|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. August 2006 21:20
Salvador
As far as I know the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) are the only really new ideas as to the CAUSES of organic evolution. Evolution cannot be denied. It has always been only the mechanism that was in question. I have provided that potential mechanism and will stick with it until it is disproven. Darwinism was disproven within twelve years of its inception by Mivart with the publication of his "Genesis of Species" in 1871.
Chance had absolutely nothing to do with phylogeny, just as it never had anything to do with ontogeny. Of that I am certain.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
As for the rest, it is summarized in my signature. I am sticking with that as well come hell or high water. There is no question in my mind that I am regarded as a threat by both camps in the evolution controversary, as my recent experiences at Uncommon Descent, Panda's Thumb, ARN and EvC all testify. I am not even allowed to view ARN and Uncommon Descent and the other two aren't even worth viewing, being little more than gossip mills and "groupthink" sewing circles. Of course that is just this investigator's opinion.
"All great truths begin as heresies."
George Bernard Shaw.
Thanks for the comments.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 01. September 2006 03:05
Salvador can continue posting your papers at UD. The only thing that has changed is John can't comment there. Maybe here nobody minds if John talks about altar boys being molested by Anglican priests as he did on Uncommon Descent. The reason you were banned this time John is the same as the last time - you can't control your gutter mouth. It was only a matter of time until you became insufferably offensive again. The UD participants are predominantly decent Christians and if you can't restrict yourself to G-rated comments you'll get the boot.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. September 2006 04:35
quote:
As far as I know the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) are the only really new ideas as to the CAUSES of organic evolution.
wrong, here is another one:
karyotype fission theory
by Robin L. Kolnicki in PNAS,
peebee
[ 01. September 2006, 04:44: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. September 2006 07:04
Peter
Karyotype fission is another example of chromosome restructuring which is implicit in both the SMH and the PEH. The significance of chromosome restructuring was first recognized by Goldschmidt sixty-six years ago. He has not only been ignored but vilified by the reigning evolutionary "establishment."
The issue that is most important is my insistence that the environment has played a trivial role in phylogeny as it does in ontogeny. The fundamental myth that is still being propagated is the unsupported assumption that natural selection ever had anything to do with creative evolution. It has played no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Neither has chance. Don't take my word for it. Consider the unqualified conviction of the greatest Russian biologist of his day and in my opinion the greatest evoloutionist of all time. Contrast it with the Darwinian fairy tale.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
The entire Darwinian myth is based on chance. If not chance then what? My answer is contained in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which, with every passing day, receives more and more support from the students of chromosome structure and function and the equally significsnt discoveries establishing the gteat antiquity of gene families once thought to be of recent origin. I refer you to my PEH 2005 paper for verification of those claims. How anyone can possibly still support the Darwinian model escapes my comprehension entirely. My only explanation is that they must be "prescribed" atheists for which there is also plenty of evidence as recently disclosed by studies on monozygotic twins reared in separate environments. There is nothing new here either.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
That which IS determined most certainly WAS determined.
The persistence of Darwinism is based on a fundamental initial error. That error is the assumption that every effect can be attributed to an immediate, extrinsic and experimentally identifiable cause. Such a cause has never been discovered for either ontogehy or phylogeny because sucn a cause never existed, still doesn't and never will.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I add that if chance played a role in the past it would still be playing a role at present which most certainly has never been experimentally demonstrated nor is it in accord with any aspect of the fossil record.
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell.
"An hypothesis does nor cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 01. September 2006 08:07
John, looking at the chromosomes of vertebrates I am also inclined to believe that chromosome restructuring (reshuffling of preexisting genetic info) could be a force to release cryptic information. It could mean that the chromosome structure is the actual building plan of an organism.
What you keep forgetting is the 1183 genes that have been added to the vertebrate genomes over the last 80 million or so (imaginary) years. How does the PEH account for that? And I still have a problem with the long ages you adhere to: how is the frontloaded genetic information rescued from decay? Any ideas?
"White men may have descended from apes, we certainly did not" (Aboriginal wisdom)
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. September 2006 08:07
I see David Springer (aka DaveScot) once again pursues me wherever I appear, this time to justify banning me from Uncommon Descent because of what he calls my "gutter mouth."
