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

A couple of weeks ago, I decided to dig into one of JA 'salty' Davison's frequent references, PP Grasse's 1977 book "Evolution of Living Organisms". I must say I was tickled to see that, despite the fact that the book has been in our library since 1980, I am the first person to have cheked it out, such is the influence of "europe's greatest biologist."Anyway, I got sidetracked (exams, life, etc...) and have not really had the time to look much into this book, though I had skimmed a few pages here and there and noticed some odd commonalities in writing style between Grasse and ReMine...I have found some salty-unfriendly passages that I am sure slaty either did not read or decided to ignore, and I will get to those later.One thing I came across - that can probably help explain salty's deference to paleontologists - is this statement by Grasse on p. 188, after describing chromosomal bvanding studies indicating a link between human and apes:"But studies and extrapolations concerning the shape and stainability of the chromosomes cannot supersede paleontological evidence, the arbiter of evolutionism."Ignoring for now the "evolutionism" bit, I find it absurd that one so often lauded as 'europe's greatest' this or that actually seems to think that there is some sort of disconnect between genetics and morphology. Perhaps Grasse did not know that it is the genes that CONTROL the shape of the bones? of course he did. Draw your own conclusions...On that same page, however, there seems to be some troubling news for semi-meiosis.Grasse goes on to describe some mammals (including a monkey species) in which there is not only a chromosomal number difference between male and female, but some groups within the population have differnt numbers as well, despite there being no morphological differences between them.Grasse concludes this paragraph thusly:"A fact such as this confirms that neither the number nor the arrangement of the chromosomes affects the characteristics determined by the genes, and only the presence of the latter has any importance (except in the handful of cases of position effect reported by geneticists)."So?Remember that salty hangs his hat on macromutations occurring during meiosis - chromosomal rearrangements. He spends some time on this in his essay "Evolution as a self-limiting process", from which I quote:

quote:

---

Another way to look at the problem is to ask what has remained unchanged in the various varieties of dogs and goldfish. One obvious answer is their chromosomes. The karyotypes, or pictorial representations of the chromosomes, are invaluable in identifying species and relationships between species. One of the pioneers in the recognition of the importance of chromosome structure was the geneticist Richard B. Goldschmidt. In 1940, the same year as Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," Goldschmidt published "The Material Basis of Evolution." It is difficult to imagine two books more dissimilar than these while dealing with the same subject. Goldschmidt's book is divided into two sections, the first dealing with what he called microevolution, the second with macroevolution. His first section ends with this statement so reminiscent of Bateson:

​

"Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species. The decisive step in evolution, the first step toward macroevolution, the step from one species to another, requires another evolutionary method than the sheer accumulation of micromutations" (Goldschmidt 1940).

​

The other method to which Goldschmidt refers is the reordering of existing genetic information within the chromosome. Alterations in genetic expression resulting from such rearrangements are called position effects. In his words at the end of the section on macroevolution:

​

".... the fact remains that an unbiased analysis of a huge body of pertinent facts shows that macroevolution is linked to chromosomal repatterning and that the latter is a method of producing new organic reaction systems, a method which overcomes the great difficulties which the actual facts raise for the neo-Darwinian conception as applied to macroevolution" (Goldschmidt 1940).

​

There are several sorts of chromosome rearrangements that can occur......

---

and later

quote:

---

First, point mutations in individual genes are reversible and as such that fact alone can be interpreted as indicating that such changes do not play an important role in evolution. Assume for purposes of discussion that evolutionary changes involve not individual gene mutations but chromosome restructurings such as those that I have mentioned. Consider an inversion as an example. If such an event should occur, the probability of it being reversed is virtually zero since the chromosome would have to break in exactly the same two places to return the chromosome to its original configuration. A similar argument applies to the improbable reversibility of chromosome fusion, dissociation or reciprocal translocation. Furthermore, these chromosomal structural changes are all-or-none events that have no intermediate states and cannot then be considered gradual.

