|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 00:25
More pearls from former associate professor doctor Davison, directed at a 17 year-old girl.
On September 02, 2006 6:59 PM, JohnADavison waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
I thought I was banned. Can't you cellulite laden, overweight, intellectual nothings do anything right?
On September 02, 2006 7:04 PM, JohnADavison waxed damned near poetic whilst opining...
"How sweet it is!"
Jackie Gleason
Stifle yourself dingbat!
Archie Bunker
"You don't want to call them dumb broads. The lard-assed mindless creeps don't like it."
after Archie Bunker
Can't you find someone your own size to pick on, Davison? Oh hold it. You're 5'4" and 130 pounds. That IS the size of a girl. My apologies. Carry on.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 00:45
Doctor Davison,
I have a serious question for you.
Your ending salary at the University of Vermont was $37,555 per year.
http://www.uvm.edu/~radphil/d00.htm
Was that a part time gig or what? The U.S. Postal Service pays the guy that delivers my mail more than that. The football coach at my local high school makes almost $100,000 per year. To any aspirants to your highly valued eminent position in academia, those who are built like a girl and thus can't be a football coach of course, would you recommend they first apply at the post office before embarking on a career as a university professor?
Maybe you can write a paper on this subject and get it published in Rivista Di Biologia. And while we're talking money and papers, how much did Rivista pay you per column-inch for those papers?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 00:59
Please continue David. As you once were my ally you now continue to be for entirely different reasons. Let us see just how much longer this will be permitted by the management of this forum.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 01:02
Of course there's always the possibility that UVM was simply paying you what you were worth and most other university professors make substantially more than that. Let's check.
http://www.salaryexpert.com/index.cfm?FuseAction=Free_Salary_NA.Report&DC=Yes&job=2871&zip=&area=501305&JobCategory=unknown&JobAvailabilitySourceVar=28
The Professor working in Burlington, VT MSA, Vermont now earns an average annual salary of 55,559. Half of those in this position would earn between 37,658 and 83,739 (the 17th and 67th percentiles). These numbers are derived from area-specific government survey data.
Alrighty then. I guess that question is answered. "Below the bottom of the barrel" is an apt way of putting it. I would then guess only incompetents should first try for a mail carrier position.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 01:10
I'll continue as long as you keep stalking me around the internet trying to get back at me by saying hurtful things to and about people who have the audacity to be kind to me, asshole.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 01:31
Admit it, John. You're a poster boy for why tenure is a bad idea. Utter lack of ambition and willingness to live on a sub-standard wage. Note I'm not bashing anyone that has been kind to you, which is something only a cowardly dwarf would do. I'm taking it straight to the horse's ass himself.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 02:20
Thanks again David.
By way of explanation let me say that every forum I have ever entered I did to enlighten in the same spirit as I have always transmitted my papers for publication. But one thing I learned about the wonderful world wide web is that when in Rome one must do as the Romans do if one is to survive with even a modicum of hope. I recommend that if anyone wants to get a reasonably balanced picure of the practices at "U Dream of Janie" at
udoj.blogspot.com/
that you vist that website and draw your own conclusions about the procedures and tactics employed by the two sweet things that run that blog as well as the role that David Springer plays in its policies. He is apparently their special hero! Be prepared for some remarkable revelations and I hope a better understanding of my reactions to the methods employed there. You will also discover that I am not the only one who finds him less than "straightforward" to put it very mildly. The internet is potentially a valuable asset to communication. Unfortunately its educational opportunities are often submerged in a sea of vitriol, hate and transparently unstable human behavior of which "U Dream of Janie" is one of the most revealing examples that I have encountered. I highly recommend it for one, by no means unique, view of the wonderful world of the internet, a world crawling with intellectual pig sties of which it is but one example. Another one, somewhat more civilized, is "After the Bar Closes" over at Panda's Dislocated Pollex. Surely "brainstorms" is not headed in the same direction or at least I hope not. It is one of the few internet venues left where I am still allowed to present my heresies. Thank God for professional journals. They are really all that matters in the long run don't you know. If I never publish another word I will die content and absolutely nothing that transpires on the ephemeral world of the web will in any way influence that.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 04:40
Perhaps Bill Dembski, who helped found ISCID, will muzzle Springer before the credibility of brainstorms is completely destroyed. No one else seems to be willing or even interested. Judging from Springer's behavior here and elsewhere, I think a straight jacket might be more in order.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 03. September 2006 08:52
Have you been a drama queen all your life Davison?
