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

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Davison's many tired mantras is that "Darwinism" is not science/"Darwinists" are not scientists because, according to out-of-date-Davison anyway, they do not test their hypotheses via laboratory bench-work..And as P points out, the semi-meiosis speculation came out in 1984 if I remember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JA "I will stick to my out-of-date musings no matter what" Davison: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.

You are a great asset to us antiDarwinians, Speaking of unsupported hypotheses, Darwinism has been unsupported now for 144 years. The semi-meiotic hypothesis, which is at least testable, has only been around for 19 years. I love the way you rant and rave. I only wonder why. Keep it up as it is music to my ears. salty

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

quote:

---

The semi-meiotic hypothesis, which is at least testable, has only been around for 19 years.

---

So what have you been doing for 19 years? Sitting in your armchair?You might have an iota of credibility if you had done some testing and published the results rather than trawling through Bartlett's Familar Quotations.

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.

Not one matter of substance in my papers has been questioned in the published literature or in this or other forums. The simple fact is that you and many others don't like my conclusions. That is just too bad. Darwinism remains a disaster as an explanatory hypothesis. 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. You accuse me of errors but have not produced any. Keep up the great work. I love it so! salty

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

Salty: Not one matter of substance in my papers has been questioned in the published literature or in this or other forums.Hey, that's Walter ReMine's favorite line! Now that I think about, you two have quite a bit in common.FK

You too are possessed of special powers. A great many scientists including Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Provine and many others are very much aware of my papers. 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. You go right on ridiculing the facts on which my work rests, because that is exactly what you are and have been doing. I remain confident of the total bankruptcy of the Darwinian fable as well as the soundness of the semi-meiotic hypothesis. If I felt otherwise I would never have published. All you and other members of this forum have done is to engage in personal assault and deprecation. I recommend you read the conclusion to M.J.D. White's "Animal cytology and evolution" pages 764 on. After you have, ask yourself could these differences conceivably have arisen through sexual reproduction? The answer, since I am confident you won't follow my instructions, is no. Keep up the insults. salty

You too are possessed of special powers. A great many scientists including Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Provine and many others are very much aware of my papers. 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.M: Well, aside from Gould who is dead, the failure is on your part to provide any compelling evidence for your hypothesis. In addition, you have not framed your hypothesis here (or in your manifesto for that matter) in a lucid or compelling way. The burden is on you yet you have been to lazy to take up the burden.S: You go right on ridiculing the facts on which my work rests, because that is exactly what you are and have been doing.M: Actually, I and everyone else have been asking you to present some "facts" on which your so called work rests and address the facts that refute your hypothesis. You have failed at this as well.S: I remain confident of the total bankruptcy of the Darwinian fable as well as the soundness of the semi-meiotic hypothesis.M: whatever floats your boat...but you do realize you will never be taken seriously?S: If I felt otherwise I would never have published.M: That is great...I still maintain that it was irrelevant as you did not support your hypothesis and 99.99% of all scientists are completely unaware of your musings. Those of us who are are completely unconvinced...but highly amused I must admit S: All you and other members of this forum have done is to engage in personal assault and deprecation.M: You are projecting salty.S: I recommend you read the conclusion to M.J.D. White's "Animal cytology and evolution" pages 764 on. After you have, ask yourself could these differences conceivably have arisen through sexual reproduction?M: Why don't you sum it up for all of us Darwinian (whatever the hell that means) morons? There tends to be a huge discrepancy between what you cite or quote and what everyone else reads when they go to the reference.

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?

Since you refer to Terry as a worm I see no need to enlighten you about what it means to be a Darwinist. salty