---

There are more passages in that paper and elsewhere, but the conclusion is obvious - Davison believes that chromosomal rearrangements are the bread and butter of evolution (which has stopped, according to Davison).I say that chromosomal rearrangements in and of themselves are in fact NOT the impetus for evolution.And Grasse, Europe's greatest zoologoist, would agree.

quote:

---

quote-------------------------------------------------------------------------
... such is the influence of "europe's greatest biologist."
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

This is an outrageous calumny! Professor Davison has never said Grasse was the greatest scientist in Europe.

---

In my defense, I did not attribute the above accolade in quotes to anyone specifically, rather it is a paraphrase of sorts of the many ways in which Grasse has been described on the many creationist websites that love to quote his old 'fairy tale' schtick...
But you are right, JA "Hero worship is hopw real sience is done" Davison never said or wrote the phrase, in describing Grasse, "europe's greatest biologist"...

quote:

---

He states his view of Grasse in the following, crystal clear, unambiguous terms ...
quote:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Pierre Grasse, was the greatest French zoologist of his day, just as was his Russian counterpart Leo Berg.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

​

As this is just about the clearest sentence in salty's entire output, I think it's a shame you should misread it.

---

Me too. I was employing the salty style of reading for quotes rather than for understanding...

quote:

---

Scott: Now I'm getting confused. salty states in the passage you quoted that karyotype differences distinguish species, but are immutable since only semi-meoisis can create new species. If so, then he simply ignored outright all the intraspecific karyotype differences I posted for him in the Mus musculus populations - same species, lots of hybrid zones, but 29 distinct karyotypes in the Alps alone. Not to mention the Ensatina papers I referenced.

---

Of course he did. That or he did not understand that his beliefs are falsified. That or...
Anyway, are you surprised that he will not acknowledge such obvious falsifications of his claims? That is the way of the anti-Darwinist. Grasse seems to do this, too. From the tidbits I have read, he seems to be a neo-Lamarckian of some sort. He described some 'internal force' of some sort which provides creatures with the ability to instantly respond to the environment. Utter poppycock, of course. He describes how an amoeba can basically cleave itself in half to avoid being killed when 'impaled' on a thorn. This, he claims, is evidence of this innate ability, which somehow is counter to Darwinism. I've never heard of an amoeba getting impaled on a thorn, but the description is taken from some Swiss naturalist, whose observations Grasse claims are beyond reproach (I guess hero worship runs deep in the anti-Darwinism crowd). But I am rambling...

quote:

---

How can even a journal like Revista publish something so blatantly contradicted by so much other scientific research?

---

Good question. Have you perused the journal's website? Many article titles seem to scream out "fringe nonsense", but that is just my opinion. It is also interesting to note that the concluding sentence of the paper I refer to is something like 'real science is done by bench experimentation', after implying that all work supporting 'Darwinism' is purely theoretical, and that all of salty's anti-Darwinism papers have been review-type essays, and all published in Rivista, a journal dedicated to theoretical musings, and further that salty claims that his hypothesis can be tested by experimentation, and yet has not ever tried to do so (afaik) .I may not be Mr.Nice guy, but at least I am not THAT big of a hypocrite.

quote:

---

JA "So what if I take my heros out of context when I need to" Davison:
You bet I think chromosome rearrangement is the bread and butter of evolution. So did Goldschmidt.

---

Grasse did not. He would agree with me. Grasse also knew that populations played a role ion evolution. I would agree with him.

quote:

---

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'

---

I have read that comic book treatise, and in it your only "answer" to the origin of biological information is that it was already there. That is, you just repeat unsupported assertions. That paper is crap, as is you manifesto. It is not worht the disc space it take sup.

quote:

---

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.

---

I didn't say you did, but of course it is something of a contradiction to claim that chromosomal rearrangements are the bread and butter of evolution and at the same that chromosomal rearrangements do not always result in speciation. Slippery as a creationist.

quote:

---

Quite the contrary. I also note that now you have to denigrate Grasse.

---

Yes, it must be devastating to see a hero's irrelevance pointed out.

quote:

---

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.

---

Well, they are certainly out of date and were ignorant of what really makes evolution work. It is sheer folly to claim that fossils are more important in evoluton that genetics is. Foolishness.

quote:

---

I like what Terry suggested as a possibility. "Salty is the Darwinians worst nightmare". I am beginning to believe it.

