For Salty

I provided a short description of this 'hypothesis' of Davison's and he said that it was basically correct. It goes something like this:An error occurs during Meiosis that results in a parthenogenic ovum.[how this would actually occur, salty does not say].This parthenogenic ovum then if develops into a new species.That is, it is born (hatched, whatever), and it is totally different from its parent.It then reproduces asexually until a large enough popu- , er, um, pardon me - until there a whole bunchy ot htme, then, as if by magic, they start reproducing sexually, and this prevents them from changing any more.For this, the evidence provided in this forum by its primary proponant:Broom, Berg, etc. would havre agreed with him....Evidence provided Davison's relevant papers:Sometimes turkeys can asexually reproduce... but the offspring are just turkeys... but a 'hopeful monster' could be in there somewhere!Broom, Berg, etc. would agree with him."Darwinism" is dead.Did I miss anything?

quote:

---

Regarding human evolution, he also claims that female humans are very capable of asexual reproduction (I will refrain from jokes about what his may imply for salty's sex life though I am finding it difficult

---

Indeed - there was a thread at Terry The Worm's place in which salty chimed in about Mary giving birth asexually...As far as bumping into salty, I doubt that will happen. I resigned form the Worm's in disgust at the idiocy and sycophantism displayed there, and that is the only place I have ever seen salty (besides here).

quote:

---

either that or the H in Jesus H christ stands for hermaphrodite since he would have had to mass produce himself until the new species was established and sexual reproduction could ensue...hard to test since the sole member of the new putative species was killed

---

A population of one....

JA "If I ignore them, they don't exist" Davison up to his old antics at the Worm's den of idiots.Incredible....

Hello?This thing on?

Always been one of my favorite words.Sort of like calling someone 'gay.' It may offend some homosexuals to see the word used in a derogatory sense, but it really offends the homophobe/latent homosexual being called it...

"Look at them meanie old guys over there. Over here , we is all nice to each other. Unless, of course, you are not a YEC cultist... Then we warn you and goad you.
Or unless you are Ilion - you know, the guy that trolls and gets his ass whupped' - or gets ignored - every time he tries to really discuss something at ARN? Yeah, then you can do what you want. Never mind that I am too much of an intellectual coward to actually try to discuss anything at a board where i do not have "moderation" power - I mean, them meanie guys might point out how ignorant I am or sumpthin'..."As for our "supposed" victories - I guess Terry Trainor really is just plain stupid, for if he actually thinks that salty held his own here at all, well, that says it all....

Terry Trainor writes, in response to the latest whinign by senile Out-of-date Davison

quote:

---

I am reminded of that saying about why you should not teach a pig to sing.

​

1. You cannot succeed.
2. It makes the pig mad.

​

Terry

---

I am reminded of a simple reality.
You should not try to talk science on a creationist-run discussion board.1. It is like talking ot a brick wall.
2. The brick wall will simply delete your posts, threaten to ban you, spread idiotic lies about you, and when backed into a corner that their little pea brains cannot find an AiG link to save themselves with, will tell you that you are going to Hell for not being a simple-minded nitwit like them.Isn't that clever, Worm?[This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-13-2003]

Davison's whining is most comical.In fact, some fairly crazy people did get on the ballot.Take "Mom" for instance. I forget her name off the top of my head, but she has been on the ballot several times, the Free Press has published her platform, and I have had the smug pleasure of seeing her utterly humiliated on a TV debate.She calls herself "Mom," you see. Her platform is, among other things, that a combination of prayer and Native american healing arts will rid the state of homosexuals, abortion, drug use,and a list of things that, doubtless, Davison is against also (he recently made some implicit homophobic comments at the Wrom's - I am so shocked!). If I remember correctly, 2 years ago when she ran she also wanted to exeute people for all sorts of things. Really bizarre.That SHE was on the ballot really says something about salty...And a suppression campaign by the Free Press or the Tims Argus ain't it. They both listed "Mom's" blather...

quote:

---

"I learned some time ago that there is no way I can communicate with religious fanatics like gradualist mutationist worshippers of the great God Chance. "
M: It appears on this board that you are unable to communicate with religious posters either i.e. truthlover.

