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

Please define then what you consider signifcant wrt development? Some, not all, of what I listed plays a major role in general development so I don't see how it is insignificant.

Dear Jan, I notice you use the present tense. I see no evidence that macroevolution is in progress at present, in agreement with Grasse, Broom and Julian Huxley. The semi-meiotic hypothesis represents an attempt to explain how macroevolution occurred in the past. It is obvious that one cannot directly observe someting that is no longer going on. salty

There are far more differences in the karyotypes of man and his living relatives than you claim. I can easily see a dozen between man and chimp. Assuming these took place one at a time, it is perfectly conceivable that there have been a dozen discrete transitional forms which have existed during our common evolutionary history. salty

This last post is interesting...do you then consider the difference between Aotus and Pan or Pan and Homo etc. to be microevolution?...that you use the phrase "common evolutionary history" when referring to primate evolution runs counter to your claim in your Manifesto that sexually reproducing organisms cannot undergo evolutionary change (or at least macro).

quote:

---

I specifically indicated in my Ontogeny paper that the information for both ontogeny and phylogeny may have been present from near the beginning of each process. I also indicated that "something or someone must have put it there" or words to that effect. Information must have a source.

---

Yes, and Kimura demonstrated in 1961 that information can be added to genomes by mutation and selection.Continuing to ignore the published literature is not the act of someone trying to fing the 'truth.'

I don't think anyone cares what DeHaan and pals thinks. They are not here to discuss YOUR assertions, YOU are, and, of course, they are are just other anti-'Darwinists.'You can stand by your claims all you want, the fact is, many of them have already been shown to be false or unwarranted extrapolations, if not somewhat bizarre.And again with the "yeah, but what aboiut the fertilized egg?" spiel. Yes, we all realize that 'all the information' for an adult resides in an egg, and yes, we all know where that information comes from. But you are making an erroneous analogy.Work on it.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-21-2003]

quote:

---

Okay, I can see a good spamming coming from SLPx and others for defending PB

---

Spamming? No - he needs all the help he can get. Professional help, I believe...

quote:

---

There are far more differences in the karyotypes of man and his living relatives than you claim. I can easily see a dozen between man and chimp.

---

Really? A dozen karyotype differences? Please expand on this.It appears that you are now ignoring me like your friend and fellow Darwin-Attacker Ilion, but as has been pointed out, this is contra to your boasting about your job being to "inflame" Darwinists.Usually, the advocates of what they deem to be a superior "theory" or hypothesis will want to talk about it. I think the readers can see why you tend to respond to well thought out and scientificially supported posts with one-liner blow offs...

Hi SLPx,
I seem to have ended up in the same situation..Borger, ten-sai/Zephan/appletoast, sonnikke and now salty all refuse to respond to my posts ....well no problem..I don't mind doing monologue

Perhaps you should explain what you mean by "all or nothing". I understand what you wrote about the unliklihood of reversal of chromosome fusion (for example) in the Manifesto, but it does seem to be refuted by the existence of clines with functional hybrid zones between different karyotypes. However, you go on to state: This is flat out in error. Here are a few examples: Incipient species formation in salamanders of the Ensatina complexChromosomal inversions and the reproductive isolation of speciesSexual selection and speciation in field cricketsGenetics and the Origin of SpeciesBiodiversity of Costa Rican salamanders: Implications of high levels of genetic differentiation and phylogeographic structure for species formationAnd of course Irwin's study of the Ensatina salamander ring species (sorry, I don't have an on-line version) Irwin, D. E., J. H. Irwin, and T. D. Price. 2001. "Ring species as bridges between microevolution and speciation." Genetica 112-113:223-243. Apparently, you are incorrect. I haven't even discussed plant speciation - which can happen in a single generation through polyploidy.

All Members

Please see Message 13 of the Change in Moderation? thread.

------------------
--EvC Forum Administrator

Here is what I believe. Evolution is finished. Chance has played no significant role. Micromutations and selection have not been involved in any significant way. The information for evolution as in ontology has been preformed. Evolution has come from individuals, not from populations. Semi-meiosis is a necessary device since there is no compelling evidence that sexual reproduction can support evolution beyond the subspecies. In reaching those conclusions I have depended heavily on those of my predecessors to whom I dedicated my paper on ontogeny and the Manifesto. When you attack me you attack them. There is not a Darwinist in the lot. Thomas Carlyle got to the heart of the
matter - "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men." Anyone who is convinced that we have even scratched the surface of how evolution took place (past tense) is living in a fantasy world. Just to satisfy my curiosity is there anyone on this forum who can see any merit whatsoever in my views on evolution? It would seem that I stand alone. If I am wrong in that assumption I may stick around. Otherwise I see no reason to continue interacting with those who see no merit in my perspective. salty

Several posters have asked simple, straightforward questions in direct response to things you have written. Thus far, you have deigned to ignore them and continue to make statements like the one above.Here is a simple question, demanding a simple answer, premised directly on a statement 'of fact' that you had made:What are the dozens of karyotypic differences between humans and chimps?Here is a nother:Of what significance to "Darwinism" is the fact that it takes a very short time for a point mutation to occur?

Just because animals are practicing sex now does not mean they were produced sexually. I refer you to my 1993 paper "The blind alley" for details of how this might have taken place. salty

quote:

---

I refer you to my 1993 paper "The blind alley" for details of how this might have taken place. salty

---

Come on Salty - Actually bring something from your papers to the forum here.Adminnemooseus------------------
{mnmoose@lakenet.com}