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

quote:

---

JA "If I don't read what they write, I don't have to acknoiwledge my errors!" Davison:

​

"Now read and enjoy! Nothing in molecular biology in any way detracts from what I have presented in my papers and the Manifesto"

---

Unfortunately, nothing in molecular biology supports the gibberish in your "manifesto", either. And that, of course, is the important part.Please address the issues, or all will conclude that you lack the ability to do so. Simply blabbering on with creationist standards like "drosophila are still drosophila" and "nobody has seen macroevolution" impress only the gullible and uneducated, like Terry Trainor and the TalkOrigins minions.Again, a lot happens in 20-50 years in REAL SCIENCE. And even more so in the booming field of molecular biology. But how would you know? You bury your head in 20-50 year old paleontology texts and a handful of popular press books in whihc you can quote mine.Your "manifesto's" reference list is a testament to poor scholarship.

quote:

---

Why don't you just declare victory and retire

---

Because that would be emulating you.And I don't think anyone would really want to do that.

As an academic how would you rate a student thesis
which had no references within the last 2-4 years ?

quote:

---

As an academic how would you rate a student thesis
which had no references within the last 2-4 years ?

---

Well, I can't speak for Mr."I will stick to my guns no matter what", but I do know that in our senior seminar course, students are required to write a review paper and it must contain citations no more than 3 years old (expet for background material).If a student turned in a paper whose most recent original research citation was from 1982, I would make them re-write it.If I was sent a manuscript as a reviewer for a journal whose most recent such article was 20 years old, I would stamp it "rejected" without question - especially one dealing with molecular biology.It would be plain stupid to rely on 20-50 year old musings in such a fast paced field.

Scott. Ordinarily I ignore your assaults, but this time you have gone to far. The very first statement in your post #228 reads.JA " If I don't read what they write, I don't have to acknowledge my errors."That is a blatant flagrant lie. I never made any such statement. The fact that you have to stoop so low as to lie about what I have said is despicable. If you did that in hard print you would be subject to legal action. You contribute nothing to this forum except this sort of demonstration of the lengths you must go to support your faith in the gradualist myth. You really should apologize although I doubt you are capable of it. I'm surprised the managers let you get away with this sort of thing. salty

That's what I felt.I once presented at a conference and referred to some
work that was about 6 years old ... only to be
informed by someone who knew the author that he had
abandoned that line of inquiry a few years later!!

I see that you (Scott Page) are incapable of apology for misrepresenting my statements. Well, moving day is here so I won't be around for a while. In fact I may not return to this forum at all. A while ago, some member of this forum claimed that Rivista di Biologia didn't want anything to do with me any more. I just yesterday received an email indicating that "The case for instant evolution" will appear in the September 03 issue of Rivista. So much for certain members of this forum. salty

Congratulations. I stand corrected.Now, will you please address the questions, evidence, and articles I and many others provided for you concerning speciation, incipient speciation, development of hybrid incompatibilities, population and ecological genetics, ring species and the other plain and obvious refutations of your "theory" that I and others have brought to your attention?

I actually posted the same paper to Salty a while ago, he did not answer it then either.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

JA Davison:
Scott. Ordinarily I ignore your assaults, but this time you have gone to far. The very first statement in your post #228 reads.
JA " If I don't read what they write, I don't have to acknowledge my errors."

​

That is a blatant flagrant lie. I never made any such statement.

---

LOL!Yes, John old boy, I know you did not make that statment. In fact, if you look at many of my other replies to you, I have jokingly put little sarcastic -but reality based - barbs in the opening. Such as JA"I will stick to my guns no matter what" Davison. I know you never said "I will stick to my guns no matter what" , but it is certainly a logical conclusion based on what you have written. So, when I wrote:JA " If I don't read what they write, I don't have to acknowledge my errors" DavisonIt was not meant to indicate that you had actually written what is in quotes, and I don't think a rational person would have thought so. No, that was another sarcastic barb, premised on the fact that you do not actually seem to read what you imply you are responding to. This is shown by your continual refusal to acknowledge, for example, the paper that I, Taz, and at least one other person I can remember has cited to you demonstrating an evolutionary advantage of sexual reproduction - contrary to your repeated unsupported assertions.

quote:

---

The fact that you have to stoop so low as to lie about what I have said is despicable. If you did that in hard print you would be subject to legal action.

