For Salty

Salty writes:I'm still game to take on the opposition. Anytime - anyplace.In the interest of not allowing salty to run around claiming he is unable to voice his opinions, I am starting this thread for salty to attempt (for the first time) to clarify his Semi-Meiotic hypothesis, demonstrate the data that supports it, debate (and I mean debate not just ignore questions and re-iterate refuted points) the mountains of evidence against it, and generally voice whatever opinion he wishes.I post it in the Free for All since none of the salty related subjects in the Evolution forum have stayed on topic for more than a few posts. Thus, in the Free for All we will be doing a "natural selection" experiment. If salty is able to debate his hypothesis in a compelling way, this thread should be lively. If not, it will fade away quickly, being too irrelevant to garner forum members attention....so, take it away salty...good luck.cheers,
M

Hi Taz,
I think there are more than a few of us who want clarification of his hypothesis and his evidence.In fairness to salty, he may not be aware of this thread (if he is even lurking on the forum at all).Could one of the Admin's let him know...then he can decide if he wants to participate.cheers,
M

Hi Scott,
From his Manifesto this seems to be an accurate summary of salty's ideas. The first part of the manifesto largely says nothing as it is just a series of quotes mined from Broom, Berg, et al. with salty's comments about how badly "Darwinism" (which he never defines) explains evolution.When he gets into semi-meiosis it is clear he is trying to establish evolution via hopeful monsters but it is unclear how as you pointed out.One thing that occurred to me while reading it is he makes an artificial distinction between sexually and asexually reproducing organisms in that he seems to indicate that asexually reproducing cannot exchange genetic information. However, bacterial conjugation and other methods of horizontal transfer demonstrate that this is false. Even viruses exchange genetic information.Anyway, if you bump into salty in your forays onto other boards, please indicate to him that his hypothesis is still open for debate here if he wishes.cheers,
M

Hi Taz,
I don't think it is a rate difference salty is arguing. As Scott pointed out, salty thinks the only way for a new species to arise is for a chromosomal rearrangement to occur during meiosis creating a new pre-adaptive phenotype (I assume he implies pre-adaptation given some of his posts regarding fish mutating and then discovering an environment they fit in) which must asexually reproduce until there are enough individuals around to resume sexual reproduction.Thus, at every branch in the primate tree, he would require sexual to asexual to sexual reproduction transitions. Regarding human evolution, he also claims that female humans are very capable of asexual reproduction (I will refrain from jokes about what his may imply for salty's sex life though I am finding it difficult ).

Indeed - there was a thread at Terry The Worm's place in which salty chimed in about Mary giving birth asexually...LOL!!!!!!!!!! Well, by his definition then, jesus was a new species...so salty will have some problems with the bible literalists on Terry's board...either that or the H in Jesus H christ stands for hermaphrodite since he would have had to mass produce himself until the new species was established and sexual reproduction could ensue...hard to test since the sole member of the new putative species was killed

A population of one....which is about the size of the population that accepts the semi-meoitic hypothesis.

Actually, salty has made a return in response to SLPx new thread in the evolution forum. SLPx has indicated that salty has either not actally read some of references he continuously quotes or has distorted them. Salty's response has been..well, typical..go off topic, insult, hero worship etc.However, I have tried to make him aware of this thread.He claims he will be hibernating in the future...perhaps he can get boo boo to steal the rangers picnic basket while he is at it?

