Bateson vindicated, response to Mr. Bad-Ideas about Kimura
In Cordova’s Back! Mr. Bad-Ideas writes:
Sal has no idea what he’s talking about here either.
What he’s referencing here is the neutral theory, which my readers will remember was recently the basis for an equally confused science article about worm hoo-hahs. Does the neutral theory reject Darwinian evolution?“The theory does not deny the role of natural selection in determining the course of adaptive evolution” (Kimura, 1986)
On what theoretical basis did Kimura make that claim? Did he back the claim up with the same mathematics he did for neutral theory? No. It was an obligatory salute to that pea-brain named Charles Darwin who couldn’t do high school algebra, much less the differential equations which Kimura used to exorcise Darwinism from molecular evolution. If Darwin could have done the math, Darwin might not have put forward his theory (that is presuming Darwin would have had the integrity, which is doubtful).
In Genetic Entropy, Cornell geneticist John Sanford shows Kimura’s math is beautifully extensible to adapatations.
Also, I posted that a Prominent NAS member trashes neo-Darwinism and a little blurb about William Bateson’s vindication. It was an extension of Kimura’s ideas from molecular evolution to adaptative evolution.
Natural selection …is not the fundamental cause of evolution.
….
Historically, the word mutationism was used to refer to William Bateson’s saltationism or similar ideas, in which natural selection plays little role. Later Morgan (109) presented a more reasonable
form of mutationism taking into account the role of natural selection. His view was abstract and based on a few lines of speculative arguments. However, recent molecular studies of phenotypic evolution support the basic ideas of his view and have extended it to a more comprehensive view presented in this articleMasatoshi Nei
Mr. Bad-Ideas presumed I didn’t understand the relevant literature. His bad, not mine..
Finally, junk-DNA is not junk, so neutral thoery is wrong about that count, but it’s not wrong about the fact evolution must have proceeded principally through non-Darwinian means. I don’t have to buy into neutral theory in order to use its devastating critique of Darwinism.
[Many thanks to professor Davison for helping keep the memory of Bateson alive.]
[…] Sal seems to disagree with my characterization of his ignorance on neutral theory, but he’s got very little to show for it: On what theoretical basis did Kimura make that […]
Pingback by Cordova’s Back! And He’s Brought More Crank Creationist Ideas! « The Bad Idea Blog — January 28, 2008 @ 6:16 pm
Mr. Bad Ideas writes:
Baloney. I’m letting you through. I could easily dismiss you Mr. Bad Ideas, but I occasionally let some of my vast anti-fan club through. It provides nice links from where I can easily see what the latest garbage Darwinists are saying. You’ll notice I started dismissing links from your Transvestite Drag Queen Darwinist friend Lou/JanieBelle after I found him/it/her tiresome.
Mr. Bad Ideas writes on whether I need to accept all of Netural Theory:
Not so fast Mr. Bad Ideas. Neutral theory can be correct that molecular evolution was non-Darwinian, but it can be incorrect that molecular evolution was a random walk or some sort of diffussion. There is the possbility Darwinism and Neutral Theory are both wrong and each camp has found fatal errors in each other’s position. That was the whole point of Denton’s chapter on Biochemical Echo of Typology.
Comment by scordova — January 29, 2008 @ 3:58 am
Slpage writes:
Hiya Scott L. Page. You always have the sweetest things to say. I thank you for being one my most loyal anti-fans.
Comment by scordova — January 29, 2008 @ 4:08 am
October Mermaid asks:
I recommend reading Pharyngula or Scott Page’s website. Those sites will teach you the appropriate level of bigotry and prejudice that is a prerequiste to being a good Darwinist. You don’t need science to be a Darwinsit, just lots of hot air and a snotty bigoted attitude toward creationst all the time and Christians most of the time. That’s why the top Darwinsits in the world labeled themselves “Brights”.
Speaking of hot air, Darwin said of himself:
Comment by scordova — January 29, 2008 @ 4:17 am
By the way, Mr. Bad Ideas, didn’t you get the memo that molecular clocks are busted. See: Zuck is Out of Luck.
