|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. September 2006 14:58
I meant that the origin of life WAS a miracle and possibly took place more than once. I don't believe it can ever occur now because I don't believe that one or more Gods are still around, nor do they need to be. That is the whole thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Spontaneous generation (abiogenesis) was disproved experimentally in three successive centuries, first by Francesco Redi, next by Lazarro Spallanzani and finally and most decisively by Louis Pasteur. Pasteur's flasks, loaded with organic molecules and open to the air are still on display at the Sorbonne and still sterile. I don't think abiogenesis is possible myself, although I don't see how we can avoid the conclusion that it must have happened one or more times in the distant past. I am certain it could never have occurred by chance. To that extent I remain a convinced Creationist with a capital C. So much for Darwinian, compulsively atheistic mysticism, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. How any thinking person can be a Darwinian escapes me entirely. How do you feel about it or would you rather not say?
Thanks for the question. That is what this thread is supposed to be all about. I hope that helps.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. September 2006 16:25
David Springer also offered this little pronunciamento just this morning over at Uncommon Descent.
"I wouldn't give you a plug nickel for all the music and art in the world."
Did you get that Wolfgang Amadeus? You are history. Got that? Write that down! You too Michelangelo.
Somehow that doesn't surprise me coming from David Springer. Isn't that just too precious?
It is hard to believe isn't it?
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 06. September 2006 20:12
During another lull in the action here I will take this opportunity to tell everyone how pleased I am with the way things are going these days for myself and my several sources, some of the greatest biologists of all time.
First the long tradition of our collective non-existence continues as my papers are ignored in the professional literature and largely in the amateur internet factions as well. My name is not to be mentioned over at Panda's Dislocated Pollex or any of the other Darwimpian blogs because, if it is, they will also have to recognize all my sources which they don't dare let happen. We critics of the Darwinian fairy tale MUST NOT be allowed to exist.
But it is even better than that. My fellow Creationists have even found it necessary not only to ignore me and my papers but to go to extraordinary lengths to denigrate, defame and insult me in the person of David Springer who has pursued me wherever I have commented with one end in mind, which is to eliminate me from the current discussion concerning organic evolution. It is amazing that the Creationist faction which I take to be identified with Uncommon Descent refuses to recognize a fellow Creationist when everything I have ever published establishes Intelligent Design beyond the shadow of doubt. William Dembski, the leader of the "Intelligent Design movement" has never mentioned my name either in hard copy or at his forum. Instead he has permitted and apparently encouraged his personally appointed blogczar not only to remove all my papers from the Archives of Uncommon Descent and then refuse to replace them, but sent that same iron fisted blogczar, the biggest bully of all time, out to defame me at every other forum where I have ever appeared including this one. Nothing could possibly be more revealing and at the same time more deeply satisfying to this old physiologist. I enjoy hearing Springer call me all those hideous names. It is music to my ancient ears. It is proof that I am regarded as a threat to the "Intelligent Design movement." Nothing could be further from the truth as I was presenting evidence for Intelligent Design when the present leaders of that "movement" were in high school.
The reasons for these actions are biopolitical, ideological and egotistically motivated and have absolutely nothing to do with science. My papers, everyone of which pleads for a purposeful designed world should never have been removed from the Archives of Uncommon Descent but they were. I will let others draw their own conclusions as to the motives of those responsible, I already know.
So it seems that I have been able to alienate both major factions, no small achievement if I do say so myself. I must be doing something extremely well. I am content.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."
Robert Burton
Lest I be misunderstood, I am that dwarf and proud to be. The major giants are the six to whom I dedicated this Manifesto.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 06. September 2006, 23:50: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 07. September 2006 13:51
You have a really strange way of asking for things, John. When you were young lad did your letters to Santa go something like this:
Dear Santa,
I want a train set for Christmas you fat stupid bully. Got that? Write that down!
Hatefully yours,
John A. Davison
ROFLMAO
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. September 2006 14:58
It is increasingly obvious that I am doing little more than carrying on a monologue with my Manifesto. Surely if there are serious problems with it, there would be some critical comments made wouldn't you think?