---

Much easier to communicate with religious fanatics that worship the great god Intelligent Design. They never ask questions and only nod in polite (and demented) agreement.

quote:

---

And were you not the one who objected to people resorting to denigrating others when their arugments "failed"? Your first sentence makes you a hypocrite..so chock up another personality defect among the litany that you possess.

---

It has always been that way. That is why Terry the simpleton 'warned' me after only my second post at the Worm's den - for defending legitimate scientists against the insulting gibberish spewed by OutofDate.

quote:

---

S: I feel much more comfortable with those that realize design is everywhere in the universe.

---

And yet another unsupported assertion. Who would have thought?

quote:

---

M: Yes, the "academic" narcoleptics over at Terry's board will surely not question anything you say since it is hard to walk on your knuckles and type at the same time...but since you mention that design is everywhere, please give an example with supporting evidence that it has been designed...if you do it will be the first ever..nice little academic challenge for you.

---

PREDICTION:
A response - if any - will consist of: assertions, deference to dead paleontologists, insults.

quote:

---

S: So I will retire in triumph to Terry's very civil forum.

---

The one that you were banned once? The one where you repeatedly ask to be banned after getting warnings? The one where you are given free reign to insult and goad anyone not taken in by your gibberish? Yes, most civil.
As you return "in triumph", maybe your little den of simpletons might wonder why you were entirely unable to address ANY criticisms of your ..."work"? Nah - they don't care. You are one of them.

quote:

---

M: Hmmm you failed to support your own hypothesis with anything but evasion, insult, an quote mining, you did not address a single rebuttal to your hypothesis from anyone...wow, what a triumph! but then you seem to be proud of having lost your academic position having faded into the irrelvance of Terry Trainor's board and consider that a triumph to...convenient..you lose but you say you win

​

S: When you and others of this forum have to describe Terry as a worm, you have identified yourselves perfectly.

​

M: I have not described him as a worm...so now you have identified yourself as a poor fact checker....I don't think Terry is a worm at all...worms are actually useful organisms.

​

S: You are, by definition, nothing more than intellectual bigots.

​

M: At least we are intellectuals (some of the time )...you seem to be treading water in the academic kiddy pool.

​

And now that you got your little rant out of the way

​

Please show
1) evidence that any biological system has been designed by a designer of your choice
2) present the testable hypothesis for this designer and particularly, how that hypothesis could be falsified
3) How the semi-meiotic hypothesis fits in with ID
4) What would falsify the semi-meiotic hypothesis

​

should be easy...and it is not anywhere in your manifesto..

---

I notice OutofDate is STILL choosing to ignore uttelry the Rice and Chippiondale paper cited to him on at least 3 occasions demonstrating the benefits of sexual reproduction.No wonder his crap would never make it in a real journal...

In the wacky world of right-wing Davison, all he has to do is assert something and it must be true.Odd then that people actually in the know would find his assertions infantile in their content.I believe I may forward a collection of Davison's more absurd assertions to individuals that are actually known in the respective fields and see what their thoughts on this charlatan's gibberish is.The real pity is that there are gullible, and frankly, stupid enough people out there (like Bertha Jane vandeGrift at ARN) that actually think this clown is onto something...

quote:

---

Outofdate:
Scott, if I understand you, you are no longer certain that I am completely incompetent and now find it necessary to solicit the opinions of experts in the evolution field?

---

You do not understand at all. I know you are largely incompetent, and this asinine mantra about population genetics is just one of many examples. I need not solicit opinions, for I know you are wrong. No, I just mentioned that I might forward along some of your more laughable claims to ilicit responses that you might actually pay attention to. On further reflection, however, that would be a waste of everyone's time, as you have no intention of listening to, much less aceepting, reasoned discourse.

quote:

---

I checked out http://www.arn.org and sure enough my work has aroused some interest there. I find it very revealing that you must denigrate Bertha. She seems pretty rational to me.

