26 PM AdminTC has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by derwood, posted 05-21-2003 4:51 PM Mammuthus has taken no action
 Message 12 by AdminTC, posted 05-21-2003 5:08 PM Mammuthus has taken no action
 Message 13 by wj, posted 05-21-2003 8:10 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8968
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 10 of 19 (40897)
05-21-2003 12:42 PM


CBC radio again
This Week on Quirks & Quarks we are calling our feature item,

"The Procreation Paradox: Why We Have Sex."

Birds do it, bees do it, heaven knows that we do it - but nobody really
knows why. Sex is central to almost all life on the planet. But for
biologists, why we have sex remains a big mystery. The answer may seem
obvious - but in fact, there are other perfectly viable ways to
reproduce without sex. So scientists are searching for the reasons why
the majority of animals and plants do it.

Plus - the ABC's of BSE ....

All this and more on Quirks & Quarks, Saturday right after the noon
news on Radio One.

Bob McDonald
Host

--
Quirks & Quarks, CBC Radio One
Saturdays at 12:06 p.m.
online at http://cbc.ca/quirks

____

Quirks & Quarks, CBC Radio One
Saturdays at 12:06
online at http://cbc.ca/quirks _______________________________________________
Science mailing list
Science@interact.cbc.ca http://interact.cbc.ca/mailman/listinfo.cgi/science


  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 11 of 19 (40916)
05-21-2003 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
05-21-2003 4:12 AM


Re: Salty bashing???
What went too far?

Doing what OoutofDate I was "afraid" to do?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-21-2003 4:12 AM Mammuthus has taken no action

  
AdminTC
Inactive Junior Member


Message 12 of 19 (40922)
05-21-2003 5:08 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
05-21-2003 4:12 AM


Re: Salty bashing???
quote:

Ok, this post was fairly convincing that things have gone to far..and I am one of the key perpetrators....I will desist from posting to or about salty. Actually I will qualify that. If there is a scientific reason to talk about something salty says, has said, or has written I will bring it up but will refrain from antagonizing the man...As Percipient points out...it is becoming a bit like beating up someones senile grandfather for kicks ...Though I ask the Admin's to please help insure that he does not derail threads in the other forums as my attempt to get him to stay in the Free for All did not work for long.


--Thank you for your stand Mammuthus. I will try not to just attack those that salty has provoked to engage in the regular unworthful battle tactics. I and the other admins will certainly try to give salty the boot when the content of his posts asks for it.

--AdminTC


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-21-2003 4:12 AM Mammuthus has taken no action

  
wj
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 19 (40940)
05-21-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Mammuthus
05-21-2003 4:12 AM


Re: Salty bashing???
I disagree that things have gone "too far". The initial message of this thread is a substantive response to a challenge issued by salty. The response meets salty's challenge. How can this be interpreted as salty-bashing? If administration is prepared to tolerate salty's continued empty posts and not delete something such as salty's initial challenge, why castigate the respondent who gives the substantive response. That is the purpose of the board, isn't it?

I feel it completely appropriate to point out that salty has presented nothing of substance each time he posts his personal, unsupported view about Darwinian evolution. His response on this thread is a typical example. If salty feels that he can dish it out, and administration is prepared to tolerate this because it demonstrates the absence of his supporting evidence and deprives salty of sustenance for his martyr complex, then others should be free to respond in kind.

I also think it is appropriate that salty's future assertions be bashed with substantive responses, not in the forlorn hope of convincing salty of the error of his ways but to demonstrate to the interested readers that salty's arguments have been rebutted. To suggest that salty not be responded to may give the impression to the interested reader that salty's arguments cannot be rebutted. This would be a most unfortunate impression and a disservice to the interested reader.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Mammuthus, posted 05-21-2003 4:12 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 05-22-2003 4:56 AM wj has replied

  
Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 5713 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 14 of 19 (40976)
05-22-2003 4:56 AM
Reply to: Message 13 by wj
05-21-2003 8:10 PM


Clarification for SLPx and wj
To SLPx and wj,

First let me clarify that I do not think that SLPx went too far. I also think that Scott's post regarding Crow is not bashing but is an excellent post.

By going to far I am referring to the Free for All atmosphere that is occurring in the Evolution forum. I specifically made a link in the Free for All called for Salty so that he could post his nonsense and we could with little inhibition either address any serious debate if it came up (it never materialized) or let the thread become a joke..which it did. That was fine. salty seemed content that anyone was interacting with him at all, we had some fun and more importantly, the Evolution forums did not get sidetracked with crap.

I find it incredibly annoying that we get a new member in Phospholipid who starts a very active thread getting multiple members to write substantive and interesting posts only to have it completely derailed by salty with his "Grasse would share a sandwich with me because I don't believe in sex or evolution" bull that he has been spouting since he got here.

I am trying to find a way of bypassing this junk in the serious forums by bumping or asking Admin's to keep salty from dragging good threads into the toilet.

I personally was jumping down salty's throat after every post he made and basically trying to point out to him that I think he is a fool....that is what I mean by going to far..and that is what I indicated to TC that I will refrain from.

Hope this makes my point a bit more clear.

cheers,
M


This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by wj, posted 05-21-2003 8:10 PM wj has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by derwood, posted 05-22-2003 10:25 AM Mammuthus has replied
 Message 17 by wj, posted 05-22-2003 8:33 PM Mammuthus has replied

  
derwood
Member (Idle past 1114 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 15 of 19 (41004)
05-22-2003 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 14 by Mammuthus
05-22-2003 4:56 AM


Re: Clarification for SLPx and wj
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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Mammuthus, posted 05-22-2003 4:56 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by Mammuthus, posted 05-22-2003 10:45 AM derwood has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022