|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. September 2006 09:30
quote:
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?
GUToB is short for a General and Universal Theory of Biological variation. GUToB doesn't address evolution from microbe to man as this man-made invention has in actuality never happened. GUToB addresses how genomes work and how they induce adaptive phenotypes & variation from preexisting material, and that the observations biologists do on living systems and interpret as evolution is nothing but a multipurpose genome in action. GUToB explains all variation and observed evolution as the result of the action of preexisting DNA elements. It is all in the genome.
GUToB was the working title of my manuscript and it also includes the complete overturn of NeoDarwinism. It shows that natural selection is not the creative force darwinians like us to believe it is, and irrelevant to keep the multipurpose genomes together. In fact, GUToB = MPG + NRM.
GUToB has not disproved PEH. The new biology data demonstrates that not all genes have been around from the start, but have been added along the way. To be exact, 1183 during the last 80 million years of imaginary time. Funny enough only 83 were inactivated during the same period. Why funny, because it disproves the tinkering of Darwinism's random duplications and mutations.
peebee
"White men may have descended from apes, we certainly have not"
Australian Aboriginal saying
peebee
[ 02. September 2006, 09:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 09:33
Peter
I agree it WAS all in the genome. I certainly can't agree that it still is! I don;t think that can even be demonstrated either.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. September 2006 09:45
quote:
I agree it WAS all in the genome. I certainly can't agree that it still is! I don;t think that can even be demonstrated either.
It not only CAN be demonstrated, it HAS been demonstrated in the human-chimp genetic comparison. I discussed that a while ago, here on ISCID, so why reiterate it. I am not like you, you keep repeating and repeating. I only say it once, maybe twice. A good listener only needs one word (and probably a reference).
peebee
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 10:12
Peter
By the way, I have never claimed "from the start" either. There is plenty of evidence for more than one start and more than one front-loading as well. I know of none that disprove either. Does anyone? Speak up if you do.
Thanks for explaining what your abbreviated hypothesis (not theory) stands for. Otherwise I would never have known. Get it out in the open in journal publication or have you? I recommend Rivista di Biologia. After all they published my heresies so I am confident they will publish yours or have they already? Be prepared to be either ignored or worse, vilified, attacked personally and ostracized as I have been and continue to be, even here. It is a nasty world out there especially in the ephemeral, meaningless world of cyberspace. You should know as you have also been treated by contempt by some of the same forums that have done the same to me. EvC comes to mind. Try your luck at Uncommon Descent while you're at it. Thank God for "brainstorms" at least so far. We are both probably doing something right. Why else would we be attracting so much contempt? Ideologues are like that wherever you find them. They will even, like the IRS, relentlessy track you down. I proved that long ago.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 10:21
Okay Peter, who will be the next species to be produced in the human lineage, or do you agree with me that evolution is finished?
Surely if your hypothesis (not theory as theories are proven hypotheses) has already been proven, you must have been nominated for the Nobel Prize. Have you7 I sure haven't been. What is the matter with these folks anyway?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 10:29
Peter
"The easiest person to fool is yourself."
Richard P. Feynman
That applies to both of us Peter and don't you ever forget it. I sure haven't and never claimed otherwise.
What we both recognize is the abysmal disaster of the Darwinian hoax.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 10:55
Since I still am not allowed to view the proceedings at Uncommon Decsent, I would greatly appreciate receiving notification of any mention either of me or my science so I can respond to it. It won't be here. Notify me by email or private message. Thank you in advance.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. September 2006 12:33
Ah yes, Davison doesn't need internet forums because his papers have been immortalized in dead tree editions - published in preeminent Rivista Di Biologia. Everyone of course subscribes to Rivista. Its readership rivals Nature.
Not.
ROFLMAO
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 13:08
I hope that the management here will no longer permits David Springer to continue charging the following
1. that I am a liar
2. that I lie.
3. that I have a gutter mouth
4. that I am unstable
5. that I am uncouth
6. that I am untrustworthy
7. that I am unnecessary
8. that I am a dummy
all of which I both deny and deeply resent. I may have overlooked some others.
It is now "brainstorms that is on trial, not I. If it chooses to become a flame pit like "After The Bar Closes" and "U Dream of Janie," that is the choice it now faces. As near as I can see that is the direction in which it is now moving by allowing Springer to get away with his attacks on me. Whatever it does or doesn't do will become a matter of record. Of that all can be certain. Trust me. One more forum, more or less, means absolutely nothing to me. I come to forums, as I publish, to enlighten and to defend my views in civilized discourse, not to be abused and treated with overt unbridled contempt by the most notorious and most perfectly documented bully in all of cyberdom, David Springer. If the management expects me to continue here, I recommend it screen incoming comments before presenting them. The matter is out of my hands but not out of my response.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 18:09
I see that Springer has chosen to denigrate not only me but the journal in which my more recent papers have been published. That is unfortunate but it does not surprise me.
