Salty Discussion Post-mortem

... the weakness of the "anti-Darwinist" position. Unable to substantiate claims, unable to intimidate detractors, the anti-Darwinist is content to agree that the thread discussion HIS claims be closed.Who would have thought?

quote:

---

Maybe he has more important things to do?

---

Like what? Don't you find it odd that he refused to address simple, straightforward questions about HIS hypothesis, which he claims is so substantial and backed by 'grewat names' in the field (of paleontology, anyway...)?Nah - why would you?You never even bothered to finish the discussions on mutations...

quote:

---

I see that Scott Page is not satisfied that the thread has been closed. He has to reopen the discussion and continue to lash out in his own inimitable fashion. He is a great asset to the search for the truth. He is the perfect poster boy for Darwinian atheistic intolerance of anything that threatens the biggest joke in the history of science. salty

---

I see that John Davison, rather than simply answer questions put to him on a DISCUSSION board about HIS ideas, prefers to go into martyr and insult mode.John A. Davison is the poster boy for fringe nut cases and crank science masquerading as a 'search for the truth.' Davison matches quite well the criteria for engaging in crank science:(1) [The crank] considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. ... (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. ... It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. ... (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ... (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined.And so it goes.Davison is content to label and insult me, but his own inability to defend HIS notions speaks volumes.He is a crackpot. The anti-Darwinism community can have him, as he fits it - and it fits him - like a glove.

By the way - I hope the sycophants at Terry's TalkOrigins board do/did follow the posts here. If they have any sense left, they will see how crusty, I mean salty, could not defend his claims here any better than he does there.He belongs there, with the other egomaniacal ranters.They sould all check this out:
Page Not Found"People tend to hold overly favorable views of their abilities in many social and intellectual domains. The authors suggest that this overestimation occurs, in part, because people who are unskilled in these domains suffer a dual burden: Not only do these people reach erroneous conclusions and make unfortunate choices, but their incompetence robs them of the metacognitive ability to realize it."

Thinking that Jon Wells, on a mission to destroy Darwinism at the behest of Father Moon, is 'great'?No need to comment on that...

I will gladly discuss Wells' comic book, "Icons of Evolution." I will especially be glad to discuss his section on the "growing crisis in molecular phylogeny." I have already documented his dishonest use of quotes.But, with my room temperature IQ and all, what do I know.My Amazon.com review:

quote:

---

I purchased a copy a month or so ago to see what all the fuss was about. I started reading the section that I have some experience/knowledge in, systematics. I discovered something strange. When I checked one of the quotes Wells had used to 'prove' that molecular systematics is 'in crisis,' I found that it came from a paper dealing not with molecular systematics methodology or something similar, but a paper on the clonal theory of the origin of eukaryotes.

​

Wells seems to imply that because 'deep' phylogenies of prokaryotes have yielded conflicting results and that there is evidence of lateral gene transfer in them and eukaryotes that therefore the entire field of molecular phylogenetics has been plunged into crisis.(p.51).

​

On p.49, Wells quotes an article by Lake, Jain and Rivera to bolster his claim, in a section titled The growing problem in molecular phylogeny:

​

"But the expectation that more data would help matters "began to crumble a decade ago," wrote University of California molecular biologists James Lake, Ravi Jain, and Maria Rivera in 1999, "when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone."

​

Reading the article (Mix and Match in the Tree of Life, James A. Lake, Ravi Jain, Maria C. Rivera, 1999), we see that Wells' quote is plucked from this paragraph (Wells' quote bracketed by **):

​

"The clonal theory **began to crumble a decade ago when scientists started analyzing a variety of genes from different organisms and found that their relationship to each other contradicted the evolutionary tree of life derived from rRNA analysis alone.** To explain the differences between the evolutionary trees reconstructed from eukaryotic rRNAs and from proteins, Sogin (2) proposed a chimeric origin for eukaryotic genomes, with rRNA genes coming from one organism and genes encoding proteins coming from another. Analyses of DNA-dependent, RNA polymerases (3) and heat shock protein (hsp70) gene sequences from different organisms (4) supported theories of chimeric evolution (5-10)."