---

Terry Trainor is, frnakly, quite ignorant and more intreresting in propping up his fantasies than actually trying to understand anything. You are no nightmare. More like a hemorrhoid - annoying but not really damaging.

quote:

---

Go right on with your mutual admiration society. I may drop back in from time to time just for laughs.

---

As has been mentioned, yes, we can all use a good laugh at your expense form time to time. As was also noted, you did not actually respond to anything in this thread, or in any other for that matter.As is par for the course with the fringe crackpot.

This is yet another interesting look into the mindset of the anti-Darwinist.Referring to the anti-Darwinist's claims in non-flattering terms is considered insulting, rude, etc. ,and is often used as an 'excuse' to get out of supporting one's position, as salty is doing here. Yet, the same anti-Darwinists often justify their own use of insulting and inflammatory language by claiming that it is true, or that it is their opinion, or something similar.Salty runs around calling people frauds, that they are engaging in mysticism, that they are 'not scientists', etc., and sees no problem with it because accortding to him, he is right.Well, I think I am right for referring to salty's claims as horse dung and such.Of course, unlike salty, I actually explained why I felt that.
salty just whines about not being protected while all the time doing his best to avoid any actual discussion.One will notice that he has still been unable or unwilling to address ANY substantive issues in this thread or any other.Instead of explaining why Grasse is right that fossils are more important than genomes, he complains that I am 'disparaging' Grasse.Instead of actually explaining how he can reconcile his reliance upon Grasse with his reliance upon Goldschmidt et al., he whines about being 'called names'.What are you gonna' do.....

quote:

---

JA "My lack of work speaks for itself" Davison:
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.

---

Funny - I left Terry "the Worm" Trainor's den of simpletons because it not only tolerates you, but Terry actually seems to want you around.
As for the other comment, well, that is just false, I can prove it (not that it matters), and that is the chance one takes when they listen to the error-filled rants of idiotic creationists like Terry Trainor. In fact, I am 'active' on about 5 or 6 forums now, though I do not post on all of them all the time.
So you pathetic attempt at getting ina fdig was as error filled as your "manifesto" and that laughable "... Origin of Biological Information" farce that you put out. You know the one - where you say that the information was already there but present exactly ZERO supporting evidence? yeah, that one...

quote:

---

Apparently he has finally found his real home. salty

---

Yeah, and you belong at the Worm's den....Now, do you plan on defending your claims or will you hide behind this facade of "publication"?

quote:

---

Just a comment by a lurker in response to both Salty and SLPx. I understand Scotty is probably irritated with Salty, but "respect for others" and maintaining an unemotionaly attitude is definitely not what Scotty has done. I do think it takes away from your posts. (SLPx is Scotty, right?)

---

Thanks for the tip Pauly.But I am not emotional at all. Moslty, I am just having fun. With the occasional bout of disgust thrown in.

One can be a "great man" and still not know what they are talking about. This is akin to this weird implication in our society that rich people are somehow "better" than middle class or poor folks.
Grasse may have been popular, well respected, etc., but that has nothing to do with the fact that he thought bones were more important that genomes in the study of evolution. He said so! (wrote so).
That is pure nonsnse, whoever said it.Not to mention the fact that he clearly and unequivocally stated - in the very book that davison cites - that chromosomal rearrangements do not cause speciation.
I had asked how Davison reconciles that - which is of course in direct contradiction to salty's gibberish - with his repeated acts of hero worship and self-justification - to wit "Grasse would agree with me" - frankly, it appears he would not! - by referring to him?No response, just more assertion, more martydom-wishing, more evasion.JA "I rely on out of date science written by those I consider "great men" and therefore beyond reproach" Davison cannot support his claims - his essays certainly do not.

quote:

---

Darwin was not a great man.

---

Therefore, we can disparage him and toss aside his evidence.

quote:

---

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

---

Hmmm... 1859-1838 = 21 years.I wonder - what is 2003-1977?Or 2003 - 1951?Would a great man - or even a mediocre man - of science rely upon 20-50 (or more) year old data to pontificate in an area that grows by leaps and bounds every year?

quote:

---

I think I have enough information. Either you're a liar (which I doubt), or you have dishonestly published by not including relevant positive or negative results (which I doubt), or you have not conducted a course of experimental research. Whtaever way you cut it - your hypothesis is totally without any experimental support and your publications and comments give no indication that you have ever bothered to design or conduct such experiments.

