Grasse a great biologist/zoologist??? and a knock for salty

I just happened to drop by. I see now that I am still number 1 on your hit list. I'm flattered. You bet I think chromosome rearrangement is the bread and butter of evolution. So did Goldschmidt. Further, I believe that the information for all of evolution may have been present from the beginning just as it is for ontogeny. I recommend you read 'Ontogeny, phylogeny and the origin of biological information' That should give you something to use against me. Please do. If you had bothered to read you would have realized that I never maintained all chromosome reorganizations resulted in speciation. Quite the contrary. I also note that now you have to denigrate Grasse. When you have finished with him go after the other five to whom I have dedicated the Manifesto. After all they are just a bunch of lightweights. I don't understand why I get so much attention even after I have stopped responding. I like what Terry suggested as a possibility. "Salty is the Darwinians worst nightmare". I am beginning to believe it. Go right on with your mutual admiration society. I may drop back in from time to time just for laughs. salty

I certainly do not regard myself as in any way close to what you mean by mainstream thought. I am convinced that speciation is no longer occurring. I also see no evidence that sexual reproduction has in the past or in the present contributed anything to our understanding of evolution. Quite the contrary, it has served along with Lyell's uniformitarianism to inhibit progress. Mendelism is the genetics of sexual reproduction. One of my favorite biologists is William Bateson who hit the nail on the head with this quotation taken from Arthur Koestler's "The case of the midwife toad":By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, "that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism,that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general"What was obvious to Bateson still has not penetrated the Darwinian uniformitarian mentality. I refer you to Davison 1998 "Evolution as a self-limiting process".

Unmoderated forum? Is this one being moderated? I don't think so. It is perfectly possible for a sexual form to on occasion reproduce semi-meiotically. Indeed we have a living example in the parthenogenetic turkey. There may be many others. Remember Bateson "Treasure your exceptions". I think I'll hibernate for a while to allow Scott and any others to vent their spleens. Ciao salty

Your point number 3 is a joke. You continue to allow Scott to use "horse dung", "garbage", "bilge" and I forget other phrases thank God. If you won't control him, and you obviously won't, forget about my participation. In fact, one more personal insult from Scott is more than I am prepared to take. Let's see what kind of a moderater you really are! salty

It is the Darwinist that has the mindset. He goes right on believing in mutation and natural selection as the forces that guide evolution even though there is no evidence whatsoever for those assumptions. That is pure mysticism. Why should I defend Grasse or anyone else for that matter, including myself. My work speaks for itself and requires no defense from me. You Darwinians are the ones in trouble and apparently don't even realize it. You even deny ID which is everywhere to be seen. You are pathetic and there is no reason whatsoever to communicate any further with you, especially since your guard dog Scott goes right on with his scatological references. Have a nice GROUPTHINK. salty

I'm through with this so called evolution forum. If anyone here ever publishes anything of substance send me a reprint. salty

I am not leaving in a huff. I am leaving because this forum tolerates Scott Page. This forum is apparently the only one from which he has not been banned. Apparently he has finally found his real home. salty

If you ban me it is because I refuse to even recognize the mindless adherence to your gradualist atheist myth of neoDarwinism. If so, then ban me. I need this forum far less than you do. Find someone else to ridicule if you can. In the meantime stop pretending this forum is moderated. salty over and out.

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. As for my refusal to respond to Darwinian queries, I thought I had made my position clear when I said: "Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change". As for Scott Page and his rabid attacks on critics of the Darwinian myth, I will quote Thomas Carlyle. "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men." salty

Scott, you are just proving how correct Carlyle really was. Why should I have to agree with everything each of my references thought? What a bizarre notion. The important thing is that every one of them saw through the foolishness of the neoDarwinian model. Grasse, in particular demolished the Darwinian fable. The simple fact is that all the mutation and all the selection in the world never did have and does not now have anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution, except to stabilize what is already there. Get used to it. Only a confirmed atheist like Dawkins could ever promote that nonsense anyway. I'll bet he must be one of your heroes. salty

Darwin was not a great man. He was functionally illiterate of all the biology progress of his day and he never even accepted the cell theory which had been in place since 1838. He is undoubtedly along with Freud the most overrated scientist of all time. How anyone can be a Darwinian of any stripe completely escapes me. Also I am not interested in your free for all, thank you very much. It is all I can do to put up with the regular forum. salty

Nonsense. Darwin never did a single experiment to test his hypothesis of natural selection. As for my experiments you don't know diddly squat so quit pretending that you do. You are as bad as Scott. salty

More anal humor is all I expect from this bunch of Darwinian mystics. I am still waiting for any substantial evidence that mutation and selection can exceed the subspecies. I think I have given you all sufficient time. salty

Darwin, like the Bible has a concordance. Look up the word CELL and you will find a bunch of references mostly to the cell of the honeycomb. One however should lead you to the last edition of Variation of plants and animals. In it he explicitly states that he does not know where cells come from. Further he offers as an excuse for his ignorance the fact that he is not an histologist. A copy of Mendel's paper was found in his library, no doubt sent by Mendel. However Darwin, unable by his own admission to understand German, probably never read it. Of course even if he had it would have made no difference since sexual (Mendelian) genetics never had anything to do with evolution anyway. Quite the contrary, it brings it to a screaming halt. salty

Why should I even dream of defending my published hypothesis when the papers themselves do exactly that. Your Darwinian musings have no basis in fact or experiment yet you blindly adhere to them nevertheless. If the semi-meiotic hypothesis proves to be in error it will not alter one bit the complete failure of the Darwinian fable which is undoubtedly the most thoroughly tested hypothesis in the history of science. I see that you like Scott can't refrain from insult (pseudo-intellectual). That is the most telling proof of the uncertainty of your position. salty