For Salty

None of what you have all said is of any significance whatsoever. I can only conclude that you have not read my papers, especially "Evolution as a self-limiting process." In it I present compelling evidence that there is no universal mechanism for sex determination indicating that sex has evolved many times independently an idea first proposed by the Russian cytologist Vorontsov whom I quoted in an earlier paper. I proposed further that sexual reproduction is quite incapable of supporting macroevolution (speciation). Indeed, its primary role seems to be to stabilize species and to allow the sort of small scale adaptation for which Mendelian recombination is well suited. So evolution joins embryonic development and growth as another self-regulating phenomenon which terminates itself when a suitable end has been reached. The major difficulties faced by the sexual model are due to the blind acceptance by Darwin and his followers of Lyell's Principle of Uniformitarianism. It then degenerated even further when the Darwnians embraced Mendelian (sexual) genetics. Thus just as Aristotle inhibited the growth of Physics so have Lyell and Mendel done the same for our understanding of the mechanism of organic evolution. Let me end this response by quoting William Bateson in the above cited paper ."By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general."Since my offerings have been banned at the main site of this forum I hope this will leave you with a better understanding of why I have no respect for this forum. You all really should read before you attack. salty

Evolution is finished because sexual reproduction cannot support macroevolution. I have summarized this evidence in my papers especially, "Evolution as a self-limiting process" If you could or would read you would understand why none of what you have said has any meaning whatsoever. salty

I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe. So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum. When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly. You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots. salty

I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe. So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum. When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly. You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots. salty

Right on Q. Remember William Bateson "Treasure your exceptions". salty

There is no need to provide evidence for a designer as it is manifest everywhere. It is a mistake for ID proponents to even debate guys like Dawkins. If you can believe Dawkins you can believe anything. As for falsification of the semi-meiotic hypothesis, it sure can't be falsified as long as it is ignored. Darwinian gradualism has been falsified so many times that it is now accepted to be true. As for a designer, I have simply asked the question "Has evolution been guided". My opinion for what it is worth is that it has been guided with H. sapiens as the ultimate product. Don't expect me to provide evidence that does not exist. Others have provided tons of evidence that chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. You and others on this forum have simply been reading the wrong literature. salty

It is obvious to me and should be to others that you reject my fundamental assumptions which are 1. Macroevolution (speciation) is no longer in progress. 2. Sexual reproduction prevents rather than promotes macroevolution. 3. There is no room for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. 4. Intelligent Design is obvious everywhere in nature. I see no reason to defend that which to me and to any serious student of evolution should be obvious. Oh yes I forgot number 5. Population genetics has nothing to do with evolution. salty

I see the administration still caters to the mindless ravings of Scott Page. What better proof does one need of the soundness of my position. salty

Scott. What is ARN? I need all the help I can muster. salty

Q you get an A salty

M that is a pretty pathetic showing. I guess the truth must be getting to you finally. salty

Of course I accept the evidence that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. All mammals evolved from terrestrial mammals, probably insectivores. Thanks for the reference. salty

Guess who is off topic now. If you had read my papers, you might know that I have postulated an intermediate evolutionary period in which organisms might simultaneously reproduce both semi-meiotically and sexually. Curiously, there is some evidence for this in humans. Certain ovarian tumors consist chiefly of the ectodermal tissues hair and teeth. Occasionally tumors are found some of which are blond and some brunette in the same female. These can only be explained semi-meiotically with the woman being heterozygous for hair color. Now M, take this idiotic notion and have a ball with it. salty

Scott, if I understand you, you are no longer certain that I am completely incompetent and now find it necessary to solicit the opinions of experts in the evolution field? Which experts do you have in mind? I checked out http://www.arn.org and sure enough my work has aroused some interest there. I find it very revealing that you must denigrate Bertha. She seems pretty rational to me. By the way an expert is nothing more than someone who has convinced others that his judgement is superior to theirs. Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Futuyama and Provine come to mind. A few years ago I had correspondence with Ernst Mayr which terminated when he reminded me of how many thousands of words he had written on the subject of evolution. At least he responded which is more than I can say for Gould down the hall. I predict you will get very little response from any real students of evolution. Please proceed as I am a born experimentalist and look forward to your findings.

Nice try M but the fact remains that the only way a blond and brunette teratoma could occur in a single female is if the tumors were produced semi-meiotically. Of course there are no walking talking semi-meiotic products. Don't you yet realize that macroevolution (semi-meiotic evolution) is finished? Once again you demonstrate that you have not read or comprehended, probably because you choose not to. salty