Some few men of the cloth, like some men in general, have been molesting chidren for centuries. My comment was an ojective attempt to offer a rational explanation for Dawkins bizarre attitude toward religion in any form. I only meant to emphasize that while he is most likely largely "prescribed to be the transparent atheist that he most certailnly is, his condition may have been assisted by an early experience. If that is to be considered an example of my "gutter mouth," I recommend others visit some of the other forums where David Springer holds forth for much more revealing demonstrations of his "gutter mouth." What he has the temerity to accuse me of here pales in comparson. I especially recommend "U Dream Of Janie" and my own blogs which are no longer active but stand in perpetuity as a demonstration of this man's purposes, character and methods.
It is the devout Christians that constitute the core of Uncommon Descent that would be most delighted with my characterization of Richard Dawkins. I haven't heard any of then complaining about my "gutter mouth."
This is the same David Springer that introduced me to Uncommon descent as "my good friend Professor John Davison" and subsequently proudly placed every one of my several evolutionary papers on display at Uncommon escent, only to purge them all in a transparent fit of pique after he had already banned me from participation there, an act of pure venom and consummate cowardice. This time the "blogczar," after banning me once again has even denied me viewing priveleges.
For an objective view of our relationship I recommend all examine this man's paper trail and draw your own conclusuons as to his motives. I have long ago drawn mine. It is to discredit me whatever it takes. His brutal high handed tactics have proved to most damaging both to himself and to the integrity of Bill Dembski's forum.
Why he was ever granted a position of authority is beyond my comprehension unless it was to discredit any alternatives to the purposes of Uncommon Descent. He has banned more dissenters than any other personality in the history of the internet. He has even deleted himself on several occasions when he has proclaimed with his typical "Olympian authority" that which he subsequently regretted. Words have meaning and one of the very few virtues of internet communication is that they can remain as permanent testimony to the character of those that present them.
I reject his comments as pure hate inspired propaganda. I doubt if I am alone.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. September 2006 10:51
peter
What are these "imaginary years" to which you refer? Are you a new earth creationist by any chance? Also where did these "new genes that have been added" come from, thin air? I don't doubt that new gene "expressions" have been added, probably by derepression of existing potentialities but you better be proepared to demonstrate the source of new genes if you are going to insist that they have been added. Are you postulating an intervening God by any chance?
I don't subscribe to that because I don't feel it is required to explain either evolution or ontogeny. What is necessary is the disclosure of a goal-seeking mechanism that has realized its predetermined or "prescribed" end which, as near as I am able to ascertain, was finally achieved with the appearance of the last mammal species to appear on earth - ourselves. It is possible that the mechanism, which seems to no longer be in operation, may never be disclosed.
I am presently strongly inclined to agree with Otto Schindewolf:
"Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION: there is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way."
Problems in Paleontolgy, page 311, his emphasis.
All that has ever been demonstrated experimentally is the generation of races, varieties and subspeceis none of which are incipient true species. What I think will be demonstrated experimentally once we can control chromosome structure is the reconstruction, step by saltational step, of our own ancesors. I further believe that no more than twelve such steps were involved in the transformation of an ape to Homo sapiens. All the intermediate species are extinct, including the common ancestor we must have shared with our closest living relative, the chimpanzee. I base this on the fact that we differ from the chimp in approximately twelve chromosomal reconstructions each of which was probably aquired independently and progressively as the common ancestor was transformed from an ape to Homo sapiens.
Reverse evolution has already been inadvertantly achieved in yeast by the scrambling and reassembling of existing chromosomal information. I think that will provide a model for evolution generally. In short I feel that the entire evolutionary scenario was planned from the outset or more likely outsets as I see no compelling evidence to accept either a single creation or a single front-loading as I explain in the Manifesto and as the evidence plainly suggests.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw.
Is that blasphemous enough to qualify as a truth?
I will remind all that as far as I am concerned this thread is about the Manifesto and nothing else. Since it was terminated elsewhere when its author was banned from participating in a discussion of his own work (if one can even imagine such a situation), I have reintroduced it here where I hope it will receive a more reasoned reception, free of extraneous and totally irrelevant personal commentary concerning its author. If that cannot be achieved, I will be happy to withdraw it from any further consideration by refusing to participate. Trust me. Most of what I have presented in the Manifesto has since been published and is now for all time on the library shelves next to the six great scienists who probided me with its inspiration
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. September 2006 19:31
Salvador
Of course the work you mention is in perfect accord with my own views. What I find amusing is how the authors are trying to adapt their findings to what they call the "punctuated equilibrium school." Gould and Eldredge proposed nothing in the way of mechanism. They simply combined two otherwise perfectly good words, "punctuated" and "equilibrium" into what is little more than a catch phrase. That evolution occurred in spurts has been known for decades. The important point that I make in the Manifesto and elsewhere is that it is no longer occurring and, in my opinion, will never restart. Does ontogeny restart after the death of the individual? Not to my knowledge. Both ontogeny and phylogeny are self-limiting and self-terminating "prescribed" phenomena. Only ontogeny remains and probably for not much longer. On that optimistic note -
Happy Memorial Day!