---

I'm not sure if I find this diatribe funny or sad!

quote:

---

You contribute nothing to this forum except this sort of demonstration of the lengths you must go to support your faith in the gradualist myth.

---

Again with this amazing mind-reading that you imply you can do. Wow...
of course, the above is all you contribute to any forum - repeated assertions and blabber.

quote:

---

You really should apologize although I doubt you are capable of it. I'm surprised the managers let you get away with this sort of thing. salty

---

The managers let me 'get away with' this sort of thing because they are not as paranoid and irrational as you, and have the common sense and wherewithal to see that what I put in quotes was clearly and obviously not menant to represent an actual quotation of what you wrote.But, to make you happy:I am sorry, JA "I must rely upon repated assertion and out of date material" Davison. I am sorry that you can't see sarcasm even when it is blatantly obvious.So so sorry.

quote:

---

JA "I live in front of a computer monitor, so everyone else must also" Davison:
I see that you (Scott Page) are incapable of apology for misrepresenting my statements.

---

I already apologized. Even though the real tragedy is that you can't seem to understand the written words of others. Possibly by choice.

quote:

---

Well, moving day is here so I won't be around for a while. In fact I may not return to this forum at all. A while ago, some member of this forum claimed that Rivista di Biologia didn't want anything to do with me any more. I just yesterday received an email indicating that "The case for instant evolution" will appear in the September 03 issue of Rivista. So much for certain members of this forum

---

They must be pretty hard up. What was the most recent citation in this speculative essay? 1970?

I think he does not repsond because, like all dogmatic fringe cranks, he has no intention of modifying his position no matter what. Acknowledging his erroneous beliefs would be tantamount to admitting that 'semi-meiosis' might be wrong and that - Creator forbid - his heroes might not have been infallible...
\
And besides - the drosophila were still drosophila...[This message has been edited by SLPx, 04-24-2003]

Of couse there is an advantage to sexual reproduction and I have said so in print. It permits fine tuning to a changing environment. But it has not produced new species by Dobzhansky's hard definition. You seem to forget that you were quite unable to provide a single documentable example. If you think microevolution leads to macroevolution you are living in a fantasy world. It is you fervent gradualists that are making all the assertions. There has not been a single discovery in the last 100 years that will support the gradual transmutation of true species through the agency of sexual reproduction. As for ring species, that is a trivial situation. I am talking about real honest to god speciation. You are completely unable to provide any documentation for your proposed hypothesis for progressive evolution. I still say the bulk of the evidence indicates macroevolutionary stasis. Why else are we observing nothing but extinction right and left? My God the squirrels can't even learn to look out for the cars! Neither can the raccoons. In other words, behavioral evolution also seems to have stopped. Why do I waste my time with you? Or better yet, why do you waste your time with me. I suspect it may be because you are afraid I might be dead right and we can't have that can we? You are the one with the closed mind, a mind totally opposed to any thought that might not fit the Darwinian gradualist, mutationist, selectionist, atheist, Darwinist pablum. You remind me of the alternate motto of the New York Times. "All the news that fits we print." Your rabid responses to the reasoned conclusions of my many antiDarwinian predecessors betrays a deep insecurity. Even if the semi-meiotic hypothesis fails, and that has not yet been demonstrated, the miserable success of Darwinism in all its many forms remains as a monument to its complete inability to explain anything concerning the basic mechanisms of organic evolution. It is just as Goldschmidt, Bateson, and Petrunkevitch described it, a "blind alley". Read my paper on the subject (Davison 1993). NeoDarwinism is dead and it is only the neoDarwinians that don't realize it. Also, when you put someones words in quotation marks you indicate that those are his words. So much for your pathetic attempt at what you call an apology. salty

quote:

---

You seem to forget that you were quite unable to provide a single documentable example.