Great post Moose.
I think that salty (though he never defined it) has a more esoteric definition of Darwinism. It may be somewhat like Symansu's.Both of them define it as "evil" because it is an unguided process and somehow that makes it immoral....to be honest, from salty's manifesto it is hard to really glean what he means by Darwinsim. It would seem to me as follows,mutation/selection/ and drift have nothing to do with evolution.
Chromosomal rearrangements during meiosis produce novel species within a single generation which reproduce asexually until a population exists and then resume sexual reproduction to weed out the defective individuals. (sort of a combo of process structuralism and saltationism from your list.) Finally, the entire process is designed and guided by a special force or creator which he claims is obvious.To not accept his view in his opinion is immoral.Symansu has a similar idea in that he equates Darwinism and natural selection with social Darwinism as proposed by Galton which was based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of fitness (and which Darwin did not accept). This type of thought equated wealth and other social status attributes of the late 1800's of the elite as representing higher fitness. Galton and his followers were dismayed by the relatively larger size of families of the poor which they felt were swamping out the "more fit" elite...the resultant ideology that developed from this thinking was the eugenics movement...Symansu thus equates Darwinism with eugenics and particularly that practiced by the nazi's.Long ago Tokyojim made a similar argument but added that nobody could say Galton was wrong because it was all faith and not science.Thus, Darwinism to these guys is seen as a social construct and not the scientific defintion at Talk Origins. I think they are not unique in viewing it as such which is why there are so many posts where creationists equate evolution with religion.I personally find Darwinism a fairly useless and vague term because it can and has been defined in so many different ways.cheers
M

M if you had read the manifesto you would realize I already had summed it up. Check the section on the evidence from cytology. I didn't expect you to go to the library. Heaven forbid. Why must you describe yourself as a moron? I'm sure you are at least a cut above that. saltyM: However, you made a sweeping statement about cytology not agreeing with sexual reproduction and evolution. What specifically are you referring to? You are way to vague....I doubt you would appreciate it if in support of one of my points I referred you to Molecular Biology and Evolution vol 11 which contains 12 issues, probably 100 papers, on all sorts of varied subjects. If you could sum it up in the manifesto (whatever the specific point is) then please sum it up for the benefit of myself and anyone else lurking. Thanks in advance.cheers,
M

Retired Service | The University of VermontNot only is he our resident semi-meiotic academic wonder...with your vote (assuming you are from Vermont) he could be governor

Let's sample a bit shall we?"Let me bring you up to date on my political situation. First I didn't get
the requisite (1000) signatures, only about 700. Early in September I had
two rallies, one on the second and a second on the sixteenth. I notified
well in advance all the Newspapers in Vermont of both rallies and sent
flyers as well. Not one paper published the events in their calendars. I
guess I am a little too conservative for the Vermont press. To paraphrase
Hillory Clinton, it would seem that "I am the victim of a vast left-wing
conspiracy". I am confident that if those rallies had been publicized I
would have the needed signatures to put me on the ballot. As it is I will
be a write-in candidate. Don't misunderstand me, I will continue to campaign
for the 2002 election. Quitters never win and winners never quit! "First off, does the quote mining sound familiar?
Second, paranoia i.e. people would take semi-meiosis seriously but Gould, Dawkins, Provine, and the entire EvC forum Darwinist Groupthinkers are holding me down.Third, how did he get even one signature much less 700????? and where can I find these people so that I can sell them some prime real estate in former east Germany cheers,
M

And the debates would have been like a long drive through a landscape painted by Dali.

Amazing...you actually found the thread...I know it must have been difficult.Now then.."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." "M: Lots has been said..please elaborate as to why the various points made are insignificant...particularly the first several posts asked specific questions of you hypothesis so it is hardly insignificant.S: ." 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 paperM: Ummm you make assertions in your papers but provide no evidence and ignore heaps of counter evidence. Other than quoting Russian cytologists out of context how about showing us first evidence and then explaining why it is compelling.S:I proposed further that sexual reproduction is quite incapable of supporting macroevolution (speciation).M: I propose that a pink unicorn is eating Gary Coleman's testicles which makes him cranky...I can"t support that with evidence (other than Gary Coleman often being cranky which is often reported in the Michigan news) ..can you support your above statement with some?S: 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.M: Again, supporting evidence for this assertion, preferably evidence accumalated SINCE Mendel died would be appreciated.S: So evolution joins embryonic development and growth as another self-regulating phenomenon which terminates itself when a suitable end has been reached.M: Studied developmental bio in college...lots of pals work on dev genetics...please explain how it is a self regulating phenomenon which terminates when what end has been reached?S: 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.M: Umm, what does uniformitarianism have to due with DNA as the basis of transmission genetics (of which Darwin and his contemporaries were unaware).S: 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 evolutionM: I see, so you don't accept the basic principles of genetics either...why am I not surprised?...and what the hell is a Darwinian?S: Let me end this response by quoting William Bateson in the above cited paper .M:..let me end this with a response from Socrates..."I drank what?"S: 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. saltyM: Your inablility to support your arguments with anything but assertions should indicate why nobody has shown any respect for your blathering. But you can set it all straight by addressing the rebuttals and questions that came you way in a good faith manner without appeals to dead authorities that you quote often out of context and by not saying look in Volume 1 of the encyclopedia...it is all clear...some of us HAVE read your writings and they are as unclear as your posts.I also find it highly ironic that you claim we should read before we attack when you have shown utter inablility to digest any literature post 1980 on molecular biology which is highly relevant to this discussion...even when it has been spoonfed to you...Please clean up your act and make an honest attempt to somehow re-attain some level of academic integrity.

