John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution

Isn't it interesting that, excepting his own material and Engle, the most recent source dates back to 1973. And apparently he doesn;t even know that the time factor in evolution is needed for mutations to spread and accumulate - not for a single mutation to appear in a single individual.

It's one of the possible explanations for the Cambrian explosion. The development of the Hox gene system without the strong canalisation of development seen in many modern organisms would make it possible - but I suspect that it is a long, long time, since it was a significant factor in the evolution of many species.

If I understand your hypothesis correctly it suggests that sexual reproduction appears independantly in each species utilising it. If this is incorrect could you please clarify the actual matter.Also, if I understand correctly you propose a form of reproduction that is not observed in any extant species. Are there any similar modes of reproduction that are actually observed (for instance the production of worker honeybees sounds somewhat similar) ?

If these organisms really do use the mode of evolution you propose is there any evidence that they do produce the macromutations that your hypothesis depends on ?Indeed is there any clear evidence that chromosomal rearrangements do produce useful macromutations ? Your manifesto doesn't seem to include any clear and definite evidence that chromosomal rearrangements rather than, say, mutations to regulatory genes are responsible for major phenotypic changes.

The need for sexual reproduction to appear independantly in many lineages is a definite problem for your hypothesis. And I would suggest that it is one of the reasons it is not taken as seriously as you would like. I think that you would be better employed in working out the answers to basic problems with your hypothesis, such as this, rather than making poorly worded attacks on the mainstream view.

Like I said you, have no clear evidence that the changes in the chromosome structure are responsible for major phenotypic changes.Apparently nobody knows if the positional chnages have a significant effect on phenotype or not, while we know that changes to regulatory genes can have major phenotypic effects.

Can you explain what results your semi-meiotic hypothesis predicts for your experiment and how they differ from the expectations of mainstream biology.Can you also explain why you have not carried out this experiment ?

And lets add the question.Is it really the case that cell theory - even in the 19th Century - postulated an infinite regress of cells ? Or an uncreated ur-cell ?Because I find it very hard to believe that "cells come form cells" was taken to include the ultimate origin of the initial cell or cells, which is the point under discussion.

I would add that it is the responsibility of the proponents of a hypothesis to gather the supporting evidence and to answer the problems with that hypothesis.The (apparently) sole proponent of the semi-meiotic hypothesis does not appear to have done that in the last 18 years and does not appear to be interested in doing so now. And since the problems are very serious I am not surprised that it is not taken seriously by anyone else. The only thing that surprises me is that the proponent does not take his own hypothesis - which he has supposedly championed for the best part of twenty years - seriously enough to do the work that is needed to make it viable.