---

Of what? Oh - the generation of a new species via natural means? I didn't realize that was my charge. Of course, coming from you, the titler of this message is most apropos.

quote:

---

quote:

---

If you think microevolution leads to macroevolution you are living in a fantasy world. It is you fervent gradualists that are making all the assertions. There has not been a single discovery in the last 100 years that will support the gradual transmutation of true species through the agency of sexual reproduction

---

If you think semi-meiosis leads to speciation you are living in a fantasy world. It is you fervent anti-gradualists that are making all the assertions. There has not been a single discovery in the last 100 years that will support the semi-meiotic transmutation of true species through the agency of arrested meiosis I.

​

Say - that was fun AND easy!

quote:

---

As for ring species, that is a trivial situation. I am talking about real honest to god speciation. You are completely unable to provide any documentation for your proposed hypothesis for progressive evolution.

---

And the overwhelming evidence for your position is?

quote:

---

I still say the bulk of the evidence indicates macroevolutionary stasis.

---

​

Say what you want. It will not make it correct.

quote:

---

Why else are we observing nothing but extinction right and left?

---

​

Hmmm... Maybe because that is what happens? There is lots of extinction evidencet in the fossil record. Lots of new stuff, too.

quote:

---

My God the squirrels can't even learn to look out for the cars! Neither can the raccoons.

---

Clearly that is because they were produced via single-step chromosomal rearrangements in Meiosis I. These 'hopeful monsters' then asexually reproduced to populate a niche - even though populations and genetics have nothing to do with speciation. It was only after these new species app

​

In other words, behavioral evolution also seems to have stopped.

---

Must be so, salty said it!

quote:

---

Why do I waste my time with you? Or better yet, why do you waste your time with me.

---

Good question.

quote:

---

I suspect it may be because you are afraid I might be dead right and we can't have that can we?

---

Gee - how many creationists have I heard that from? Yes, John, I am afraid that you are right. After all, musings form 50 years ago must be beyond reproach in science.And your many papers on this specific topic are loaded with wet bench science and observation that they must be correct.

quote:

---

You are the one with the closed mind, a mind totally opposed to any thought that might not fit the Darwinian gradualist, mutationist, selectionist, atheist, Darwinist pablum.

---

To quote Troy McClure - "My god - its like you've known me all my life!" You should be one of those telephone psychics, what with this gift you have of knowing all about people.In REALITY, here on earth, I am not the one that ignores modern science that contradicts my viewpoint. I am not the one denigrating respected scientists while relying almost entirely on hero worship of folks that died decades ago. I am not th eone relying entirely on repeated assertions to "prove" my points.Instead of this hack psychology, why not just address the issues?

quote:

---

Your rabid responses to the reasoned conclusions of my many antiDarwinian predecessors betrays a deep insecurity.

---

Your unwavering hero worship of out of date speculation based on a dearth of information is indicative of your delusional state.

quote:

---

Even if the semi-meiotic hypothesis fails, and that has not yet been demonstrated,

---

How can one falsify something for which there is no evidenciary support for in the first place?

quote:

---

the miserable success of Darwinism in all its many forms remains as a monument to its complete inability to explain anything concerning the basic mechanisms of organic evolution.

---

Whatever you say, Johnny.

quote:

---

It is just as Goldschmidt, Bateson, and Petrunkevitch described it, a "blind alley".

---

Oh, well, then it MUST be so!

quote:

---

Read my paper on the subject (Davison 1993).

---

Why - does it contain actual evidence, bench work, or observation that your "manifesto" does not?

quote:

---

NeoDarwinism is dead and it is only the neoDarwinians that don't realize it. Also, when you put someones words in quotation marks you indicate that those are his words. So much for your pathetic attempt at what you call an apology. salty

---

It was no apology. I suggest you take a look around. You seem to be the only one paranoid and insecure enough to think what you do.Get over yourself, Davison. You aren't as important as you seem to think. You and Phillip Engle, who is a nobody as well...

When Salty first began posting to this thread there seemed to be some tie-in to Peter Borger's GUToB, but as discussion developed this became less and less the case, and now there seems no connection whatsoever to the original topic. Unless someone can provide a good reason for keeping this thread open I will soon close it.------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator