What is Salty's 'semi-meiotic hypothesis'

There is an interesting article in last weeks New Scinetist
(in the UK) that suggests that the divergence into man
and chimpanzee was actually a very gradual process.The genetic changes observable now are suggested to have come about
in one location (rather than with geographic isolation)
such that some offspring could freely interbreed while others
began to have a reproductive isolation from one another.It all depends upon which genetic variation the two partners
have inherited.It also seems to be very much like the case we have with horses
and donkeys (to some extent), but especially with Zebras in the
present.

Hi Salty,Estimates vary, but it wouldn't be too far off the mark to say that the human and chimpanzee genomes are only 2% different. Given that it doesn't take much of a genome difference to create a new species, how do you support this statement: Again, just considering single base-pair changes to keep things simple, over time such changes will accumulate, and there is nothing to keep the changes from reaching 1% different, then reaching 2% different, and then reaching 3% different, and so forth. At some point the differences will reach the point where the changed population and the original population are no longer interfertile, thus giving rise to a new species. Given that there's no limit to the accumulation of differences, what is to prevent speciation from happening?--Percy

quote:

---

I certainly don't agree with everything Berg postulated.

---

To quote yourself, iirc, "You are not disagreeing with me, but with one of the greatest scientists of the 20th century." Obviously your weaknesses go pretty deep into your thinking, to the very brink of hypocrisy.As for chance, I agree with Darwin on this one, "I have hitherto sometimes spoken as if the variations- so common and multiform with organic beings under domestication, and in a lesser degree with those under nature- were due to chance. This, of course, is a wholly incorrect expression, but it serves to acknowledge plainly our ignorance of the cause of each particular variation."I would not want anyone on this forum to be mistaken into thinking that your work in any way reflects the methodology or conclusions of Berg, Schindewolf or Grasse, however much you might try to insinuate some lineage of thought from them to you. With the exception of picking up on Berg's rudiments (the shakiest area of his work which his students quickly modified) you do little more than mine them for anti-Darwinist quotes. The whole point of their work is that constrained processes account for the teleonatural phenomena of development. Your own work might have a little more value if you had explored in the lab or the field the one process you attempted to identified: unfortunately your armchair theory adds little or nothing to the catalog of variational processes they and others saw manifest.Nor should any of our creationist friends think that you are proposing a "creator" in any familiar sense - but rather explicitly a "very impersonal" intelligence of the kind that Einstein or Spinoza saw behind the universe. However, all your insistence on a creator seems little more than an attempt to anthropomorphosize the action these constrained processes. Quite what you think an "impersonal" creator could be is beyond me - or how an "impersonal" intelligence directs evolution in a way that is incompatible with the impersonal processes of "Godless" evolutionists as you call them.Lima de Faria, I understand, saw through you on this very point: that your insistence on a directing power behind evolution, was no more than prejudice. It's one thing to experience what Einstein called the "the religious feeling engendered by experiencing the logical comprehensibility of profound interrelations." It's quite another to build on this foundation towers of arrogant disdain from which to snipe at other, more seduluous, thinkers.

In private correspondence Lima-de-Faria disagreed with me on the role of a Creator. That is to be expected. His "Evolution without selection" failed to get to the heart of the matter. My science has driven me to my beliefs. I also don't think you can speak for Berg or Schindewolf and certainly not Grasse who specifically mentions God. I am convinced that chance had nothing to do with evolution any more than it plays a role in ontogeny. Those were Berg's words. If not chance then what? I don't think Berg was in any way influenced by political considerations. He was being very sincere. The issues here are age old and have to do with our view of the world. I believe, largely as a result of my laboratory experiences, that a great intelligence has produced all the world, both physical and biological. I am equally certain that Berg, Broom, Grasse, Schindewolf, Bateson and Goldschmidt would agree, especially now that the enormous complexity of the cellular machine has been revealed. However, these issues will never be resolved by debate. salty

I did not refer to Godless evolutionists. I believe it was Godless Darwinian gradualists. There have been other evolutionists who believed in directed evolution but few have had the courage to come out with it in print. Robert Broom certainly did and I am sure Behe and Dembski and other IDists also believe in directed evolution but tend to avoid the direct commitment. The word evolution is not synonymous with Darwinism although one might think so judging from some of the responses I have elicited. salty

And the difference is...?--Percy

P. your response speaks volumes. Darwinism is evolution? Why of course it is! salty

Well, good, then! As a self-avowed evolutionist, you must have accepted the Darwinist position. Unless you were being sarcastic, but I don't know why you would, since it's not an effective debate tactic...Oh, wait.

Trust me crashfrog - I WAS being sarcastic! salty

And Crashfrog was being ironic. In your view, what is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?--Percy

P. In my view evolution is a thing of the past and Darwinism was a myth dreamed up to explain it.

Not funny and not an explanation either. A simple question not answered.

Believe me I am quite sincere. Darwinism has never explained anything and macroevolution is finished. If you don't like my answer that is unfortunate. salty

Mr. Pamboli, I have reviewed your recent comments and offer the following response. If you will note I have allowed Grasse, Berg, Goldschmidt, Broom, Bateson, Schindewolf, White, Burbank and all my other references to speak for themselves. Since they often agree with each other it should surprise no one that I have been profoundly influenced by them. I am unimpressed with your revisionist attempt to redefine what any of my references meant especially since I have quoted them directly. Their words define their position. I just happen to agree with them. Besides all that, what have my views on the nature of a Creator have to do with evolution? Nothing. What counts are the facts. Here are a few. Macroevolution is apparently finished. Sexual reproduction has never been demonstrated as a macroevolutionary mechanism. In my view it never will be. There is abundant evidence that evolution has involved, like ontogeny, the release of preformed information. Natural and artificial selection have never produced a new species. There is no demonstrable role for chance in either phylogeny or ontogeny exactly as Leo Berg expressed it in 1922. Now you are trying to tell me that Berg's students somehow corrected his errors. I say nonsense to that idea. You have no business making such a suggestion. I am constantly being accused of making unfounded assertions. What are you and Scott Page doing I wonder. The simple truth is that no one understands evolution, not me, not you, not Scott Page and certainly not Richard Dawkins or Ernst Mayr or any other living soul. One thing is for sure though. neoDarwinism is a total failure as an explanatory hypothesis.The conclusion that I have drawn is unavoidable. Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change. I am confident that that day is not far off. salty

The question was:
In your view, what is the difference between evolution and Darwinism?
You have not answered.