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

S: You are sure using up a lot of cyberspace a someone for whom you have no respect. I can only wonder why.M: Amusement S:To say that Schindewolf never had a clue is pathetic.M: Your blind hero worship is indicative of your lack of scientific trainingS: I don't care to have my views described as rubbish, but apparently that is standard on this forum.M: You have been given dozens of chances to demonstrate why your hypothesis is not rubbish...I am still waiting for your evidence.S: As for testing the semi-meiotic hypothesis, activate frog eggs with irradiated sperm and then prevent the second meiotic division with a heat shock or a cold shock or with high hydrostatic pressure. As near as I can tell no one has done this since 1984 when I presented the hypothesis.M: Okay, now we are getting somewhere. First off tell me how this would support you hypothesis. Also, what would be the positive and negative controls for the experiment. It is not clear.S: Of course perhaps they have but chose not to present the results. If you find a literature on this please let me know.M: There has to be a reason or something specific to test for the experiment to be done.S: I don't get out much any more.M: That is perhaps part of your problem....you need to get out there a bit more and see what is ACTUALLY going on as opposed to what you IMAGINE is going on in science.S: I overlooked another thing I now deeply believe. Natural selection never had anything to do with macroevolution. All that it ever did and still does is prevent change.M: How quaint...and your evidence is...oh wait let me guess..not forthcoming?S:I recommend that everyone read Punnett's little book on Mimicry in Butterflies. My ideas will then not seem so radical That is why all chickadees look exactly alike.M: I recommend you actually read some of the references I and others (Quetzal post 85) have posted. And that chickadees all look alike is very quaint. However, even twins or clones can show quite a bit of phenotypic variation because of genomic imprinting, stochastic processes during development etc etc etc.S:A Darwinian world would be pure fuzziness.M: Funny, the world looks pretty clear to me..maybe you need new glasses?S: I agree with Robert Broom that there has been a plan and the plan has been completed.M: ...let me guess..he does not provide any evidence either?S: There is one take home lesson from this forum. "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" Walter Lippmann saltyM: I think the take home lesson is that your inability to support your assertions and your debating tactics indicate you have not thought very hard about or learned very much about science.

Fortunately not everyone agrees with your assessment of my training. By the way, training is for animals, not real investigators. No one has yet devised a way to test for intrinsic factors operating in evolution, but the evidence for their existence is there nevertheless. There is no point in recommending Grasse's book as he is dead and you like others on this forum have no respect for anyone who isn't around any more. As for the frog experiment, I am surprised I have to explain it to you. It should be obvious that any chromosome rearrangement present in heterozygous form would immediately be expressed as a homozygote. At the same time an equal number of progeny would be the original wild-type. In other words it is perfectly conceivable that half the semi-meiotic progeny could be a new and discrete species, produced in a single step. Of course you would regard that as absurd so why do I bother explaining it to you? I am sorry that I cannot a definitive proof supporting my hypothesis. I'm afraid the Darwinian hypothesis hasn't been supported either. It will tremain a mexican standoff I guess. As long as you continue to ridicule me, you ridicule those predecessors on whose work my hypothesis firmly rests. In doing so you are attacking some pretty distinguished scientists. It is very revealing that in this little forum, which will never be published, you and others freely attack those that they are afraid to even mention in published papers. One of my purposes is to restore the contributions and the reputations of those to whom I have dedicated my Ontogeny paper. As for you and others who choose to ignore and even ridicule them, let me quote Thomas Carlyle: "No sadder proof can by given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men." This is getting very tiresome but I am sure you have a lot more to say. Why not just declare victory? Just for the record, is there anyone out there on this forum that has anything good to say about me or my work? salty