My first two evolutionary papers were published in the prestigious Journal of Theoretical Biology. The first of these and by far the more significant was my paper "Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism" which was published in 1984, The second was simply a response to crticism that had been published as a letter to the editor.
When I submitted subsequent papers, I found they were summarily rejected without explanation. Wolpert, the new editor had taken over. That was explanation enough because he is to this day a rabid Darwinian and certainly not receptive to any challenge to the atheist Darwinian chance-dependent, mutation-intoxicated, purposeless Darwinian fairy tale.
Naturally, I cast around for a venue where my heresies could be freely presented and found it in Rivista di Biologia. The editor, Giuseppe Sermonti is a creationist like myself, a gentleman and most important, tolerant to ideas different from his own, a rare combination in journal editors. While Sermonti and I differ on the nature of the creation or creations. we both share a perfect contempt for the Darwinian model, an important consideration if you want to get something published these days. He has been kind to publish several of my subsequent papers and I am very grateful to him. He is a fine and kind man who I am sure does not share many of my ideas. Such are rare in today's world. Rivista by the way has been around since 1919 and has had some very distinguished members on its editorial board over the years. I am not certain how much influence Sermonti still wields at Rivista since they recently turned down my paper "Julian Huxley's confession," a paper which should be extremely embarrassing to the Darwinian faction, since Huxley, in no uncertain language, claimed, as Robert Broom had, that evolution was quite finished long ago, a conclusion I also share and one which seems to cause some consternation within Darwinian circles. I certainly hope so as I am convinced of its validity. The Darwinian model has never been able to demonstrate anything more that the generation of varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species anyway.
The power of the editor-in-chief is enormous because he can choose those referees who share his convictions and thereby avoid all personal responsibity for what appear in his journal.
I was no accident that Gregor Mendel chose to publish his work in a joutnal for which he served as editor, "The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn." It is questionable if his work would have survived editorial review in the botanical journals of his day. His journal, like Rivista di Biologia, was also obscure. So much for journal obscurity and subsequent significance. It was 32 years before his work was cited, long after he was dead. I fully expect the same. After all, my distinguished sources are all dead also. Science is like that especially when the subject has been dominated by congenital, "prescribed" atheist mystics like Stephen Jay (intelligence was an evolutionary accident) Gould, Ernst (dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian) Mayr and Richard (the blind watchmaker climbing mount improbable) Dawkins.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"Meine Zeit wird schon Kommen!"
Gregor Mendel.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 18:17
kommen should not have been capitalized.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. September 2006 22:21
Isn't this precious?
On September 02, 2006 8:57 PM, JohnADavison waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
Isn't DaveScot, actually David Springer, the biggest two faced hypocrit and congenital cowardly two-faced bully in cyberdom a treasure though? It is fitting he should be your hero ladies. You are all three garbage and prove it with your idiotic green pencil. Exercise with it I say until you achieve gratification.
The poor dumb bastard is now again my greatest ally, something he once actually was, until Dilliam Wembski convinced him otherwise. What losers all three of you really are.
I love it so!
"Hypocrit" [sic] has an E on the end, doc. Just a little spelling tip from your old pal Dave.
Do you really think it's a good idea to be talking dirty to a 17 year old girl, John? I mean, you already asked her for a picture of her ass and she asked you nicely to stop. What's your major malfunction?
[ 02. September 2006, 22:23: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. September 2006 22:55
Dave
Please post these personal attacks elsewhere! There is no place for them here.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. September 2006 23:15
Melvin
I'll take your request under consideration.
[time passes]
Okay, here's what I came up with. This website's executive director is Bill Dembski and Little Johnny Rotten Mouth lied about him on another blog. Dembski did nothing whatsoever to influence my opinion of Doctor John "Potty Mouth" Davison. Therefore I think this thread is perfectly suited for exposing the lie to a slighly wider audience who knows both Dembski and Davison.
If you've got a problem with that I humbly suggest you write the executive director of the website to complain. Here's how you can contact him: http://www.iscid.org/contact.php
Thanks for your opinion.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. September 2006 23:33
Thank you Melvin and thank you David for once more displaying your true character for all to see.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
