Dr Page's best example of common descent explained from the GUToB.

My prescription was finally filled...

From my previous message:

quote:

---

SLPx, congratulations on keeping calm in this situation, and not letting Salty drag you down into objectionable behaviour.

​

Adminnemooseus

---

My intent of that message was most sincere.Moderation actions towards those such as Salty, is easier when those opposing Salty et all, are of good behaviour.Cheers,
Adminnemooseus

Don't take my word for anything. Go to the Manifesto and see what M.J.D. White had to say about the orgin of chromosome restructurings. In substance he said they were not produced sexually. Of course White is dead so he doesn't matter any more. I stand firmly on everything I have published on evolution including the following. Macroevolution is finished (Grasse, Berg, Davison). Sexual reproduction is incapable of macroevolution (Burbank, White, Bateson, Davison). Individuals, not populations, are the fundamental elements of all macroevolutionary change (Schindewolf, Broom, Davison). Micromutations have nothing to do with evolution beyond subspeciation (Goldschmidt, Grasse, Davison). You people (since no one here agrees with me) have simply been reading the wrong literature. I recommend the bibliography of the Manifesto for starters. Of course you would have to go to the library and probably even use interlibrary loan to realize that I am simply the most recent contributor to a long line of enlightened scholars who have exposed the complete bankruptcy of the neoDarwinian fable. My greatest crime was of course to actually substitute an alternative hypothesis, one which recognizes the real facts from cytology, taxonomy, developmental biology and paleontology. salty

Excuse me, I meant to say Broom not Berg on who believed macroevolution was finished. Also I am sure I left out a lot of what I believe about evolution. I recommend the Preface to the Manifesto for a more complete list. salty

I confess to perhaps playing a little fast and loose with those terms. I apologize, but I do believe that the scientifically accepted ToE includes evolution through random, heritable variation sorted through natural selection. Which would be the Darwinist view, no?You still haven't explained why a sufficient number of microevolutionary changes couldn't add up to a macroevolutionary change. And I think you ignore that individuals can't evolve, only populations can. (Individuals evolving would be the Lamarkian view.) Evolution is an emergent property of populations as a result of individuals reproducing with differetiated success. What do you see as fundamentally wrong with this statement?

It is typical neoDarwinian pablum. I don't buy any of it. The individual is where genetic changes occur. Are you going to suggest that just before the last Tasmanian tiger died in a zoo that he had lost his identity as a species because there was only one of him? Come on. Let's get serious. salty

It is typical neoDarwinian pablum. I don't buy any of it. The individual is where genetic changes occur. Are you going to suggest that just before the last Tasmanian tiger died in a zoo that he had lost his identity as a species because there was only one of him? Come on. Let's get serious. salty

quote:

---

Are you going to suggest that just before the last Tasmanian tiger died in a zoo that he had lost his identity as a species because there was only one of him?

---

And this seems to be the level of argument that your manifesto consists of. Ridiculous!

Let's talk a little bit about YOUR assertions shall we? You assert that macroevolution is still occurring. You claim that natural selection can produce new species. You claim that sexual reproduction is the mechanism for the production of new species. You claim that macroevolution is simply an extension of microevolution (subspeciation). You claim that chance is the basis for genetic change and extend that notion to include macroevolution. Not one of these assertions has ever received a scintilla of support. My assertions have all rested either on documentable fact or on the reasoned views of some pretty distinguished critics of the darwinian myth. They include Bateson, Berg, Broom, Grasse, Goldschmidt, Punnett, Julian Huxley (can you believe it?) and the greatest paleontologist of his day, Otto Schindewolf. One of the most telling exposures of the Darwinian myth is revealed in the complete reciprocal accord that Goldschmidt had with Schindewolf. So you see it is you whose repeated assertions are without merit. Mine are either based on solid biological reality or on the reasoned conclusions of some pretty impressive scientists. salty

You seem to ignore evidence posted. Do you have specific comments on it?