Possibly, however you have as yet failed to actually provide an example of these "intrinsic factors". It could be that the reason no one has devised a way to test for them is that they don't actually exist. Actually, the reason there isn't any point in recommending de Grasse is because his entire work is based on a discredited concept - lamarckian evolution. Beyond clonal or single-celled organisms subject to conjugation, etc, lamarckism isn't what is observed in nature. That's nice. Now, do you have a single, solitary example from an actual organism that this occurs or has occurred? That's all anyone's asking of you: provide a concrete example rather than spurious rhetoric, handwaving, or gratuitous insults. Or apparently even the most fundamental, "real world" observation that your hypothesis rests on anything more than empty air. Well, I suppose if you want to look at it that way. On the one hand there are multiply converging lines of evidence from dozens of disciplines that indicate the "darwinian hypothesis" (whatever that is) is a pretty good explanation, and on the other we have you, with no observations and no evidence. I'm not sure I'd characterize that as a mexican standoff. Not at all, although it's certainly possible to call your "predecessors" conclusions into question. The only thing anyone has asked you to do at any time on this forum is simply provide some argument, evidence or observation in support of your idea. That's all. When you resort to attacks on individual posters, spurious appeal to authority, and special pleading, guess what? You'll get back the same tactic. It is also very revealing that only in the even smaller forum where you apparently lurk are you comfortable in knowing none will question your "genius". As far as being afraid to mention discredited scientists or theories in published papers - why should they be? The theories have been superceded or discredited long ago. Why should they be mentioned? It isn't fear - it's the fact that science has moved on, and the authors you're so taken with have been shown to be in error on key elements of their ideas (saltationism from Goldschmitt - although I think he got a raw deal, because aside from the instant speciation, he made some good observations - and lamarckism from de Grasse.) So they're not being ignored. They're simply irrelevant. I don't know. The fact that you haven't seen fit to provide any evidence or even discussion makes it hard to find anything favorable to say about you or your theories.[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 03-25-2003]

S: Fortunately not everyone agrees with your assessment of my training.M: 99.99% would agree S: By the way, training is for animals, not real investigators.M: LOL!!! Ok hotshot, let's see you do even one experiment without any training LOL!!! Have fun doing a western blot....and as to training in scientific thinking, you clearly have none.S: No one has yet devised a way to test for intrinsic factors operating in evolution, but the evidence for their existence is there nevertheless.M: what is an intrinsic factor?S: There is no point in recommending Grasse's book as he is dead and you like others on this forum have no respect for anyone who isn't around any more.M: You mean Darwin, Wallace, Alan Wilson et al. are still alive? Wow, who would have thought.S: As for the frog experiment, I am surprised I have to explain it to you. It should be obvious that any chromosome rearrangement present in heterozygous form would immediately be expressed as a homozygote. At the same time an equal number of progeny would be the original wild-type. In other words it is perfectly conceivable that half the semi-meiotic progeny could be a new and discrete species, produced in a single step.M: Actually, the experiment you outlines would lead to nothing as no progeny would survive....how do you "express" a heterozygote as a homozygote? If you cross a heterozygote with a a homozygote half the progeny are heterozygous half homozygous. Aside from this bizarre misconception you have about genetics, why would it be a new species? As Quetzal pointed out, there are chromsomal rearragnements even within species without consequence...oh yeah forgot, you ignored him to.S: Of course you would regard that as absurd so why do I bother explaining it to you?M: Well, you proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis..it is up to you to explain it.S: I am sorry that I cannot a definitive proof supporting my hypothesis.M: Are you reading disabled? I did not ask for definitive proof..no such thing exists in science. I asked you to provide supporting evidence from experiments, natural observations, or from a well defined theoretical framework. Part two was then to address counter evidence such as within species chromosomal rearrangements without speciation. This is where you have repeatedly failed.S:I'm afraid the Darwinian hypothesis hasn't been supported either.M: Oh, you mean all the references that you have ignored? Willful ignorance on your part does not mean lack of support for the theory of evolution.S:It will tremain a mexican standoff I guess.M: Not really, evolution is an accepted fact among the scientific community whereas semi-meiotic blah blah is supported by you....and to be fair, if I had not read this forum I would never have heard of you or your hypothesis..about the only slightly well known creationist is Behe so you have not even made an impact in your own community.S: As long as you continue to ridicule me, you ridicule those predecessors on whose work my hypothesis firmly rests.M: Well, they are all dead so I don't have to worry S:In doing so you are attacking some pretty distinguished scientists.M: I do it all the time including other evolutionary biologists...so? If I disagree with someone I don't care who they are...you see since you have no training in science you don't seem to realize that scientists do not worship one another.S: It is very revealing that in this little forum, which will never be published, you and others freely attack those that they are afraid to even mention in published papers.M: Why would I refer to a bunch of cranks in my papers on evolution much less my disease research articles? I don't cite L Ron Hubbard either when dealing with elephantid evolution. If anyone is afraid it is you...your refusal to even read simple articles on the issues you are arguing demonstrates this.S: One of my purposes is to restore the contributions and the reputations of those to whom I have dedicated my Ontogeny paper.M: Hmmmm, you are doing a bang up job of it thereS: As for you and others who choose to ignore and even ridicule them, let me quote Thomas Carlyle: "No sadder proof can by given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."M: Again, your pathetic blind hero worship is the purview of religious fanaticism and has no bearing on science. I think Darwin was a genius, but I don't worship him and he got a bunch of things ass backwards. Does not diminish his contribution. And I don't support my work with "Darwin said so and if you challenge it you are insulting Darwin and so therefore you are wrong" which is the kind of crap you have been using as your sole defense of your ideas...what next? Your mommy told you it was a good idea so therefore it is right?S: This is getting very tiresome but I am sure you have a lot more to say.M: YupS: Why not just declare victory?M: It would be redundant S: Just for the record, is there anyone out there on this forum that has anything good to say about me or my work? saltyM: Actually, you could be a great guy who is fun to hang around with for all I know. It is the "work" you are presenting on this board that I take issue with.Cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 03-25-2003]

