Author
|
Topic: Grasse a great biologist/zoologist??? and a knock for salty
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
Re: Salty's armchair
I am very much impressed with your clairvoyance. salty
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 59 of 79 (39399)
05-08-2003 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 45 by zephyr 05-07-2003 5:13 PM
|
|
Re: Darwin's experiments.
Go to Retired Service | The University of Vermont There you will find a list of all except my most recent papers as well as reprints of three published papers dealing with evolution . You will also find the unpublished Manifesto which sets forth my views in greater detail. salty
This message is a reply to: | | Message 45 by zephyr, posted 05-07-2003 5:13 PM | | zephyr has not replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 60 of 79 (39400)
05-08-2003 1:13 PM
|
Reply to: Message 58 by Mammuthus 05-08-2003 11:24 AM
|
|
Re: Salty's armchair
M. As usual your reasoning is at fault. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. Darwinism also is not a theory. It is the most unsubstantiated hypothesis in the history of science. My papers determine my position. Where is your published position on evolution? Keep up the insulting tone. It suits you perfectly. salty
This message is a reply to: | | Message 58 by Mammuthus, posted 05-08-2003 11:24 AM | | Mammuthus has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 67 by Mammuthus, posted 05-09-2003 6:06 AM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 64 of 79 (39434)
05-08-2003 5:23 PM
|
Reply to: Message 63 by derwood 05-08-2003 1:56 PM
|
|
Re: Matthew 5:13
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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 63 by derwood, posted 05-08-2003 1:56 PM | | derwood has replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 65 of 79 (39437)
05-08-2003 5:29 PM
|
Reply to: Message 62 by derwood 05-08-2003 1:45 PM
|
|
Re: Salty's armchair
A mystic is someone who believes, usually devoutly, in forces that have never been demonstrated. In short, a Darwinian is a mystic.
This message is a reply to: | | Message 62 by derwood, posted 05-08-2003 1:45 PM | | derwood has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 74 by derwood, posted 05-09-2003 12:26 PM | | John A. Davison has not replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 68 of 79 (39501)
05-09-2003 8:03 AM
|
Reply to: Message 67 by Mammuthus 05-09-2003 6:06 AM
|
|
Re: Salty's armchair
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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 67 by Mammuthus, posted 05-09-2003 6:06 AM | | Mammuthus has replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 71 of 79 (39514)
05-09-2003 10:43 AM
|
Reply to: Message 69 by Mammuthus 05-09-2003 8:23 AM
|
|
Re: Salty's armchair
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
This message is a reply to: | | Message 69 by Mammuthus, posted 05-09-2003 8:23 AM | | Mammuthus has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 05-09-2003 11:02 AM | | John A. Davison has replied | | Message 76 by derwood, posted 05-09-2003 12:28 PM | | John A. Davison has not replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 75 of 79 (39528)
05-09-2003 12:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 73 by derwood 05-09-2003 12:22 PM
|
|
Re: Matthew 5:13
Since you refer to Terry as a worm I see no need to enlighten you about what it means to be a Darwinist. salty
This message is a reply to: | | Message 73 by derwood, posted 05-09-2003 12:22 PM | | derwood has replied |
Replies to this message: | | Message 77 by derwood, posted 05-09-2003 12:32 PM | | John A. Davison has not replied |
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 78 of 79 (39532)
05-09-2003 12:37 PM
|
Reply to: Message 72 by Mammuthus 05-09-2003 11:02 AM
|
|
Re: Salty's armchair
M if you had read the manifesto you would realize I already had summed it up. Check the section on the evidence from cytology. I didn't expect you to go to the library. Heaven forbid. Why must you describe yourself as a moron? I'm sure you are at least a cut above that. salty
This message is a reply to: | | Message 72 by Mammuthus, posted 05-09-2003 11:02 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|