Am to believe that everyone accepts my convictions that -
1. allelic mutations had and still have absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution beyond possibly playing a role in extinction?
2. the primary role for sexual reproduction had and still has that of stabilizing species and bringing creative evolution to a complete halt?
3. natural selection prevents rather than promotes creative evolution and artificial selection cannot produce new species?
4. creative evolution is finished?
5. no evolutionary event of any significance ever took place gradually?
6. internal "prescribed" information has played a large if not exclusive role in phylogeny just as it so obviously does in ontogeny?
7. evolution is irreversible and was orthogenetic and goal-directed rather than random?
8. there are laws that have controlled evolution?
9. the only role for the enviroment was to release an inner potential?
10. the individual, rather than the population, was and still is the origin and the instrument of all genetic changes including those producing creative evolution?
11. Mendelian genetics had nothing to do with phylogeny beyond that of the production of varieties and subspecies neither of which are incipient species?
12. evolution will not resume?
Those are all implicit in the evidence presented in the Manifesto.
Or are there other possible reasons for the silence with which these challenges have been met? I suggest that one reason for this silence may be summarized in a single word - FEAR - fear that everything one has held dear all of ones professional life may be a myth without a shred of reality, nothing but an illusion based on the stubborn inistence that ontogeny and phylogeny both have been caused by factors outside the organism. In my opinion, THAT IS NOT TRUE.
Of course there is another possible explanation for the silence with which my challenges have been met both here and everywhere else I have presented them.
"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."
George Bernard Shaw
or more recently
"I get no respect."
Rodney Dangerfield
I sure haven't received any from David Springer here or anyplace else have I?
A real scientist, which I regard myself to be, does not give a fig about respect as he is interested in one thing only, which is ultimate undeniable truth. As far as I am concerned, "I have found it," the literal translation of Archimedes famous EUREKA.
If others think I am wrong they should be willing and anxious to prove it. Pretending I don't exist or heaping abuse on me is cowardly, revealing and totally unprofessional. For those reasons -
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. September 2006, 15:17: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. September 2006 15:46
The typically denigrative remark by David Springer appeared while I wes busy composing and editing my latest message so I missed it.
Let me tell David Springer or anyone else at Uncommon Descent that I am not asking for a present from Uncommon Descent. I am DEMANDING for the very last time, as I already explained, that Uncommon Descent rectify what was an inexcusable act of professional cowardice for which David Springer, the biggest, most pompous, most insulting and arrogant blowhard in the history of the internet, proudly takes full responsibility. Why Dembski and O'Leary tolerate this creature is beyond me. The ball is in the court of Uncommon Descent and whoever runs that forum with an iron hand, apparently, as near as I can determine, David Springer.
The reputation and integrity of Uncommon Descent is on the line. Frankly I hope Springer refuses to admit that he made a serious error when he did as he did. Whatever happens, I win and Uncommon Descent loses. We will also learn who is really running that forum and who is not.
I love experiments like this. They leave little to the imagination. They are decisive don't you know. Do whatever Dembski expects and permits you to do Springer and do it without any further condescending meaningless cowardly commentary, thank you very much. In other words -
"Stifle yourself dingbat."
Archie Bunker
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. September 2006, 15:55: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 07. September 2006 17:52
John,
The reason I inquired if the work of the 6 you mentioned (Berg, Grasse, etc. ) is being replicated today is that people tend to value more recent papers.
Perhaps it would be a worthy paper to revisit the issue of evolution being finished under the latest data available. It would re-affirm their hypothesis and it would further your claims. I don't know who will persue such a project, but I think it might be a worthy project for future scientific papers by others. I hope these papers will reference your work.
With the new semester starting, my participation at UD and other places will be limited. I'm also starting some other ID interests outside of Uncommon Descent, so my participation there will be limited.
I have a lot of work this coming semester on the college campuses and elsewhere in addition to closing out discussions on some important mathematical issues here at ISCID and elsewhere....