quote:

---

To say that Schindewolf never had a clue is pathetic.

---

Almost as pathetic as calling Haldane, wright, Fisher, and Kimura "armchair theorticians" I suppose....

.

quote:

---

As long as you continue to ridicule me, you ridicule those predecessors on whose work my hypothesis firmly rests. In doing so you are attacking some pretty distinguished scientists.

---

So you are content to deride some pretty distinguished scientists such as Haldane and Kimura because they did not find the musings of your heros so scientifically overwhelming and compelling?Why should anyone have anything "nice" to say about you or your essays? Let's see, according to you:Scientists that accept "Darwinism" are not really scientistsAnyone that does not immediately heap accolades on your hypothesis are intolerant bigotsAny scientist that takes offense to being called a "non scientist" is a bigotDid I miss any?

Darwin never even accepted the cell theory. It was in place in 1838 when Darwin was 29. Darwin was no genius. Talk about hero worship, he worshipped Lyell. That was the big mistake since evolution is over. Actually Lyell didn't think much of Darwin's ideas and for good reason. It didn't agree with the fossil record. I can't get over the responses I am producing. Why is all this necessary? Haven't you yet proved beyond any doubt that I am a screwball? I'm sure you have. I'm still waiting to see if anyone has anything good to say about my idiotic contributions to the understanding of the greatest mystery in all of biological science. By the way, since my identity is well known, why must I be assaulted by those who choose to hide behind the cloak of anonymity? I have never understood why any forum should allow that kind of intellectual cowardice. I also don't expect much support when I see what has been the fate of dissenters here. After all, they might be banned. If anyone is afraid to offer support here, feel free to email me. I promise I won't divulge your identity to this forum. Don't misunderstand me as I don't need any further support than what I already have. The Darwinians are the ones that desperately need a shoring up. The myth is collapsing all around them. All I see here is a free license to engage in personal attack. What is far worse is to denigrate scholars of the stature of Otto Schindewolf, probably the greatest paleontologist of all time. I have no respect for those that stoop to such measures. It is a sad commentary on one's insecurity that one has to attack those who do not subscribe to "the one true faith". By the way I have no idea where anyone got the idea that Grasse was a Lamarckian. He never subscribed to either Lamarckian or Darwinian dogmas, at least not in his book.