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. September 2006 02:51
You're a liar, Davison. You pursued ME to udoj and there announced that you'd posted something about the situation on brainstorms. I then came here to respond. All the comments are timestamped so you can't lie your way out of it.
And while you might be wondering why I was given a position of authority I certainly DO NOT wonder why you have never held a position of authority. You're unstable, untrustworthy, uncouth, and unnecessary.
Pfffffffffffffffffffffffft! Loser.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. September 2006 02:58
By the way...
It's Labor Day not Memorial Day, dummy.
Sheesh.
IP: Logged
|
|
rolandt
Member
Member # 646
|
posted 02. September 2006 03:54
Dave your post about Davison above, as to why he was banned in th UD site was OK, it was not very professional but it was OK. Your two posts above verge on the very characteristic you are charging Davison about. Let it go, this is intellectual debate not name calling and bickering.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. September 2006 05:29
quote:
What are these "imaginary years" to which you refer? Are you a new earth creationist by any chance? Also where did these "new genes that have been added" come from, thin air? I don't doubt that new gene "expressions" have been added, probably by derepression of existing potentialities but you better be proepared to demonstrate the source of new genes if you are going to insist that they have been added. Are you postulating an intervening God by any chance?
The new genes I am talking about are the 1183 novel genes disclosed by the mega sequencing projects of the past decade. They are genetic novelties not found before an imaginary 80 million years; they are surely not derepressed genes as you seem to suggest and as not-frontloaded genetic novelties they indeed dropped out of thin air and as such falsify your PEH. The darwinians would probably claim duplication, random mutation and selection but considering the multitude of genetic redundancies unrelated to duplicates in the vertebrate genomes and the nonrandom character of mutations, that is another impossible story. I am sorry for your beautiful hypothesis but that is how science works. Somebody once said something about beautiful hypotheses and ugly facts. Who was it again? I don't recall. Anyway, all there is left is special creation and GUToB.
Beste wishes,
peebee
[ 02. September 2006, 05:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 06:44
Isn't David Springer charming? Thank You David. You are my greatest ally. More, more please. That is of course if the management will permit it. Let us see shall we?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is indeniable, a present evolution undemstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 07:34
Peter
What some anonymous person said was -
"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."
I have always been willing to admit I was wrong but I hardly think you have disproved the PEH with your Grand Unified Theory of Biology. Isn't that what GUToB stands for? I find that a little grandiose myself. I think you may underestimate the capacity to store information as DNA is extraordinarily stabile, especially when you throw "jumping genes" into the mix. I am not even certain the information WAS stored as DNA. I am equally uncertain that it even any longer exists as macroevolution may well be a thing of the past. I suggested as much in the Manifesto and in published papers. When are we going to discuss the subject of this thread?
The other matter is that my papers have been published and have managed so far to be ignored, as have been the contributions of my several sources which I take to be a very good sign. I recomend that you or others present the "proof" that the PEH and the SMH are dead wrong as you insist and please do it in a refereed journal, not in the ephemeral world of the internet. So far no one has done that. Until that has occurred I will go right on living in my fantasy world, a world in complete accord with the fossil record, the experimental laboratory and an ancient earth. Thank you very much.
In the meantime I recommend that personalities be left out of the discussion, especially the typically denigrating, insulting, personally directed comments of David Springer. Those have always been his style as he demonstrates both at Uncommon Descent and now here. Comments like that belong in hate mills like "After The Bar Closes" and "U Dream of Janie." It reflects poorly on ISCID to permit such tactics here. I hope that the discussion can now continue in a more civilized manner. We will see won't we? At seventy-eight I couldn't really care less. Let me assure everyone that I do not need internet forums as my papers are now for all time. That was sufficient for Mendel who only published 13 of them, only three of which were biological. Even more interesting, the allelic, sexually mediated genetics that he discovered had absolutely nothing to do with organic evolution. Bateson realized that, Grasse realized that, and so do I.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
