Grasse a great biologist/zoologist??? and a knock for salty

quote:

---

... such is the influence of "europe's greatest biologist."

---

This is an outrageous calumny! Professor Davison has never said Grasse was the greatest scientist in Europe. He states his view of Grasse in the following, crystal clear, unambiguous terms ...

quote:

---

Pierre Grasse, was the greatest French zoologist of his day, just as was his Russian counterpart Leo Berg.

---

As this is just about the clearest sentence in salty's entire output, I think it's a shame you should misread it.

quote:

---

He was functionally illiterate of all the biology progress of his day and he never even accepted the cell theory which had been in place since 1838.

---

Perhaps, like salty, Darwin just ignored great chunks of the literature, didn't keep up on recent publications, and just went with what seemed obvious to him.One enormous difference, however. He tirelessly designed, meticulously conducted, and promulgated the results of experiments to test his hypothesis. That makes him a scientist - of whatever calibre - while salty's semi-meiotic hypothesis remains an armchair theory which even it's author apparently didn't think worth his energy devising, conducting or publishing experimental support for.

quote:

---

As for my experiments you don't know diddly squat so quit pretending that you do.

---

I know you haven't published any experiments in your papers since the semi-meiotic hypothesis first appeared in print.I know you claim it is eminently testable.
I know you claim it has not been tested.
I know you claim you cannot test it now because you do not have access to a laboratory for research.
I know you continued in your employment as a professor in a life sciences department at a reasonably well-equipped university for a fair number of years after the semi-meiotic hypothesis first appeared in print.I think I have enough information. Either you're a liar (which I doubt), or you have dishonestly published by not including relevant positive or negative results (which I doubt), or you have not conducted a course of experimental research. Whtaever way you cut it - your hypothesis is totally without any experimental support and your publications and comments give no indication that you have ever bothered to design or conduct such experiments.You can huff and puff all you want, but your own published work is sufficient testimony. It's the La-z-boy deluxe of armchair theories.

quote:

---

I am very much impressed with your clairvoyance.

---

No clarivoyance - just reading your papers and what you have written about yourself. Am I wrong? Have you or others conducted experiments designed to test semi-meiosis - in the Beltsville turkey, perhaps?If so, what were the results? If not, why not?

quote:

---

The semi-meiotic hypothesis, which is at least testable, has only been around for 19 years.

---

So what have you been doing for 19 years? Sitting in your armchair?You might have an iota of credibility if you had done some testing and published the results rather than trawling through Bartlett's Familar Quotations.