|
Author
|
Topic: The Nature of Mutations
|
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member
|
Right on !
Well Phospho, it looks like I'm not the only one disenchanted with the gradualist, mutationist evolutionary myth. I agree with just about everything you have posted. The vast majority of all point mutations are either neutral or deleterious. Besides, macroevolution is finished anyway. One cannot evaluate a process which is no longer in operation. About all one can do is attempt a reconstruction of what it was all about. Thank God the truth has never been determined by majority vote. Hang in there. salty
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 155 by derwood, posted 05-12-2003 5:15 PM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 159 of 344 (39841)
05-12-2003 7:42 PM
|
Reply to: Message 155 by derwood
05-12-2003 5:15 PM
|
|
Re: look whos back - as usual, with nothing to say
I wasn't talking to you Scott, I was talking to Phospho. There is no point in trying to communicate with you as you already know everything. "When all think alike, no one thinks very much" Walter Lippmann Incidentally, I have had a great deal to say. You just don't like it! salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 155 by derwood, posted 05-12-2003 5:15 PM | | derwood has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
muzzle me if you must
I realize I am not suposed to offer my views but the fact is that there is absolutely no evidence that diploid organisms are capable at present of evolution beyond the subspecies. This was not original with me but was the conclusion of Grasse, Broom and, stealing the idea from Broom without ever acknowledging it, that great spokesperson for the Synthesis (GROUPTHINK) Julian Huxley. Sorry to interrupt. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2003 4:21 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: bump 2
For a thousand years, the generaly accepted physics was that of Aristotle. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 163 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2003 4:21 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Now for phase II
I described population genetics as a "smokescreen" in the Manifesto, a position I still hold. All genetic changes originate in single cells in single organisms. Get used to it!. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 148 by Mammuthus, posted 05-11-2003 8:32 AM | | Mammuthus has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 167 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2003 9:09 AM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Now for phase II
[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 167 by Mammuthus, posted 05-13-2003 9:09 AM | | Mammuthus has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Now for phase II
[Non-substantive post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-13-2003]
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 223 of 344 (40743)
05-20-2003 10:50 AM
|
Reply to: Message 210 by Unknown Author
05-19-2003 4:00 PM
|
|
Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
Hang in there phospho. I agree with you entirely. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 210 by Unknown Author, posted 05-19-2003 4:00 PM | | Unknown Author has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 228 of 344 (40772)
05-20-2003 2:54 PM
|
Reply to: Message 226 by derwood
05-20-2003 12:13 PM
|
|
oh, look who is back!
Scott, there are no experts in the field of evolution. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 226 by derwood, posted 05-20-2003 12:13 PM | | derwood has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
oh, look who is back!
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 233 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 7:00 PM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 236 of 344 (40828)
05-20-2003 8:36 PM
|
Reply to: Message 233 by wj
05-20-2003 7:00 PM
|
|
oh, look who is back!
I see you too have not read my papers or those I cite. Sexual reproduction has arisen many times during evolution and is expressed through totally nonhomologous means. There is no universal mechanism for the determination of sex. Don't take my word for it. Read my direct quotes from N. N. Vorontsov. For God's sake read before you kneejerk react. salty
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 233 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 7:00 PM | | wj has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 241 by wj, posted 05-20-2003 10:28 PM | | John A. Davison has replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Refresher Course
[Non-substantive or off-topic post deleted. --Admin] [This message has been edited by Admin, 05-21-2003]
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Mutations deleterious based on environment?
FK I still agree with what he has posted. If phospho wants to deny evolution I say all the more power to him. At least he has seen through the Darwnian fable. salty
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 240 by Redmahn Kassad, posted 05-20-2003 8:51 PM | | John A. Davison has not replied |
|
John A. Davison
Inactive Member
|
Re: Lesson Two
I never denied the beneficial effects of sexual reproduction. It is fine for accumulating trivial improvements although I don't see much evidence for that. It is incompetent to produce new species. How many times does the sexual model have to fail before you, like myself, are forced to abandon it? salty
|
™ Version 4.2