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

I direct you to the For Salty thread in the Free for All where your "ideas" are being picked apart unmoderated if you care to join and support your hypothesis.Cheers,
M

Yes salty, this forum is moderated. Every one of the threads you have participated in has ended up being shut down because of your failure to abide by forum guidelines particularly...1.Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.In any case, there is a thread for you to "vent your spleen" in the Free for All without moderator interference if you wish to come out of hibernation.

Sorry Salty, I did not mean to confuse you..I am NOT the moderator. In fact I am not a moderator for any of the forums of this site. I only meant that this forum IS moderated. You complained in one of the threads that got closed about the moderators closing threads you were in. The thread I have opened for you in the Free for All should not have this problem.

Hi truthlover,
That is part of the reason I am trying to get the thread into the Free for All. Salty apparently wants to be here to rant..I am opposed to banning people so I tried to provide a thread where he could rant at will. There are several posts in that thread already criticizing specific parts of his Manifesto and the semi-meiotic hypothesis.As to SLPx, he is not alone. I have been harsh with salty and so have some of the cooler heads from the forum. It is out of frustration that he continuously posts the same statements without addressing rebuttals...again, this is why I think salty threads belong in the Free for All. I am not trying to justify insults or bad behavior but you can probably imagine how annoying it is, as Scott pointed out, when salty keeps whining about how he is being insulted while he is both rude and unwilling to address the complete destruction of his hypothesis before his eyes.I mean when salty says he does not need to defend the ideas in his Manifesto and that they speak for themselves..what kind of debate is that? Ok, they do speak for themselve..they say "boy is this a dumb idea with no supporting evidence and mountains of contradictory evidence which cannot be waved away"...however, to progress and learn it would have been more beneficial to argue point by point the basis of the hypothesis and the underlying evidence or theory.By the way, glad you came out of lurking mode and hope you will continue to post.cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-06-2003]

S: Why should I defend Grasse or anyone else for that matter, including myself.M: Because that is what proponents of a hypothesis are REQUIRED to do.S: My work speaks for itself and requires no defense from me.M: Your writings (not work as you have peformed no experimental work..nor even read any relevant literature for that matter) does speak for itself..it says "unsupportable fiction that even its very own proponent refuses to defend or attempt to support"..now why would that be? Other's from the anti-evolution side are perfectly willing to defend their ideas.S: You even deny ID which is everywhere to be seen.M: Demonstrate a single testable example of ID. What is the scientifically testable hypothesis of ID?S: 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.M: Hmmm, you are rather the hypocrite salty...you may want to think about your own personal ethics. Crying like a baby whenever big bad Scott (or anyone else for that matter) is unimpressed with your posts yet writing insults like this hardly suggest the workings of a sound mind....as to GROUPTHINK...I suppose it is better to do that as opposed to not thinking at all as you seem to advocate.Your pet hypothesis is continuing to be trashed in the Free for All.cheers,
M

Rather than leaving (again) in a huff...why not participate in the Free for All? If you would address rebuttals of your points and actually discuss your hypothesis I think the tone of discussion would be more to your liking even if others did not agree with you. In addition, your criticisms of evolution are so vague there is really nothing that can be discussed. If you are unwilling to debate your hypothesis and the content of your publications in an open forum, then why did you register here in the first place since debate is the express purpose of this site?cheers,
M

This forum tolerates lots of different people. Very few have been banned and of the three or four that have it was for constant violation of all the forum guidelines. If you think Scott should be banned then what is the justification for you yourself not being banned? You violate forum guidelines in every one of your posts....I think it is better to not ban anyone.cheers,
M

If I banned you it would be rather stunning since I AM NOT A MODERATOR! You are begging at the wrong street corner salty...as to needing the forum..that is an odd way of looking at things...I don't need the forum...I enjoy it.

