pangloss

See post 149 .

A couple of interesting things to note:

1. Davison says he is 'from: University of Vermont'

Actually, he retired in 2000 and is not in any way associated with the university, for whom Davison has become something of an embarrassment (not the least reason of whioch is the fact that he did not publish a single original research paper for the last ~20 years that he was there)


2. He writes:
"I sure do wish I could get some
one to debate me - anytime - anyplace."

Just one of many examples of what a 'debate' with this guy looks like...




Whats to 'debate'? He says the same thing over and over, and when pressed on an issue, says 'Grasse/Berg/Schwindewolf would agree with me' as if that means anything...

He belongs on ARN - it says much that the only person that seems to give him the time of day is Bertvan...

pangloss

By the way - Davison posted as "salty" there...

wildlifer

Yeah, I've read the EvC Nature of Mutations "debate" w/salty. Not much there.
I, the evil atheistic Darwinist that I am, tried to get him to substantiate his claims on ARN with something other that an appeal to his "Manifesto," with no luck.
Although he did post one modern bit of research, he failed to explain how it supported his assertions, and I didn't see it doing so.
It has something to do with: Kortschak, R.D. et al, 2003, Current Biology 13, 2190-2195. "Rather than being simple, the common metazoon ancestor was genetically complex, containing many genes previously considered to be vertebrate innovations. Acropora and human sequences are often surprisingly similar".

pangloss

Well, he never does try to explain anything with other than reference to his Rivista crap or deference to his long-dead heroes...

'Seer' has mentioned him on Tweb as well...

I especially like his claims re: information. He refers to his paper "Ontogeny... origin of Biological Information" whenever the issue comes up, but in that "paper" all he does is assert that it weas 'already there.'

Wow...

Some 'explanation'...

monkenstick

seer has only just discovered this whole ID thing. He probably understands the ID arguments as well as he understands the theory of evolution, which is to say, not at all

he keeps inviting people to debate at arn because he thinks posters like nosivad et al are ID superheroes, able to crush evolutionists with a single irrefutable assertion

I was tempted to ask him to IIDB, but I wouldn't want to inflict that on you all

pangloss

It just keeps coming.... ...

Classic stuff here....

Spenser

I say invite them all! First there are plenty of level headed people here to discuss these issues rationally. Second, the formating of this forum is by far superior to all others I have come across (Kudos to IIDB). Third, in coming here the parties involved would be pushed by all sides to reveal sources and reasons for their (all to often) assertions. Fourth, its not inflicting; its a pleasure.

pangloss

Good luck on that one.

If you've seen Davison (aka Salty or nosivad) in action, his 'sources' and reasons are ALWAYS:


read my papers

so-and-so (usu. Berg, Grasse, Bloom, or Schwindewolf) would agree with me


re-assert questioned claim





And...


No, thats about it...