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

Unmoderated forum? Is this one being moderated? I don't think so. It is perfectly possible for a sexual form to on occasion reproduce semi-meiotically. Indeed we have a living example in the parthenogenetic turkey. There may be many others. Remember Bateson "Treasure your exceptions". I think I'll hibernate for a while to allow Scott and any others to vent their spleens. Ciao salty

Yes salty, this forum is moderated. Every one of the threads you have participated in has ended up being shut down because of your failure to abide by forum guidelines particularly...1.Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.2. Debate in good faith by addressing rebuttals through the introduction of new information or by providing additional argument. Do not merely keep repeating the same points without elaboration.3. Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person. The Britannica says, "Usually, in a well-conducted debate, speakers are either emotionally uncommitted or can preserve sufficient detachment to maintain a coolly academic approach."4. Assertions should be supported with either explanations and/or evidence for why the assertion is true. Bare assertions are strongly discouraged.In any case, there is a thread for you to "vent your spleen" in the Free for All without moderator interference if you wish to come out of hibernation.

Quote:
______________________________________
I say that chromosomal rearrangements in and of themselves are in fact NOT the impetus for evolution.
______________________________________And I would agree, that they are not in and of themselves the impetus for evolution (gene duplication is also important, and there have to be small mutations, at the single nucleotide, or small indels, or epigenetic factors level as well). But, gene flow in rearranged chromosomes can be suppressed, allowing divergent evolution in the two types of chromosome (original and rearranged), possibly triggering and at least providing the process for parapatric speciation. And there is evidence that incompatible beneficial mutatations concentrate on the rearranged chromosmes during the period of hybridisation after rearrangement.See Navarro and Barton, Chromosmal speciation and molecular divergenece - accelerated evolution in rearranged chromosomes, Science 300, 321 -325.This a study of protein evolution in man and chimpanzee, focusing on the difference between rearranged and co-linear chromosomes in these species, that I have summarised and reviewed here:Human/chimpanzee divergence[This message has been edited by Speckle, 05-05-2003]

Your point number 3 is a joke. You continue to allow Scott to use "horse dung", "garbage", "bilge" and I forget other phrases thank God. If you won't control him, and you obviously won't, forget about my participation. In fact, one more personal insult from Scott is more than I am prepared to take. Let's see what kind of a moderater you really are! salty

Sorry Salty, I did not mean to confuse you..I am NOT the moderator. In fact I am not a moderator for any of the forums of this site. I only meant that this forum IS moderated. You complained in one of the threads that got closed about the moderators closing threads you were in. The thread I have opened for you in the Free for All should not have this problem.

This is yet another interesting look into the mindset of the anti-Darwinist.Referring to the anti-Darwinist's claims in non-flattering terms is considered insulting, rude, etc. ,and is often used as an 'excuse' to get out of supporting one's position, as salty is doing here. Yet, the same anti-Darwinists often justify their own use of insulting and inflammatory language by claiming that it is true, or that it is their opinion, or something similar.Salty runs around calling people frauds, that they are engaging in mysticism, that they are 'not scientists', etc., and sees no problem with it because accortding to him, he is right.Well, I think I am right for referring to salty's claims as horse dung and such.Of course, unlike salty, I actually explained why I felt that.
salty just whines about not being protected while all the time doing his best to avoid any actual discussion.One will notice that he has still been unable or unwilling to address ANY substantive issues in this thread or any other.Instead of explaining why Grasse is right that fossils are more important than genomes, he complains that I am 'disparaging' Grasse.Instead of actually explaining how he can reconcile his reliance upon Grasse with his reliance upon Goldschmidt et al., he whines about being 'called names'.What are you gonna' do.....

It is the Darwinist that has the mindset. He goes right on believing in mutation and natural selection as the forces that guide evolution even though there is no evidence whatsoever for those assumptions. That is pure mysticism. Why should I defend Grasse or anyone else for that matter, including myself. My work speaks for itself and requires no defense from me. You Darwinians are the ones in trouble and apparently don't even realize it. You even deny ID which is everywhere to be seen. You are pathetic and there is no reason whatsoever to communicate any further with you, especially since your guard dog Scott goes right on with his scatological references. Have a nice GROUPTHINK. salty

Just a comment by a lurker in response to both Salty and SLPx. I understand Scotty is probably irritated with Salty, but "respect for others" and maintaining an unemotionaly attitude is definitely not what Scotty has done. I do think it takes away from your posts. (SLPx is Scotty, right?)On the other hand, Scotty's ideas are obviously "winning." Although I haven't read too many threads involving Salty, it is clear in this thread that valid objections, indeed, even falsifications, of Salty's ideas have been presented, and Salty has presented no answer whatsoever. In the end, he says his works speak for themselves, but his works are so easy to shoot down that even I have taken a shot at it (not on this thread). This thread has blasted big holes in Salty's works, which he says speak for themselves. So, I guess if they speak for themselves, then what they say is, "We don't have anything right. This was all a bad hypothesis."

