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

As near as I can tell "mainstream science" has always proved to be wrong. Even relativity is now being questioned. Perhaps Scott would tell us what his core beliefs really are. salty

quote:

---

As near as I can tell "mainstream science" has always proved to be wrong.

---

Sure. And fringe crackpottery has always proved to be right. Germ theory. Cell theory. Plate tectonics. Yup - all proved wrong.

quote:

---

. Perhaps Scott would tell us what his core beliefs really are. salty

---

Perhaps Davison can tell us:1.What relevance my "core beliefs" have to this one-sided discussion.2. Why he will not address straightforward questions in a DISCUSSION forum.3. Why he feels it is OK to insult others, yet whines like a sissy when he gets some of his own medicine.4. Why his beloved 'predecessors' are to be taken at face value and as uber-experts on all things, yet actual experts in fields that he denies have anything to do with evolution (which is plain ridiculous) are insult-fodder.5. etc. etc.Of course, I think being an absolutist in anything is asinine. I accpet neutral evolution (for which there is evidence), just as I accpet selection (for which there is also evidence).
The two are not mutually exclusive.I do not accept repeated assertion as evidence or as conclusions. I do not accept wild conjecture, hero worship, or appeals to (dubious) authority as evidence or as 'proof' of anything. I do not accept the legitimacy of marty-complexes as a form of verification of one's beliefs.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-25-2003]

And we still don't. Not knowing where cells came from doesn't seem the same thing as "Darwin never even accepted the cell theory." I thought you were saying that he rejected cells according to the definition I provided:

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

So I'm still not clear. Are you saying that Darwin rejected this?--Percy

Scott you are right on when you say population genetics has nothing to do with evolution. The issue is the origin of species not the spread of their genes once they have appeared. The problem is that even Goldschmidt was unable to come to grips with the reality that sexual reproduction is an evolutionary blind alley. He would love the semi-meiotic hypothesis I am sure. It solves the difficulties he pointed out for the Darwinian gradualist position. I find it very revealing that some can ignore Goldschmidt's views when the semi-meiotic hypothesis completely supports his contention that it is the chromosome (not the genes) that is the instrument of evolutionary change (speciation). He was right on! I feel priveleged to support him along with such luminaries as Pierre Grasse, Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf and Robert Broom, just to mention a few antiDarwinians.

By the way, if I can't muster some support for my evolutionary position in the next day or so, I will conclude that I am playing to an empty house. There is no point in that is there? salty

Note that this is in non-admin mode (or something like that).I would like to remind SLPx and the other opponents of Salty that we are (I think) trying a strategy that includes:1) Heavy courtesy towards Salty ("kill him with kindness").
and
2) Total lack of any adminstrative restraint on Salty ("let Salty be Salty").Or something like that.That said, I must again point out that this is a discussion/debate between the one and the many. As such, Salty has a heavy load on him. I suggest that fast replies from Salty not be expected - Give him time to prepare his thoughts.Or something like that.Moose"Are we having fun?" - Zippy the Pinhead

Percipient. He didn't mean origin in the ultimate sense. He meant he didn't accept the view that all cells are from cells. That was not that uncommon in his day but one would expect a little better from Darwin. Of course he didn't read German very well. My own opinion, which is worth zero on this forum, is that he was the most overrated scientist of all time. He most certainly was no genius. salty

Something like that. --PercyPS - Seriously, this seems to be going fine.

Moose, thanks. salty

Would it be correct to say that he accepted all the points of this cell theory definition except the last?

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

And that he would have modified the last point to be, "Cells come from preexisting cells, and possibly from other at present unknown sources"?--Percy

quote:

---

As such, Salty has a heavy load on him. I suggest that fast replies from Salty not be expected - Give him time to prepare his thoughts

---

Yes, I suppose it is a heavy load for someone to actually respond to questions with something other that "read my essays."I don't recall asking for or even implying that I wanted 'speedy' replies. A substantive reply for once would be nice.But thanks for re-clarifying - we are to let salty disparage actual scientists and prattle on with his martrydom and such and simply be nice in response.Gotcha.

Mammuthus said (see entire message for context):

quote:

---

(Note: I am assuming you have access to this and other bio journals)

---

Salty has been reprimanded for citing references without bringing in anything from those references. (Violation of guideline #? (?)).I didn't study Mammuthus's situation real carefully, but offhand it appears he might be guilty of the same offense.I may be wrong.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}

Salty, there is a problem with the following statement'

quote:

---

By the way, if I can't muster some support for my evolutionary position in the next day or so, I will conclude that I am playing to an empty house.

---

The house may not be empty, they may just be unimpressed with the performance. I have started your manifesto and I have to say that so far I am less than impressed by your arguements. And I am not an adherent to the strict Neo-Darwinian viewpoint, although I think that it is a major component in the mechanism for evolution. One example, so far I find your reliance on point mutations as a fatal flaw in the Neo-Darwinian theory to be in error as point mutations are only one of the many forms of mutation which occur. Insertions and deletions are almost as common and misalignments are probably more common. I do not have the numbers here in front of me at the moment, anyone out there have them readily available? And these mutations can have quite widespread effects, the chromosomal alterations that you refer to generally have wide spread effects because of the changes in control, but smaller deletions, insertions or inversions can have effects just as profound if they occur in major control regions.Another point; it is not a logical neccessity, as you stated in your manifesto, for there to be a creator, just as there is no logical neccessity for the evolutionary process to be guided. There is, in fact, no logical neccessity from a philosophical point of view for EITHER viewpoint.------------------
"Chance favors the prepared mind." L. Pasteur
Taz

quote:

---

Scott you are right on when you say population genetics has nothing to do with evolution.

---

I was just quoting you, and as you rank yourself up there with a bunch of dead fringe folks, I guess you must know.I would never say something so utterly ridiculous and baseless.Pity that Ayala, Stebbins, Crow, Kimura, Haldane, Fisher, Wright, Goodman, Flynn, Ruvelo, etc. would not agree with you or your 'predecessors'.I ownder - did Broom and pals really think that an individual born with some odd phenotype was a new species?

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.