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

quote:

---

Darwin was not a great man.

---

Therefore, we can disparage him and toss aside his evidence.

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

---

Hmmm... 1859-1838 = 21 years.I wonder - what is 2003-1977?Or 2003 - 1951?Would a great man - or even a mediocre man - of science rely upon 20-50 (or more) year old data to pontificate in an area that grows by leaps and bounds every year?

Peter Borger also denied that Darwin accepted cell theory.Can you back up that assertion any better than he could ?

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.

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.M: When pressed for any specifics you merely claim that Grasse et al. support your completely non-specific claims like "the semi-meiotic hypothesis is right because Grasse would agree with me". Thus it is completely unclear what you agree or disagree with from each of your references.S: Darwin was not a great man.M: This was a predictable response..however, he has had more of an influence on science and society than all of your "heros" combined.
The interesting thing is you are functionally illiterate of all the biology progress of your day...so it is rather amusing that you accuse Darwin of this...It is clear that you are not interested in the Free for ALL thread...it is also clear you are unable to support your assertions...in fact "It is all I can do to put up with the regular forum." seems like an out of place statement. I would think since your posts never deal with any topic in a substantive way it would be little effort to write them.As to your comment that Darwin did no experimental work...it is pretty clear you have not read any of his writings...but I am not surprised.cheers,
M

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.LOL!..would that be the reclining armchair theory or the one with the electric butt warmer

More anal humor is all I expect from this bunch of Darwinian mystics. I am still waiting for any substantial evidence that mutation and selection can exceed the subspecies. I think I have given you all sufficient time. salty

More denial is all I expect from a psuedo-intellectual posing as a biologist....multiple examples have been provided for you and you have in EVERY case ignored them. It is you who have had sufficient time to educate yourself yet you are unwilling. You have also been given sufficient time to defend your semi-meoitic hypothesis and have not even attempted to do so...I guess we can assume you have realized how ridiculous the hypothesis is as well?

Darwin, like the Bible has a concordance. Look up the word CELL and you will find a bunch of references mostly to the cell of the honeycomb. One however should lead you to the last edition of Variation of plants and animals. In it he explicitly states that he does not know where cells come from. Further he offers as an excuse for his ignorance the fact that he is not an histologist. A copy of Mendel's paper was found in his library, no doubt sent by Mendel. However Darwin, unable by his own admission to understand German, probably never read it. Of course even if he had it would have made no difference since sexual (Mendelian) genetics never had anything to do with evolution anyway. Quite the contrary, it brings it to a screaming halt. salty

Why should I even dream of defending my published hypothesis when the papers themselves do exactly that. Your Darwinian musings have no basis in fact or experiment yet you blindly adhere to them nevertheless. If the semi-meiotic hypothesis proves to be in error it will not alter one bit the complete failure of the Darwinian fable which is undoubtedly the most thoroughly tested hypothesis in the history of science. I see that you like Scott can't refrain from insult (pseudo-intellectual). That is the most telling proof of the uncertainty of your position. salty

I am very much impressed with your clairvoyance. salty

So you have no evidence that Darwin did not accept cell theory.Why not just say that ?

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?

He he he
Your papers, particularly your manifesto are no different from your posts. Unsupported assertions and appeals to "authority"...The only difference is there is less whining in the manifesto than you display here. I think you cannot defend your hypothesis but are unwilling to admit it. The semi-meiotic hypothesis is a non-starter that you refuse to even test yourself as the sole advocate.I do not blindly adhere to anything. Evolution is the best supported theory in biological science from fact and experiment. But you would not know since you yourself have admitted you do not read anything that is even remotely current in biology.Hmmm if insult is the measure of uncertainty of a position then you must have some serious doubts as you yourself are unapologetically insulting. I would say a better measure of the uncertainty of a position is the unwillingess to address direct challenges to it, of which you are probably the most guilty in the history of this forum.

Go to Retired Service | The University of Vermont There you will find a list of all except my most recent papers as well as reprints of three published papers dealing with evolution . You will also find the unpublished Manifesto which sets forth my views in greater detail. salty

M. As usual your reasoning is at fault. Evolution is not a theory. It is a fact. Darwinism also is not a theory. It is the most unsubstantiated hypothesis in the history of science. My papers determine my position. Where is your published position on evolution? Keep up the insulting tone. It suits you perfectly. salty