Comment by scordova — January 29, 2008 @ 4:20 am
William Bateson completely rejected Darwinism and near the end of his life also rejected Mendelism as a creative factor in speciation. It is ironic that the father of modern genetics and Mendelism should be the first to realize that sexual reproduction was incompetent as an evolutionary mechanism and served only to stabilize the species once present. I have documented the whole matter in my Manifesto and elsewhere in my published papers, all available at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum and in the Archives there.
Bateson, with many other great scientists of the past, was instrumental in influencing my “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” Rivista di Biologia 98:155-166 (2005), as well as several of my earlier papers dating back to 1984. Bateson remains a towering figure in evolutionary science which is why he has been cynically and deliberately ignored by the atheist Darwinian establishment. They prefer sedentary highly prolific blowhards like Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, and more recently Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, none of whom ever published a word on the only matter that has ever been in question - the cytogenetic mechanism by which new species were produced. Godless Darwinism is the longest lasting scandal in the history of science. Fortunately, its practioners are about to become mere foot notes in the history of evolutionary science, something that should have happened long ago.
I love it so!
Thanks Sal for introducing Bateson, one of my most valued sources.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
Better late than never!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Comment by John A. Davison — January 29, 2008 @ 6:40 am
Sal
Sal
I see you are attracting the dregs of Darwinism with this topic. I can’t believe that Scot L Page is actually using his real name. The rest are all anonymous cowards. He is now a known coward with more previous aliases than Carter has pills. What a motley assemblage of losers they really are. Congratulations Sal on becoming a magnet for trash. You must be doing somethimg right.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
Comment by John A. Davison — January 29, 2008 @ 11:32 am
http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=18#comment-212
To save valuable cyberspace and wear and tear on my ancient fingers, I copy the above page here especially #20.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
john.a.davison.free.fr/
Comment by John A. Davison — January 30, 2008 @ 12:50 am
By the way Sal, you are welcome at my embryonic blog -
john.a.davison.free.fr/
It is lonely there as the cowardly Darwinians fear to enter in response to my open invitation to present their prospectus for free discussion.
Let the record also show that, in my opinion, the way you are being treated at After The Bar Closes reresents the bottom of the intellectual barrel. Wesley Elsberry should be thoroughly ashamed of the behavior of the denizens of his “inner sanctum,” “our forum” where his closest friends do nothing but play “can you top this” in their desperate attempt to defame and destroy anyone who can see that chance has never played any role whatsoever in the history of either the animate or inanimate world.
Panda’s Thumb, RichardDawkins.net, and Pharyngula continue as the “Alamos” of Darwinian mysticism. Not a creative thought has emanated from any of them in the few years they have each existed. They are nothing but hate factories, doomed to ignominity and embarrassment to both their leaders and their many followers, hideous blights upon the face of reason. It is no wonder that the vast majority of them are anonymous cowards. They know they are finished!
“Never in the history of human conflicts have so many owed so little to so many.”
after Winston Churchill
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Comment by John A. Davison — January 30, 2008 @ 6:49 am
http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=18#comment-216
I link to my comments today as they relate to this thread.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Comment by John A. Davison — January 30, 2008 @ 5:58 pm
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=76#001140
I call your attention to my comment above at “brainstorms” and the link there to Pharyngula where one will find P.Z. Myers at his very best as his adoring fans, all anonymous of course, urge him on with wild enthusiasm.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Comment by John A. Davison — January 31, 2008 @ 8:30 pm
By the way Mr. Bad Ideas, it’s “Robert Marks” not “Richard Marks”.
Richard Marx was a singer who sang Hold on to the Night. I didn’t like his voice. Elvis Presley, Jason Scheff, and Brad Delp, much better…:-)
Comment by scordova — February 4, 2008 @ 2:58 am
To save my aging cramping fingers I recommend -
http://john.a.davison.free.fr/?p=18#comments
especially my comment # 35 and of course 36 as well
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Comment by John A. Davison — February 5, 2008 @ 5:31 pm