Real scientists shouldn't accept any ism including Darwnism, especially since it has been tested to death without receiving any support as a macroevolutionary mechanism. It remains a myth. salty

Scott in the interest of accuracy, I never mentioned Kimura and see no reason to do so now. salty

I didn't know this. Is this what you mean by cell theory (found this at What is biotechnology?, which is a set of slides by Kabi R. Neupane at the University of Hawaii):

• All living things consist of cells
• Cells are structural units of life
• Cells are functional units of life
• Cells come from preexisting cells

And Darwin rejected this?--Percy

S: Darwin never even accepted the cell theory. It was in place in 1838 when Darwin was 29. Darwin was no genius. Talk about hero worship, he worshipped Lyell. That was the big mistake since evolution is over. Actually Lyell didn't think much of Darwin's ideas and for good reason. It didn't agree with the fossil record. I can't get over the responses I am producing.M: Ignoring the utter crap you wrote in this post, I am not the one crying to mommy any time my position is attacked. You are the one who pleads to authority and that was my point. That you missed my point suggests you need to attend remedial reading classes.S: Haven't you yet proved beyond any doubt that I am a screwball? I'm sure you have.M: Nope, you are doing that without my assistance.S: I'm still waiting to see if anyone has anything good to say about my idiotic contributions to the understanding of the greatest mystery in all of biological science.M: Get comfy...you may be waiting for a long time.S: By the way, since my identity is well known, why must I be assaulted by those who choose to hide behind the cloak of anonymity? I have never understood why any forum should allow that kind of intellectual cowardice.M: Hmmmm is that why you post under "salty"? And maybe some of us don't want the retarded email spam that usually accompanies placing ones real identity on a message board where such intellectual creationists hang out.S: I also don't expect much support when I see what has been the fate of dissenters here. After all, they might be banned.M: You seem to be extremely paranoid. You have not been banned. I can only think of two people who have ever been permanently banned and one tried to hack the site...so the "threat" is all in your mind.S:If anyone is afraid to offer support here, feel free to email me. I promise I won't divulge your identity to this forum.M: Why would anyone who agrees with you be afraid to post anonymously on this board? It just might be even other creationsts find you ridiculous or do not agree with you.S: Don't misunderstand me as I don't need any further support than what I already have.M: which is noneS: The Darwinians are the ones that desperately need a shoring up. The myth is collapsing all around them.M: Only in your mind.S: All I see here is a free license to engage in personal attack.M: Well, you have had a free license to insult everyone who has challenged you and a free license to spout out your nonsense without supporting it in any way shape or form with the blessings of the Admin. Hardly fits with your persecution scenario or with the truth for that matter.S: What is far worse is to denigrate scholars of the stature of Otto Schindewolf, probably the greatest paleontologist of all time. I have no respect for those that stoop to such measures.M: Sorry to hear you have no self respect salty since you wre the one who called Haldane an armchair theoretician..you are rather a hypocrite.S:It is a sad commentary on one's insecurity that one has to attack those who do not subscribe to "the one true faith".M: So stop doing it

Since you are not a scientist, how would you know what "real scientists" do?

quote:

---

Scott in the interest of accuracy, I never mentioned Kimura and see no reason to do so now.

---

Right. Because he was, afterall, not a "Darwinist" and was also a population geneticist. And population genetics has nothing to do with evolutionary biology.So say you.And apparently only you.Of ocurse, Kimura, unlike you and your illustrious "predecesors", did get his ideas both published and accepted by mainstream science.He did this by actually performing experiments and collecting data to test his hypotheses.

quote:

---

Real scientists shouldn't accept any ism including Darwnism, especially since it has been tested to death without receiving any support as a macroevolutionary mechanism. It remains a myth.

---

Then I suppose it is a good thing that I am not a "Darwinist" as I do not accept "Darwinism." Of course, it was anti-Darwinists, as best I can tell, that actually came up with the term "Darwinism" as a perjorative.So I can see no reason to use the term in the first place.

To his dying day, Darwin admitted that he didn't know where cells came from. The reason he offered was that he was not an histologist. You can track this down in the Darwin Concordance. He used the word cell usually to mean the cell of the bee honeycomb. salty