​

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.

---

The irony in all this is especially rich since one of Davison's many tired mantras is that "Darwinism" is not science/"Darwinists" are not scientists because, according to out-of-date-Davison anyway, they do not test their hypotheses via laboratory bench-work..And as P points out, the semi-meiosis speculation came out in 1984 if I remember correctly, and oout-of-date-Davison did not retire until a year or two ago.

quote:

---

JA "I will stick to my out-of-date musings no matter what" Davison:

​

Why should I even dream of defending my published hypothesis when the papers themselves do exactly that.

---

The fact of the matter is, they don't. That has been pointed out. Your published hypothesis was just that - an hypothesis. You never tested it, it was merely musings.

quote:

---

Your Darwinian musings have no basis in fact or experiment yet you blindly adhere to them nevertheless.

---

So what are the experiments that support semi-meiosis again? I must have missed them in your published essays.

quote:

---

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.

---

Is that at all comparable to calling us "Darwinisn mystics"? Of course not...
After all, the world of the anti-Darwinist is a minefield of double-standards, hypocrisy, and half-truths cloaked in over-confidence.

quote:

---

JA Davison:
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.

---

What is bizarre is that it is implicit in each of your hero-worshipping statements that Grasse "would agree with you." I provided a clear in-context quote pointing out that in fact Grasse would most likely NOT "agree with you" on the meat of your claims. So what if he was an anti-Darwinist like you? That is akin to those contrived accolades that Discovey Institute Fellows heap upon each other in their dust jacket endorsements of each others' books, such that the author can rant about how many good reviews they received. WHO CARES if Phillip Johnson -a lawyer - thinks Dembski's latest mathemagical gibberish is a good read? Similarly, WHO CARES if a 50-year dead paleontologist "would agree" with your claims that chromosomal rearrangements during meiosis create new species which them magically procreate via asexual reproduction despite there being no evidence whatsoever that this actually occurs?
WHO CARES that neo-Lamarckian eccentric "would agree" that "Darwinism" is dead? So would Kent Hovind - why not mention that HE would "agree with you"?

quote:

---

The important thing is that every one of them saw through the foolishness of the neoDarwinian model.

---

Or maybe they, like you, simply could not understand it or were against it for personal religious reasons.

quote:

---

Grasse, in particular demolished the Darwinian fable.

---

Sure he did. By citing papers form 1901. I wonder if that is where you picked up your habit of citing long out-of-date papers to prop up your baseless notions?

quote:

---

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.

---

I am already used to repeated, unsubstantiated assertions from you. That is ALL one hets from your posts or your "published" armchair theoretical musings.

quote:

---

Only a confirmed atheist like Dawkins could ever promote that nonsense anyway. I'll bet he must be one of your heroes. salty

---

Unlike you, Out-of-Date, I do not rely upon the musings, personal vendettas, or rants of a small collection of "heros" to guide my thought processes.I leave that to the wannabes.

quote:

---

Darwinism has been unsupported now for 144 years.

---

What is Darwinism?Who are Darwinists?I recall that on Terry the Wrom's I made it quite clear that I am not a "Darwinist" in the strict sense (that is, as used by others), of course, again, I am not quite sure what particular personal definition you are employing.

quote:

---

Out of Date:
A mystic is someone who believes, usually devoutly, in forces that have never been demonstrated. In short, a Darwinian is a mystic.

---

Again, most of us are not followers of "Darwinism", so you saying something like that is akin to me telling a basefall fan that basketball is a terrible sport in hopes of inflaming him.I wonder what a fitting moniker is for someone that claims that real scienc eis done by lab experiment yet is a devout follower of an hypothesis for which no such experimentation has been done?

quote:

---

Out of Date:
"Their failure to recognize the significance of my position indicates to me that they choose to ignore that to which they are unable to respond without abandoning their own bias."

---

Poor John - an unrecognized and unappreciated genius!I think I am going to have to re-post that list of crank scientist criteria....