What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'

I refer you to my last post and to my home page for a further clarification of the semi-meiotic hypothesis. Retired Service | The University of Vermont

I am not very proficient with computers so I am unable to reproduce something on this forum. salty

Thanks for the information. I don't know of any work with darters as they have a pretty special habitat. My own view is that having lost the swim bladder, they discovered the rapidly flowing stream. I don't see it as a gradual adaptation to the stream environment. But that shouldn't surprise anyone as I don't have much truck with natural selection anyway. After all, the most intensive forms of artificial selection have yielded nothing which could be called a new species. Besides, how can that which was created become the creator? salty

Apparently everything is Natural Selection. salty

Scott, you are largely correct. What I have suggested is a strong parallel betwee ontogeny and phylogeny. No one questions that all the information necessary to produce a unique human being is present in the fertilized egg. I have simply made the same suggestion about phylogeny. This puts a whole new interpretation on what has been called convergent evolution. Similar but unrelated forms like saber toothed placental and marsupial cats were simply employing the same preformed blueprints. I realize this requires a programmer and accept that requirement as part of my evolutionary perspective. The problem of the mate is not nearly as serious as one might expect. Gynogenetically produced frogs can be of both sexes and perfectly fertile. Also the male chromosome in primates seems to exhibit little or no structural homology while the female (X) chromosome remains very stable at least in ourselves and our close primate relatives. We are dealing with the age old problem of whether there has been guidance in evolution. I am convinced that there has been and agree completely with Leo Berg "There is no room for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny". As for Darwinian gradualism Berg quoted Thomas Henry Huxley in the frontispiece of his Book "Nomogenesis or evolution according to law". "Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed". Pretty slow suicide but suicide nevertheless. salty

I certainly don't agree with everything Berg postulated. Nevertheless, I cannot understand how chance can produce anything. I will be happy to abandon a creator and all that that implies as soon as that becomes necessary.. In the meantime it gives me pleasure to believe as I do. Forgive me for my weaknesses. salty

Crashfrog. Do you actually give any credence to Dawkins? I am convinced he is a charlatan. As for the probability of chance doing anything in this world, I don't think it is zero, I think it is more like negative infinity. salty

Dude, I taught quantitative biology for 30 years so don't get flip with me as I don't appreciate it. I was only trying to make a point. I don't believe that natural selection had (past tense) anything to do with evolution except to get rid of the defectives. The forces that have produced new life forms have always been mysteries. I agree with Henry Fairfield Osborn and others who saw no role for chance in evolution. The position taken by Dawkins is precisely what one is forced to accept when a role for purpose is denied. It is insane to deny intelligent design. It is everywhere in the living world. Darwinism then and now is nothing more than attempt to control the way man views his place in the universe. It is atheism versus theism pure and simple. I belong to the latter camp. Sorry but that is the way I see it. salty

I won't give natural selection any credit for anything. Most animals are killed because they happen to be in the wrong place at the right time. Natural selection is a meaningless concept at best. It explains nothing. salty

Percy, that is fine to the extent it may occur, but it will never lead to a new species. The fact is that for humans at least we are defintely accumulating deleterious mutations due to the effect of modern medicine. I still feel that sexual reproduction is not very effective in getting rid of deleterious mutations. That is especially true for large organisms that leave relatively few progeny and accordingly offer little opportunity for selection to eliminate only the defectives. Large organisms have been particularly vulnerable to extinction. Many living fossils are small and produce huge numbers of progeny thereby insuring that some of them will be genetically fit. The oyster is a good example. I don't expect much agreement on this either. salty

Your statements indicate you have not considered the semi-meiotic hypothesis in detail. The female genome is capable of producing both sexes in many organisms including some vertebrates. I refer you to the work of Nace and others with frogs which I discuss in the Manifesto. I cannot imagine any hypothesis for evolution which is more lacking in demonstrable substance than Darwinian gradualism. To me it is obvious that evolution has somehow been guided toward man as the ultimate product as Robert Broom has suggested. salty

In private correspondence Lima-de-Faria disagreed with me on the role of a Creator. That is to be expected. His "Evolution without selection" failed to get to the heart of the matter. My science has driven me to my beliefs. I also don't think you can speak for Berg or Schindewolf and certainly not Grasse who specifically mentions God. I am convinced that chance had nothing to do with evolution any more than it plays a role in ontogeny. Those were Berg's words. If not chance then what? I don't think Berg was in any way influenced by political considerations. He was being very sincere. The issues here are age old and have to do with our view of the world. I believe, largely as a result of my laboratory experiences, that a great intelligence has produced all the world, both physical and biological. I am equally certain that Berg, Broom, Grasse, Schindewolf, Bateson and Goldschmidt would agree, especially now that the enormous complexity of the cellular machine has been revealed. However, these issues will never be resolved by debate. salty

I did not refer to Godless evolutionists. I believe it was Godless Darwinian gradualists. There have been other evolutionists who believed in directed evolution but few have had the courage to come out with it in print. Robert Broom certainly did and I am sure Behe and Dembski and other IDists also believe in directed evolution but tend to avoid the direct commitment. The word evolution is not synonymous with Darwinism although one might think so judging from some of the responses I have elicited. salty

P. your response speaks volumes. Darwinism is evolution? Why of course it is! salty

Trust me crashfrog - I WAS being sarcastic! salty