"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. "M: It appears on this board that you are unable to communicate with religious posters either i.e. truthlover.And were you not the one who objected to people resorting to denigrating others when their arugments "failed"? Your first sentence makes you a hypocrite..so chock up another personality defect among the litany that you possess.S: I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe.M: Yes, the "academic" narcoleptics over at Terry's board will surely not question anything you say since it is hard to walk on your knuckles and type at the same time...but since you mention that design is everywhere, please give an example with supporting evidence that it has been designed...if you do it will be the first ever..nice little academic challenge for you.S: So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum.M: Hmmm you failed to support your own hypothesis with anything but evasion, insult, an quote mining, you did not address a single rebuttal to your hypothesis from anyone...wow, what a triumph! but then you seem to be proud of having lost your academic position having faded into the irrelvance of Terry Trainor's board and consider that a triumph to...convenient..you lose but you say you win S: When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly.M: I have not described him as a worm...so now you have identified yourself as a poor fact checker....I don't think Terry is a worm at all...worms are actually useful organisms.S: You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots.M: At least we are intellectuals (some of the time )...you seem to be treading water in the academic kiddy pool.And now that you got your little rant out of the wayPlease show
1) evidence that any biological system has been designed by a designer of your choice
2) present the testable hypothesis for this designer and particularly, how that hypothesis could be falsified
3) How the semi-meiotic hypothesis fits in with ID
4) What would falsify the semi-meiotic hypothesisshould be easy...and it is not anywhere in your manifesto..cheers,
M

"There is no need to provide evidence for a designer as it is manifest everywhere. "M: There is no need to provide evidence that an invisible four assed monkey magically steals a sock out of the laundry at regular interval as it is manifest everywhere....this is the equivalent of your logic or rather lack thereof.If it is manifest everywhere, you should be able to provide an explicit example of design..your evasion of this suggests you cannot.S: It is a mistake for ID proponents to even debate guys like Dawkins.M: Yes, because they end up looking like the fools that they are.S: If you can believe Dawkins you can believe anything.M: No, nobody believes you.S: As for falsification of the semi-meiotic hypothesis, it sure can't be falsified as long as it is ignored.M: Then get cracking man..you are not getting any younger and the data is not accumulating by itself.S: As for a designer, I have simply asked the question "Has evolution been guided".M: Show how this is testable and falsifiable as I asked or just admit that it is based purely on irrational fundamentalist religious views.S: My opinion for what it is worth is that it has been guided with H. sapiens as the ultimate product.M: Your opinion is worth little as you have not or can not support it with fact and there is an enormous body of counter evidence.S: Don't expect me to provide evidence that does not exist.M: LOL!!!!!!!! Why the hell should anyone take you seriously when statements like this come from you...paraphrased "believe what I say without any evidence of my being correct or even knowing what I am talking about"....Drink a case of beer and you won't get drunk salty...but don't expect me to provide any evidence that this is true..at least not until the weekend S: Others have provided tons of evidence that chance never had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny.M. others have provided tons have they? How about sharing some of this tons of "evidence"? Or do you mean the baseless musings of other cranks and creationists..and creationst cranks?S: You and others on this forum have simply been reading the wrong literature.M: Actually, most of the evolutionists on this board are familiar with most of the common creationist arguments whereas most of the creationists (you included) are completely ignorant with regards to what evolution is...the reading deficit is entirely on your side salty...that is the one piece of evidence you HAVE provided on this forum.cheers,
M