It is my evidence that is being ignored and I am getting a little tired of it all. salty

What evidence is that, salty? You have provided no evidence, only assertions. I have asked very specific questions about how this hypothesis of yours would work in mammals, specifically in the evolution of dogs. You merely reasserted some of your earlier assertions. This is much like arguing with a little kid who can only say "Is so! Is so!"If I were to adopt your technique of argumentation, it would look something like this:(See Message 178 in this thread). Evolutionary (species and higher categories) changes often take millions of years. The known mutation rates and the known age of the earth back up gradual speciation. The semi-meiotic hypothesis prediction of instant evolution has no evidence to back it up. I stick to my guns. Macroevolution is occurring today at the same rate it always has. These are reasoned conclusions based on the fossil record and known mutation rates. I have far more confidence in Darwin, Fisher, Haldane, and especially Mayr. They would all agree with me, as would over 300 guys named Steve (from Project Steve). If the number of scientists who support one’s position is any indicator, as you seem to believe, I have already won this argument. You are chasing a phantom. Sorry, but that is my position.Then, no matter what your response, I would just reassert my position or use a flippant one liner while once again invoking the names of Darwin, Fisher, Haldane, and Mayr.FK

Of course you are correct. The majority has always determined the truth in science, Ever since Aristotle. salty

I must say I am impressed. Instead of the predicted flippant one-liner, you went whole hog and provided a flippant two-liner. I feel very special indeed. I can see why you might have had trouble at the university if this is the way you normally defended your ideas.I am through with you salty. Any time you want to address the specific questions I asked you and carry on a rational sort of dialogue like a real scientist might, we can pick this back up. Until then, Happy Assertions!FK

quote:

---

I recommend the bibliography of the Manifesto for starters.

---

OK. Here it is:

quote:

---

ANDREWS, P. (1987) Aspects of hominid phylogeny.
In: Colin Patterson (ed.), Molecules and Morphology in Evolution.
Conflict or Compromise? Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

​

BATESON, W. (1894) Materials for the Study of Variation.
Macmillan and Co., New York.

​

BATESON, W. (1913) Problems of Genetics.
Yale University Press, Cambridge.

​

BERG, L. (1969) Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law.
M.I.T. Press, Cambridge. (Original Russian edition 1922.)

​

BROOM, R. (1932) Evolution as the paleontologist sees it.
South African Journal of Science, 29: 54-71.

​

BROOM, R. (1933) Evolution -- Is there intelligence behind it?
South African Journal of Science, 30: 1-19.

​

BROOM, R. (1933) The Coming of Man. H.F. and G. Witherby, London.

​

BROOM, R. (1951) Finding the Missing Link. Watts, London.

​

BULL, J.J. (1983) Evolution of Sex Determining Mechanisms.
Benjamin Cummings, Menlo Park.

​

BURBANK, L. (1939) Partner of Nature.
D. Appleton-Century Co., New York.

​

CLEVELAND, L.R. (1947) The origin and evolution of meiosis.
Science, 105: 287-289.

​

DARWIN, C. (1896) The Origin of Species by Means of
Natural Selection. D. Appleton, New York.

​

DAVISON, J.A. (1961) A study of spotting patterns in the leopard
frog. 1. Effect of gene dosage. J. Heredity, 52: 301-304.

​

DAVISON, J.A. (1984) Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism.
J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735.

​

DAVISON, J.A. (1987) Semi-meiosis and evolution: a response.
J. Theor. Biol., 126: 379-381.

​

DAVISON, J.A. (1993) The blind alley: Its significance for
evolutionary theory. Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum),
86: 101-110.

​

DAVISON, J.A. (1998) Evolution as a self-limiting process.
Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), 91: 199-220.

​

DAWKINS, R. (1976) The Selfish Gene. Oxford University Press.

​

DAWKINS, R. (1986) The Blind Watchmaker. W.W. Norton, New York.

​

DAWKINS, R. (1996) Climbing Mount Improbable. W.W. Norton, New York.

​

DUNN, L.C. (1965) A Short History of Genetics: The Development of Some
of the Main Lines of Thought, 1864-1939. McGraw-Hill, New York.

​

FEYNMAN, R.P. (1998) The Meaning of It All: Thoughts of a
Citizen Scientist. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Massachusetts.

​

GOLDSCHMIDT, R.B. (1940) The Material Basis of Evolution.
Yale University Press, New Haven.

​

GOULD, S.J. (1996) Full House: The Spread of Excellence from Plato
to Darwin. Harmony Books, New York.