Unfortunately you have not made yourself clear.
You have not even defined what you mean by Darwinism. You have not provided reasons or support for abandoning any current accepted biological theory unless you count "because you say so" as a compelling reason...I for one do not.As to your Carlyle quote, if you are referring to yourself as a "great man"..you certainly have not convinced anyone of this. If you are referring to Scott's analysis of Grasse (which is incidentally the topic of this thread) he did not actaully attack Grasse...he attacked you because you clearly have distorted/misinterpreted his writings i.e. they don't support your claims...that is what Scott was getting at...you have not addressed the issues he brought up. Your hypothesis is being skewered and you don't even defend it...one must wonder as to your committment to the semi-meiotic hypothesis.And in defense of Scott...he does not disbelieve Darwin so he does not disbelieve in great men in general Oh yes, the Free for All thread is still open for you...and is already drifting off topic cheers,
M

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.M: When pressed for any specifics you merely claim that Grasse et al. support your completely non-specific claims like "the semi-meiotic hypothesis is right because Grasse would agree with me". Thus it is completely unclear what you agree or disagree with from each of your references.S: Darwin was not a great man.M: This was a predictable response..however, he has had more of an influence on science and society than all of your "heros" combined.
The interesting thing is you are functionally illiterate of all the biology progress of your day...so it is rather amusing that you accuse Darwin of this...It is clear that you are not interested in the Free for ALL thread...it is also clear you are unable to support your assertions...in fact "It is all I can do to put up with the regular forum." seems like an out of place statement. I would think since your posts never deal with any topic in a substantive way it would be little effort to write them.As to your comment that Darwin did no experimental work...it is pretty clear you have not read any of his writings...but I am not surprised.cheers,
M

You can huff and puff all you want, but your own published work is sufficient testimony. It's the La-z-boy deluxe of armchair theories.LOL!..would that be the reclining armchair theory or the one with the electric butt warmer

More denial is all I expect from a psuedo-intellectual posing as a biologist....multiple examples have been provided for you and you have in EVERY case ignored them. It is you who have had sufficient time to educate yourself yet you are unwilling. You have also been given sufficient time to defend your semi-meoitic hypothesis and have not even attempted to do so...I guess we can assume you have realized how ridiculous the hypothesis is as well?

He he he
Your papers, particularly your manifesto are no different from your posts. Unsupported assertions and appeals to "authority"...The only difference is there is less whining in the manifesto than you display here. I think you cannot defend your hypothesis but are unwilling to admit it. The semi-meiotic hypothesis is a non-starter that you refuse to even test yourself as the sole advocate.I do not blindly adhere to anything. Evolution is the best supported theory in biological science from fact and experiment. But you would not know since you yourself have admitted you do not read anything that is even remotely current in biology.Hmmm if insult is the measure of uncertainty of a position then you must have some serious doubts as you yourself are unapologetically insulting. I would say a better measure of the uncertainty of a position is the unwillingess to address direct challenges to it, of which you are probably the most guilty in the history of this forum.

Yep...evolution is a fact. Darwinism remains undefined by you and vague (as most of your rantings are).
Your papers make unsupported assertions, contain factual errors, out of date references, and quotes mined from other authors.
Given the level of knowledge you have exhibited in your debates here I highly doubt you would even understand anything I have published much less have and interest in discussing my work. As for an insulting tone...get off your high horse...your behavior on this forum is awful. You are hardly in a position to complain.

S: Not one matter of substance in my papers has been questioned in the published literature or in this or other forums.M: Everything about your papers have been questioned in this forum...and except for the scientists who participate on this board almost nobody in science is aware of your papers. In any event, why would I dedicate a paper to questioning a hypothesis with no merit that has only one proponent?S: The simple fact is that you and many others don't like my conclusions.M: Actually the issue is nobody here knows how you even arrived at your conclusions as for the last month you have been studiously avoiding all rebuttals, questions, and criticisms.S: Darwinism remains a disaster as an explanatory hypothesis.M: What is Darwinism?S: I have offered an alternative which at least recognizes the facts from cytogenetics, developmental biology, paleontology and most important sex determination and the independent origin of the germ cells. None of this can be acommodated in the Darwinian model.M: Actually what you have written on all of these subject selectively ignores the facts including contradicting facts presented by 19th century scientists you claim would have agreed with you. You also ignore all science that has occurred in the last 50 years particularly with regard to cytogenetics, developmental bio, sex determination and paleontology. When you have been shown specific instances of this you have failed to respond.S: You accuse me of errors but have not produced any.M: You are correct, I have produced no errors S: Keep up the great work. I love it so!M: Glad you are keeping your spirits high...especially on whatever planet it is you think you live on