For Salty

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...

I see the administration still caters to the mindless ravings of Scott Page. What better proof does one need of the soundness of my position. salty

Scott. What is ARN? I need all the help I can muster. salty

....my assumptions now
1. salty will not provide the requested evidence
2. salty will write a typically short response possibly off topic
3. salty will post an out of context quote
4. salty will repeat one of the assertions made in this post again after yet again failing to provide a compelling reason why it should be taken seriously.
5. salty will rely on insult.Cool! I got 4 out of 5

Would that be the like the genetic shuffling due to sexual reproduction? No wonder his responses never change! After all, one of the key assertions of his entire "work" is the assumption that sexual reproduction HALTS evolution.

Q you get an A salty

Yes..just shuffle a limited amount of nonsense around repeatedly until it forms a predictable pattern and intelligence and ability to debate is halted immediately...supporting evidence is salty's Manifesto.We can call it the Semi-Idiotic-Hypothesis of debate avoidance tactics....and I feel no need to defend my hypothesis because Quetzal agrees with me and Scott Page would agree with me to...Oh dang they are not dead so they don't count...my dead cat would agree with me so that saves it...Grasse would also agree with me

M that is a pretty pathetic showing. I guess the truth must be getting to you finally. salty

So Salty, do you accept the postulated evolution of Sinonyx to modern whales as summarised here? If not, please detail where you disagree with the paleological evidence.

Of course I accept the evidence that whales evolved from terrestrial mammals. All mammals evolved from terrestrial mammals, probably insectivores. Thanks for the reference. salty

So Salty, at what point do you speculate that the whale or its ancestor changed from asexual reproduction to sexual reproduction?

Hmmm which truth would that be salty? The "truth" of your content-less posts? You cannot even explain what you believe here in a simple forum format so there is no way for me to even evaluate the basis of your assertions.However, I am intrigued first 1) why you think all mammals evolved from insectivores....especially as they do not form a monophyletic group within Afrotheria by morphological or molecular criteria.2) can you provide an example of non-sexually reproducing whale transitional?...or any non-sexually reproducing transitional for any species of any sexually reproducing animal?By the way, you met all my assumptions 1-5 this time..woohoo..jackpot

Guess who is off topic now. If you had read my papers, you might know that I have postulated an intermediate evolutionary period in which organisms might simultaneously reproduce both semi-meiotically and sexually. Curiously, there is some evidence for this in humans. Certain ovarian tumors consist chiefly of the ectodermal tissues hair and teeth. Occasionally tumors are found some of which are blond and some brunette in the same female. These can only be explained semi-meiotically with the woman being heterozygous for hair color. Now M, take this idiotic notion and have a ball with it. salty

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? Which experts do you have in mind? 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. By the way an expert is nothing more than someone who has convinced others that his judgement is superior to theirs. Dawkins, Gould, Mayr, Futuyama and Provine come to mind. 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.