---

Bertha is a simple-minded stooge. She continues to insist that "directed mutations" occur, despite having dozens of papers cited and having it explined to her dozens of times that they do not. Every week or so, she just reposts the same assertions. just like you. And this is nothing new - I first encountered her probably 6 years ago on the old Internet Infidels board. She made the same refuted arguments then that she does now. She claims to just be 'skeptical' that "RM&NS" can account for extant diversity. yet she is not skeptical at all of any fly-by-night nonsense that roplls along saying otherwise. In fact, she was the one that first linked to your site a few years ago.
Peas in a pod, so to speak.
Oh, and as far as 'generating interest' goes, I did a search for "semi-meiosis" and found only these two threads. It is funny - the only folks that seem to think you are onto something are three people thast have admitted they know nothing of science - mturner, Bertvan, and jazzraptor - and a handful of simpletons who jump on any bandwagon they can. And there, like here, many of the flaws in your 'thinking' are pointed out. An interesting quote from an evolutionary biologist/entomologist:

quote:

---

"Apart from that, his essay reveals little to me other than that the guy's a crackpot. For example, he discusses the issues that sexual reproduction presents for evolution, yet he shows no sign of having read anyone's research on the subject, despite the mountains of both theoretical and empirical work that have been done. I am not even certain that he is aware that it exists, and he certainly doesn't seem to be aware of the mathematical simulations that do exactly what his statements claim are impossible.

​

He talks about chromosome rearrangements being involved in the creation of new species (giving humans as an example). Yet he does not mention *any* of the work done since the 1982 paper he cites that shows how chromosome rearrangements can occur without speciation, or how speciation can occur without chromosome arrangements, or even some of the very recent work that provides some positive support for his position. Again, I doubt he read any of it, or is aware that it exists. The guy is simply out of touch with an enormous body of scientific research which is relevant to the points he is trying to make, and that does not engender much confidence. "

---

if that is what you mean by "generating interest", well, so be it.

quote:

---

By the way an expert is nothing more than someone who has convinced others that his judgement is superior to theirs.

---

If you say so.

quote:

---

Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Futuyama and Provine come to mind.

---

not to mention Bateson, Goldschmidt, Broom, and Grasse. Throw in some arrogance and call it a winner.

quote:

---

A few years ago I had correspondence with Ernst Mayr which terminated when he reminded me of how many thousands of words he had written on the subject of evolution. At least he responded which is more than I can say for Gould down the hall. I predict you will get very little response from any real students of evolution. Please proceed as I am a born experimentalist and look forward to your findings.

---

That appears to be a lie. You have done no experimentation whatsover for more than 10 years, certainly notihng to test your hypotheses. Asserting something does not make it true.
As for Mayr and Gould, here is a little anecdote that I presented once before when a similar subject came up (Borger whining about not getting replies from real scientists).My graduate advisor is considered one of the world's leading experts on the molecular evolutoin in Primates. When I was a graduate student, I would sometimes pick up his mail from the department office and deliver it to him. One day, he received a post-card form one Kelly segraves - who, if I recall correctly, is or was a well-known creationist activist. The post card had some nonsensical ramblings about dinosaurs and such, and asked some questions of my advisor. He chuckled to himself, showed it to me, then threw it in the garbage.
One can only guess that Segraves, after not hearing from my advisor for several weeks, 'concluded' that my advisor simply could not handle the questions and that he, segraves, was right.[This message has been edited by SLPx, 05-15-2003]

Check out the last two posts. Even the anti-Darwinist mturner agrees that some of it is nonsense...

quote:

---

OutofDate:
I take it then Scott that you are afraid to solicit opinions from those you regard as experts. Once again, you fail to keep your word

---

I see you did not read my anecdote. How surprising.

By the way - did you realize that you had incorrectly described meiosis in your manifesto?This was pointed out on ARN. I'm sure you will find a nice home there....