​

GRANT, P.R. & GRANT, B.R. (1994) Phenotypic and genetic effects of
hybridization in Darwin's finches. Evolution, 48: 297-316.

​

GRASS, P. (1977) Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence
for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York.
(Original French edition 1973.)

​

HUXLEY, J. (1942) Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.
Harper, New York and London.

​

KOESTLER, A. (1971) The Case of the Midwife Toad.
Random House, New York.

​

LINDSLEY, D.L., FANKHAUSER, G. & HUMPHREY, R.R. (1956)
Mapping centromeres in the axolotl. Genetics, 41: 38-64.

​

MAYR, E. (1982) The Growth of Biological Thought.
Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.

​

NACE, G.W. & RICHARDS, C.M. (1969) Development of biologically
defined strains of amphibians. In: Merle Mizell (ed.), Biology
of Amphibian Tumors. Springer-Verlag, New York-Heidelberg-Berlin.

​

NIEUWKOOP, P.D. & SUTASURYA, L.A. (1979) Primordial Germ Cells in
the Chordates. Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge.

​

OLSEN, M.W. (1961) Segregation and replication of chromosomes in
turkey parthenogenesis. Nature, 212: 435-436.

​

PETRUNKEVITCH, A. (1952) Macroevolution and the fossil record of
Arachnida. Amer. Sci., 40: 99-122.

​

PUNNETT, R.C. (1915) Mimicry in Butterflies.
University Press, Cambridge.

​

SCHINDEWOLF, O. (1993) Basic questions in paleontology.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (Original German edition 1950.)

​

SHARP, R.G. (1914) Diplodinium ecaudatum, with an account of its
neuromotor apparatus. University of California Publications in
Zoology, 13: 43-123.

​

VORONTSOV, N.N. (1973) The evolution of the sex chromosomes.
In: A.B. Chiarelli & E. Capanna (eds.), Cytotaxonomy and
Vertebrate Evolution. Academic Press, New York.

​

WALLACE, A.R. (1911) The World of Life; A Manifestation
of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose.
Moffat Yard and Co., New York.

​

WEISMANN, A. (1891) Essays upon Heredity and Kindred Biological
Problems. Clarendon Press, Oxford.

​

WHITE, M.J.D. (1973) Animal Cytology and Evolution.
Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, New York.

​

WILSON, E.B. (1925) The Cell in Development and Heredity.
Macmillan, New York.

​

WINGE, O. (1950) Inheritance in Dogs: with Special Reference to
Hunting Breeds. Comstock Publ. Co., Ithaca, New York.

​

WITSCHI, E (1956) Development of Vertebrates.
W.B. Saunders, Philadelphia.

​

YUNIS, J.J. & PRAKASH, O. (1982) The origin of man: A chromosomal
pictorial legacy. Science, 215: 1525-1530.

---

Now, salty said we are all reading the 'wrong' literature. Take a look at his references.
Take a look at the dates. Find the references that are experimental (or observational) science publications (as opposed to popular press books). The most recent such article appears to be the Grant and Grant (1994) paper, in which observations of Darwin’s finches are explained in detail.
The most recent research paper dealing with molecular evidence (chromosomes) appears to be the Yunis and Prakash (1982).
The only post-1990 references, besides the self-referenced theoretical papers by the author, are popular press books.
Again I urge the reader to do a little hunting. Do a quick literature search in Pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nih.gov) using any keywords dealing with the subjects mentioned — evololution of sex, chromosomal alterations, speciation, etc. One will get dozens — hundreds of returns more up to date than what Davison relies on. I wish to make an important distinction here — there is a real and substantive difference between old and out of date. Old references can still be up to date, i.e., their information can still be valid and important. Old references can also be out of date, especially when dealing with subjects like molecular evolution. The reader will see that Davison mentions exactly ZERO articles on molecular biology more current than the 1982 paper. Granted, some of the pop press books cited may mention more current research, however, when one examines the context of these citations, one can see that this is a subject area that Davison is not citing these books for. Much changes in the field of molecular biology and evolution in one year, much less 20 (or 50).So, I think it safe to ask Who is reading the "wrong" literature?The answer appears to be obvious.