Salty, you continue to ignore substantive messages to you.

Hi truthlover,
That is part of the reason I am trying to get the thread into the Free for All. Salty apparently wants to be here to rant..I am opposed to banning people so I tried to provide a thread where he could rant at will. There are several posts in that thread already criticizing specific parts of his Manifesto and the semi-meiotic hypothesis.As to SLPx, he is not alone. I have been harsh with salty and so have some of the cooler heads from the forum. It is out of frustration that he continuously posts the same statements without addressing rebuttals...again, this is why I think salty threads belong in the Free for All. I am not trying to justify insults or bad behavior but you can probably imagine how annoying it is, as Scott pointed out, when salty keeps whining about how he is being insulted while he is both rude and unwilling to address the complete destruction of his hypothesis before his eyes.I mean when salty says he does not need to defend the ideas in his Manifesto and that they speak for themselves..what kind of debate is that? Ok, they do speak for themselve..they say "boy is this a dumb idea with no supporting evidence and mountains of contradictory evidence which cannot be waved away"...however, to progress and learn it would have been more beneficial to argue point by point the basis of the hypothesis and the underlying evidence or theory.By the way, glad you came out of lurking mode and hope you will continue to post.cheers,
M[This message has been edited by Mammuthus, 05-06-2003]

S: Why should I defend Grasse or anyone else for that matter, including myself.M: Because that is what proponents of a hypothesis are REQUIRED to do.S: My work speaks for itself and requires no defense from me.M: Your writings (not work as you have peformed no experimental work..nor even read any relevant literature for that matter) does speak for itself..it says "unsupportable fiction that even its very own proponent refuses to defend or attempt to support"..now why would that be? Other's from the anti-evolution side are perfectly willing to defend their ideas.S: You even deny ID which is everywhere to be seen.M: Demonstrate a single testable example of ID. What is the scientifically testable hypothesis of ID?S: You are pathetic and there is no reason whatsoever to communicate any further with you, especially since your guard dog Scott goes right on with his scatological references.M: Hmmm, you are rather the hypocrite salty...you may want to think about your own personal ethics. Crying like a baby whenever big bad Scott (or anyone else for that matter) is unimpressed with your posts yet writing insults like this hardly suggest the workings of a sound mind....as to GROUPTHINK...I suppose it is better to do that as opposed to not thinking at all as you seem to advocate.Your pet hypothesis is continuing to be trashed in the Free for All.cheers,
M

I'm through with this so called evolution forum. If anyone here ever publishes anything of substance send me a reprint. salty

Rather than leaving (again) in a huff...why not participate in the Free for All? If you would address rebuttals of your points and actually discuss your hypothesis I think the tone of discussion would be more to your liking even if others did not agree with you. In addition, your criticisms of evolution are so vague there is really nothing that can be discussed. If you are unwilling to debate your hypothesis and the content of your publications in an open forum, then why did you register here in the first place since debate is the express purpose of this site?cheers,
M

I am not leaving in a huff. I am leaving because this forum tolerates Scott Page. This forum is apparently the only one from which he has not been banned. Apparently he has finally found his real home. salty

quote:

---

JA "My lack of work speaks for itself" Davison:
I am not leaving in a huff. I am leaving because this forum tolerates Scott Page. This forum is apparently the only one from which he has not been banned.

---

Funny - I left Terry "the Worm" Trainor's den of simpletons because it not only tolerates you, but Terry actually seems to want you around.
As for the other comment, well, that is just false, I can prove it (not that it matters), and that is the chance one takes when they listen to the error-filled rants of idiotic creationists like Terry Trainor. In fact, I am 'active' on about 5 or 6 forums now, though I do not post on all of them all the time.
So you pathetic attempt at getting ina fdig was as error filled as your "manifesto" and that laughable "... Origin of Biological Information" farce that you put out. You know the one - where you say that the information was already there but present exactly ZERO supporting evidence? yeah, that one...

quote:

---

Apparently he has finally found his real home. salty

---

Yeah, and you belong at the Worm's den....Now, do you plan on defending your claims or will you hide behind this facade of "publication"?