​

The way Wells uses the quote, in, again, a section titled "The growing problem in molecular phylogeny", it appears that the problem is a field-wide one, as he explicitly writes elsewhere. Yet, is that a proper interpretation of the article in question? The abstract:

​

"The evolutionary relationship between prokaryotes and eukaryotes has long been viewed from the perspective of a single molecule: ribosomal RNA (rRNA). Analyses of rRNA from many different organisms provided the basis for the clonal theory of the evolution of eukaryotic genomes from prokaryotes. This theory holds that genes have been passed directly from generation to generation, with modifications in the genes resulting in the appearance of new organisms. But like a color-blind friend who admires your ability to observe the nearly invisible little "green" flowers on a rose bush, rRNA genes cannot be used to distinguish genomes that are mosaics (mixtures) of genes from different sources. By relying too heavily on rRNA, scientific attention has been diverted away from considering the impact of gene acquisition from other species (horizontal gene transfer) on the evolution of eukaryotic genomes. Viewed now from the vista of completed genome sequences for a number of bacteria and for the yeast Saccharomyces (a eukaryote), the clonal theory of eukaryotic genome evolution contains evident flaws(1)."

​

It seems that the authors were/are referring to the "clonal theory," not molecular systematics or evolution as a whole. It is important also to note that in this article - indeed, in this entire 'debate' (re: e.g., lateral gene transfer) - 'eukaryotes' refers to singler-celled eukaryotes, not multicellular organisms.

​

To paraphrase/borrow the dust jacket endorsement from Behe, if we can't trust Wells to use published material in an honest way, why should we believe anything else he has to say?

​

Now, granted, that is the only quote that I have checked thus far, but it is an important one. Should I really give Wells the benefit of the doubt and consider that this one quote was the only one that he improperly uses?

​

We must give Wells some credit though - he is doing his darndest to fulfill his mission to "destroy Darwinism" that he set out on so long ago. Too bad the American public is so gullible and scientifically ignorant to swallow it hook, line, and sinker.

​

This book is a good example of how a scientist should not write a book, unless that scientist is out to dupe the gullible. --

---

[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-27-2003]

moose:
Unfortunately, I do also find a lot of truth in Salty's appraisals of SLPx.Like what? Am I intoelrant? Bigoted? A mystic?Please tell me moose.Email me if you'd like.

quote:

---

Scott. I always wondered who wrote those wonderful reviews. I want you to find a single example of where I have misquoted any of my sources

---

Please stop trying to set yourself up like this.I have not once claimed that you did such a thing. Others may have, I did not. I clearly was referring to Wells, whom you think "great."And as I wrote in that post, I said I would gladly discuss Wells.As usual, you seem unable or unwilling to actually discuss anything.

salty:

quote:

---

I'm still waiting for someone to question any of the EVIDENCE that I have presented.

---

What evidence is that? The occasional parthenogenic turkey?What is that evidence for? The cessation of macroevolution? Whether or not Eve was a virgin?Your 'evidence', as has been repeatedly pointed out, consists almost entirely of repeated unsupported assertion, appeals to no-longer authority, and a martry complex. Oh, and insults.I think Percy is right.

quote:

---

P: Curiousity as to what really happened at UVM has been expressed a couple times, and I share it. Does anyone have a contact at UVM to whom they could make inquiries? It would be very interesting to know how Salty acquired tenure and emeritus status, and how the biology department dealt with him through the years.

​

M: That would be an interesting story. Scott seems to have the longest history with salty...maybe he knows?

---

Actually, my history with Davison only goes back a few weeks. I think Moose and probably Percy actually have a longer history than me.After encountering him at Worm's, I did remember seeing a creationist link to his page a few years ago. As for what happened at UVM, I have no idea, and frankly don't care. From his account, it seems rather Dean Kenyonish - started pushing his ideas in a service course and students probably complained.I am attending a meeting there next week, maybe I will ask around a bit.

quote:

---

Go for it M or Scott or whoever. UVM has denied that I exist. Try to find any reference to me. It is right out of George Orwell's 1984.

---

Like I said, I don't really care.

quote:

---

You are no better than they are, totally intolerant of anything that disagrees with your view of the world.

---

There is a difference between "intolerance" and responding to inflammatory rhetoric. I suggest you look into that.

quote:

---

The only difference between me and Mike Behe is that Lehigh tolerates dissent. UVM, like this forum does not.

