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

quote:

---

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?)

---

Thanks for the tip Pauly.But I am not emotional at all. Moslty, I am just having fun. With the occasional bout of disgust thrown in.

This forum tolerates lots of different people. Very few have been banned and of the three or four that have it was for constant violation of all the forum guidelines. If you think Scott should be banned then what is the justification for you yourself not being banned? You violate forum guidelines in every one of your posts....I think it is better to not ban anyone.cheers,
M

If you ban me it is because I refuse to even recognize the mindless adherence to your gradualist atheist myth of neoDarwinism. If so, then ban me. I need this forum far less than you do. Find someone else to ridicule if you can. In the meantime stop pretending this forum is moderated. salty over and out.

I realise that on Terry's board you have asked to be banned several times. Here you are at it again. Clearly there is some psychological factor driving this: I suspect, but of course cannot be sure, that it is mere kindergarten attention-seeking. It may be more than that. Whatever, in an intelligent adult it is sad to see such transparent posturing. No doubt Terry will have some comforting words for you - he always does when you fish for compliments.If you want to cast yourself out, feel free. You can remove yourself from the membership list quite easily. Go to your profile ...http://http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/ubbmisc.cgi?action=editbi... ogin=and remove the information.If you wish to lurk without posting, feel free. If you wish to keep posting, do so - just stay on topic and follow the forum guidelines please, which include addressing the issues raised.

Salty seeks gratification of his persecution complex by taunting the board administration (no, not Mammuthus) to ban him. Is this easier than responding to message #14 or other discussions on your hypothesis?[This message has been edited by wj, 05-07-2003]

If I banned you it would be rather stunning since I AM NOT A MODERATOR! You are begging at the wrong street corner salty...as to needing the forum..that is an odd way of looking at things...I don't need the forum...I enjoy it.

quote:

---

If I banned you it would be rather stunning since I AM NOT A MODERATOR!

---

lol....This misunderstanding of his is a testament to his attention to detail.------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

Thanks for the free psychoanalysis. As for my refusal to respond to Darwinian queries, I thought I had made my position clear when I said: "Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change". As for Scott Page and his rabid attacks on critics of the Darwinian myth, I will quote Thomas Carlyle. "No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men." salty

Unfortunately you have not made yourself clear.
You have not even defined what you mean by Darwinism. You have not provided reasons or support for abandoning any current accepted biological theory unless you count "because you say so" as a compelling reason...I for one do not.As to your Carlyle quote, if you are referring to yourself as a "great man"..you certainly have not convinced anyone of this. If you are referring to Scott's analysis of Grasse (which is incidentally the topic of this thread) he did not actaully attack Grasse...he attacked you because you clearly have distorted/misinterpreted his writings i.e. they don't support your claims...that is what Scott was getting at...you have not addressed the issues he brought up. Your hypothesis is being skewered and you don't even defend it...one must wonder as to your committment to the semi-meiotic hypothesis.And in defense of Scott...he does not disbelieve Darwin so he does not disbelieve in great men in general Oh yes, the Free for All thread is still open for you...and is already drifting off topic cheers,
M

One can be a "great man" and still not know what they are talking about. This is akin to this weird implication in our society that rich people are somehow "better" than middle class or poor folks.
Grasse may have been popular, well respected, etc., but that has nothing to do with the fact that he thought bones were more important that genomes in the study of evolution. He said so! (wrote so).
That is pure nonsnse, whoever said it.Not to mention the fact that he clearly and unequivocally stated - in the very book that davison cites - that chromosomal rearrangements do not cause speciation.
I had asked how Davison reconciles that - which is of course in direct contradiction to salty's gibberish - with his repeated acts of hero worship and self-justification - to wit "Grasse would agree with me" - frankly, it appears he would not! - by referring to him?No response, just more assertion, more martydom-wishing, more evasion.JA "I rely on out of date science written by those I consider "great men" and therefore beyond reproach" Davison cannot support his claims - his essays certainly do not.

Scott, you are just proving how correct Carlyle really was. Why should I have to agree with everything each of my references thought? What a bizarre notion. The important thing is that every one of them saw through the foolishness of the neoDarwinian model. Grasse, in particular demolished the Darwinian fable. The simple fact is that all the mutation and all the selection in the world never did have and does not now have anything whatsoever to do with organic evolution, except to stabilize what is already there. Get used to it. Only a confirmed atheist like Dawkins could ever promote that nonsense anyway. I'll bet he must be one of your heroes. salty

Darwin was not a great man. 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. He is undoubtedly along with Freud the most overrated scientist of all time. How anyone can be a Darwinian of any stripe completely escapes me. Also I am not interested in your free for all, thank you very much. It is all I can do to put up with the regular forum. salty

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.

Nonsense. Darwin never did a single experiment to test his hypothesis of natural selection. As for my experiments you don't know diddly squat so quit pretending that you do. You are as bad as Scott. salty

Would you care to indulge the less-informed (e.g. newcomers) by giving us at least a basic summary of your experiments?