Delusions that you being put in your place by me on this forum will destroy the credibility of brainstorms is hyperbolic to say the least. Sort of like you saying I'm the biggest bully on the internet. Only the biggest bully would pick on the magnificent Doctor Davison, huh? No small time bullies for you.
One thing's for sure though, if you ever had any credibility it's long gone through no one's fault but your own.
Now if you promose to stop stalking me and bashing my friends I'll leave you alone. Your choice. In order to impress your audience here that you aren't the mentally unstable worthless jackass I've described you as you'll have to agree to stop acting like a mentally unstable worthless jackass. Since I believe that acting like a mentally unstable worthless jackass is an indelible part of your nature (it's the only reliable way you know to get people to pay attention to you) I don't expect you'll agree to stop harassing me and my friends. You were born that way, a prescribed ass with delusions of grandeur.
[ 03. September 2006, 08:55: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 09:27
Not a chance. I don't take school yard bullies seriously and it has always been you that stalked me. All I have ever done is to respond to you and that other stalker Alan Fox. He is to Wesley Elsberry what you apparently are to William Dembski, nothing but a hired goon.
In the meantime, let the record show that brainstorms has lost all credibiity as an organ for civil discourse and rational communication.
I intend to be open to serious discussion concerning the subject of thread until such time as whoever is in charge here bans me from further participation. I have no intention of letting the biggest bully in cyberspace force my voluntary retirement from this arena of unbridled vilification, mendacity, hypocricy and deceit. Since Springer seems to have complete authority here as he does at Uncommon Descent, perhaps he would like to do the honors. After all he has already done it twice at Uncommon Descent. Show them what a real man can do Sergeant Springer. I couldn't care less.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 11:41
I am now open to any questions that might relate to the subject of this thread which is a new hypothesis for organic evolution. I will ignore any messages that fail to address that subject and I recommend all others do the same.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 14:04
In the preface I ask 11 questions and claim that I will answer yes to 10 of them. Does anyone have any problem with that?
If not, let's move right along to the introduction where I challenge the last three words of Darwin's Origin of Species - "are being evolved." Does anyone have any problem with that? I will take a break allowing the Darwinians to screw up their courage and present compelling evidenee that creative evolution is still occurring. Surely someone out there in cyberspace will challenge such heresy won't they? Or will silence be inspired by fear that the Darwinian model has nothing whatsoever to do with either true speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories? If that can't elicit a response, I am afraid I will be forced to assume that Darwinism in all its many guises is a myth without substance, a conclusion reached by others long bfore me.
Real scientists ask questions. When was the last time a Darwinian asked a question? Now there is a question worth answering don't you think?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. September 2006 15:48
This is no fun at all. Science is supposed to be fun don't you know.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. September 2006 01:31
Let us try that one again. When was the last time a Darwinian asked a serious question about evolution. I think it was when Dobzhansky set out to prove that artificial selection could produce a new species of Drosophila. He couldn't do it could he? And what was the response of the Darwinian establishment? There wasn't one. It is as if he had not existed. And what was the Darwinian response when Julian Huxley asked the question - is evolution finished? and then answered it with an unqualified yes. That was 64 years ago and once more it is as if Huxley never existed.
That is how it is, the Darwinian way, which is that their critics have never existed, even when both Dobzhansky and Huxley remained Darwinians themselves! They did the same thing with Leo Berg, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, St George Jackson Mivart, Robert Broom, Otto Schindewolf all anti-Darwinians, leaders in their various fields, and scholars of the first rank. These are also the same authors whose contributions provided me with the substance for this Manifesto and for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). None of us have ever existed in the Darwinian dominated literature produced by their most prominent spokespersons, slick wordsmiths like Gould, Mayr, Provine and Dawkins, not a scientist in the lot. You see, scientists ask questions and the Darwinians don't, especially the four I just mentioned. All of them retired early to permanently occupy endowed chairs at some of our most prestigious instiutions and then spent the rest of their lives convincing a gullible audience of the validity of the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.