---

Actually, the difference between you and Behe is that he wrote an entertaining book targeted at the lay public. You have some essays on a web site with out of date and largely debunked references.If this forum did not tolerate 'dissent', you would have been banned. That is what happens at the worm's - call creationism 'pseudoscience' and you are banned, call those that accept evolution not scinetists, mystics, etc., and all is fine.

quote:

---

Make your inquiries and do what you will with them. I'll stick with a student of mine who said "He made me want to learn". Most members of this forum don't have to learn as they already have all the answers.

---

You have nothing to teach any of us. You have not tried., You have, in fact, done the opposite.

quote:

---

Keep up the insults too. They add fuel to my antiDarwinian fire and provide proof of your persistent adherence to a fairy tale.

---

So is that why our insults are in response to yours? This odd proijection you exhibit... You did, afterall, boast about your role being to "inflame Darwinists." Wearing that as a badge of honor, I can only guess why you would then try to make a big deal out of getting the responses to try to get.

quote:

---

Who was that said "Animal are not struggling for existence - most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all". It reminds me of some of the members of this forum.

---

Yes. One retiree....

quote:

---

John:
Scott, if you don't care then why are you going to ask around a bit? That is pure hypocricy. Now when you come back don't forget to dutifully report you findings like a good soldier. When you can't attack the message (and not a single solitary soul has) go after the messenger. Have a nice day!

---

Here is what I wrote, emphasis mine:

quote:

---

I am attending a meeting there next week, maybe I will ask around a bit.

---

This was in response to the queries of others. I may or may not care (I do not), but others have expressed curiosity. There is no hypocrisy there at all. But what is here is the typical unwarranted extrapolation that permeates your essays.The 'message' has, of course, been discussed. At least by those of us who found it wanting. You - the messenger- deigned not to discuss it, only to rely on hero worship, assertion, and pleas to be banned so that you can run back to the Worm's and cry about it.There does come a point at which the messenger deserves to be attacked. That is when the message is empty rhetoric yet the messenger continues to assert that it is unassailable.That occurred after about the 10th post or so in the original thread. I assume it happened long ago elsewhere.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 03-28-2003]

quote:

---

Scott it was never my original intention to "inflame Darwinists" but it sure has been the result.

---

I find that hard to believe. You have - on more than one occasion - boasted of doing just this. And I am far form the only one. However, you confuse cause and effect. You have not "inflamed" me with your science, for you have presented none, and none is evident in your online essays on the subject. You have inflmaed me with your hostile, insulting rhetoric, as should have been clear from my initial posts at the Worm's. of course, consideing the tone of that board, my disgust at your charcterizations was itself seen, ridiculously, as 'attacks' on you. Apparently, creationuts see righteous indignation as insulting.

quote:

---

Every time I open my little mouth I get a barrage of insults from adherents to the "One True Faith" like yourself.

---

Entirely false. You are received none too politley - or serioulsy - because what does come out of your "little mouth" (sic) is typically a series of blatant, unsupported assertions, aspersion casting, appeals to authority, etc.
And then, of course, we have your continual spamming such as above -
"...adherents to the "One True Faith" ...". I am no such thing, as are none of the folk I know on this forum. Projection of your own insecurities and psychoses is not an indictment of anyone but you.

quote:

---

I don't see how with your teaching load you have time for all this rhetoric.

---

I have a messy office. Plus, it doesn't take long to refute your empty claims.

quote:

---

Why don't you invite your students in to share with them your view of the world?

---

Now what are you blabbering about? When have I ever mentioned such a thing? Oh, I forgot - the creationist has the uncanny ability to read people's minds...

quote:

---

Or better yet invite your chairperson. I'll bet she would just love it. Mine never even bothered to read my papers. She didn't have to - as she apparently knew by instinct.

---

That they were crap?

Who is Phillip Engle and why should we care?I did google search and the only things I could find by him were that book and a paper or two at the Intellignet Design site.So, who cares if he mentions you?Why are your only replies to anything about your mythological hypothesis these "look who likes my ideas" schtick?The 'guts' to go after you in a refereed journal?In case you hadn't noticed, your manifesto is on a web site.You sound like ReMine - blabbering on about nobody refuting him in the journals when his silly ideas themselves were never in a journal.If anyone was "afraid" to go after your hero worship, then I fail to see how there could be so many hundreds of posts on this forum dealing with your hollow claims.What a sad case...

We are all AFRAID of the mighty truths that salty Davison sets before us! Yes, yes thats IT!