Even now as I offer up the Manifesto, where are the Darwinian critics of it? I will answer that question too. It is they that don't exist not we who have exposed it. We have all existed and been ignored or vi or, more recently, banned or deleted or een vilified by a cowardly polarized establishent that cannot tolerate the notion that there might have been a purpose in the universe, what Robert Broom had the temerity to call a Plan, a word that he capitalized. That was all it took for the Darwinians to then pretend that he too never existed. He never even mentioned "God" that I know of. You don't have to to make their short list. Of my several sources only Grasse mentioned God and that only in a passing remark. The posture of the compulsively atheist Darwinian establishment, one that still dominates the intellectual scene through sheer force of numbers, constitutes a scandal unprecedented in the history of science. Darwinian evolution is pure unadulterated mysticism based on the unsupported assumption that phylogeny resulted from the action of the environment on a labile, plastic organic target.
THAT IS NOT TRUE.
It has all been determined or "prescribed," just as has been every other aspect of the universe. There are sins of omission as well as those of commission and the chance-happy, atheist ideologues have proven to be masters of both. Darwinism is, as Soren Lovtrup described it, a deceit. He too has been ignored. We all have. It is the Darwinian way. I call it a hoax. Ignore that! I am sure they will as this thread clearly reveals. Maybe this tirade will wake up the opposition but I doubt it.
"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. September 2006 08:43
This is very disappointing to me. To be ignored is downright insulting don't you know, especially when one challenges such a huge obstacle as world wide atheism and chance worshipping mysticism. Of course I haven't exactly been ignored by either the Fundamentalist or the Darwinian internet factions as I have been pretty much ostracized by both. It is the "professionals" that have done the ignoring. The amateurs prefer isolation, denigration, humiliation and alienation as my internet history has plainly demonstrated. Now please don't get me wrong. I think that is just fine and is tangible evidence that I am on the right tack.
One thing may bear on this unfortunate situation. While I am a devout Creationist, I have carefully and deliberately avoided any attempt to relate my scientific views with any of the various religious elements that are involved in the origins question. This is not only a personal decision but a calculated one based on Einstein's astute observation:
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
I see no reason to postulate a personal God of any sort or even to insist on a single one. The simple fact is that nobody has the foggiest idea about how many creators there may gave been, where, when, how many times, and most especially HOW those creators have done what most certainly has been done which WAS to somehow produce all the living world. The key word here is in the past tense WAS because that is the premise on which the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is based. I still maintain that we do not see "evolution in action" as the Darwnians tacitly assume, nor do I feel that such an assumption is either necessary or demonstrated by either the fossil record or the experimental laboratory.
The only really compelling feature of the living world that indicates a monophyletic origin is in a common genetic code and in the basic intracellular machinery which indeed is striking.
Nevertheless, I have presented in the Manifesto many exmples of fundamentally different means of determining the reproductive cells, of the sexes and of the mechanical and physiological means by which a single cell is transformed into an adult organism. Any hypothesis for organic evolution must recognize these differences and account for them if it is to be successful. It is at this level that we encounter problems. A common cellular machinery and genetic code may simply be an expression of the simplest conceivable way to do things. It is significant that it was a physicist, George Gamov, who anticipated a triplet code as the simplest way to specify twenty or so amino acids. The simplest way is the best way it seems to me which would seem to be born out by he facts.
The entire animal world is split into two drastically different ways to produce a digestive tube open at each end, In the Protostomia, which constitute the vast majority of animal species, the mouth comes from the blastopore which is the first opening to develop in ontogeny. In the Protostomia, this opening becomes the mouth as the name implies. In the Echinoderms and the Chordates, including ourselves, the blastopore is associated with the future anus which is why these two phyla are members of the Deuterostomia. It is difficult to imagine any more fundamental diffenences isn't it, yet the significance of this remains a mystery. These differeces and many others certainly suggest a polyphyletic origin of life and cannot be dismissed lightly as of no significance at least by this investigator. Any reasonable hypothesis for organic evolution will have to recognize the possibility of more than one origin and subsequent evolution of life. Since life is miraculous anyway, a dozen miracles are neither more nor less miraculous than one.
Of one thing I am convinced. Chance had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
"First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously."
Konrad Adenauer
There is no doubt that I have managed the former, it is the latter that has proven to be difficult. Isn't science fun?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