I will do what I can to let people know of your work.
regards,
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. September 2006 19:38
Salvador
All the necessary ingredients for my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis have been with us for at least 30 years, many of them for much longer. Darwinian atheist mysticism has persisted for purely ideological reasons and is now in its death throes as any objective observer can see, any one that is except a "prescribed" congenital Darwinian atheist that is.
Nothing from molecular biology and chromosome structure and function will ever be reconciled with chance. It is becoming very plain that no cellular organelle ever "evolved" from simpler precursors, not one. Here is a list of structures that I am convinced appeared de novo and have changed very little if at all since their first appearance.
1. The bacterial chromosome.
2. The eukaryotic chromosome.
3. The bacterial flagellum.
4. The eukaryotic flagellum.
5. Both the bacterial cell membrane and the eukaryoyic cell membrane.
6. The centriole.
7. The centromere.
8. The various types of mitochondria.
9. The various types of plant chloroplasts.
10. The mitotic and meiotic spindles.
It is my conviction that none of these structures and many more ever had structural precursors and there is not a shred of tangible evidence that they ever did. The whole Darwinian myth is based on the unsubstantiated assumption that evolution has been a progressively and gradually creative process driven by the environment. I do not believe that for a millisecond because there is no evidence for it anywhere and never has been. The whole Darwinian hoax is a product of a congenitally hampered mentality that cannot recognize that which Einstein instinctively recognized when he claimed -
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is the only conceivable alternative to Darwinian mysticism. I will continue to believe and promote that hypothesis until it is proven to be invalid, a possibility I regard as very remote. Even if the PEH should prove to be inadequate, which I do not anticipate, nothing, absolutely nothing will rescue the Darwinian hoax from the intellectual trash heap as the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. That it has persisted so long only indicates that even the way we view the world is "prescribed" in the brains of an extraordinarily large numbers of atheist mentalities with which our academic institutions are so obviously infested. Most of them never did an experiment in their lives or ever observed Nature first hand in any objective fashion. Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr, William Provine and Richard Dawkins are perfect examples, not one a real scientist by the wildest stretch of the imagination.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so little to so many."
After Winston Churchill
"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. September 2006, 21:31: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 07. September 2006 22:59
Actually John I DO agree with all the conclusions regarding evolution in your comment made at 14:58 today.
This is the umpteenth time I've told you that the deletion had nothing to do with the papers. They are the best explanation of organic evolution I've seen. The reason is that it would be reasonably expected by featuring your papers like that that the living author would be allowed to expound upon them in the same forum. Your running commentary has proven unacceptable for that forum primarily due to lewdness and lack of respect for Christians with strong beliefs whom you denigrate with terms like bible thumpers and fundies.
I'll restore your papers in memoriam. Count on it. In the meantime you're going to have to sweet talk some other forum admin into placing them in a permanent, prominent position. You blew it on Uncommon Descent.
Any abuse I heap upon you is tit for tat in nature. Stop flaming me and I stop flaming you. It's just that simple.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 07. September 2006 23:06
The Santa letter needs some modification. I forgot that John doesn't ask, he demands.
Dear Santa,
I demand a train set for Christmas you fat stupid bully. Got that? Write that down!
Commandingly yours,
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. September 2006 23:16
Let me also add that the same characteristics I have ascribed to the Darwinians can also be applied to any other group that passes its judgment independent of direct experience with living organisms either in the field or in the experimental laboratory. That includes the primary exponents of the so called "Intelligent Design movement," most of whom are not real scientists either. Scientists, a group to which I belong, ask critical questions of their material and test them in the laboratory when that is possible. Others like the paleontologists Robert Broom and Otto Schindewolf, reached the same conclusion that the great experimental geneticist, Richard B. Goldschmidt had also reached. The Darwinian model is a monumental failure. But then so is any attempt to reconcile the great mystery of evolution with any religious movement that involves a personal God. All such ventures are doomed to failure for the simple reason that there is not a shred of evidence that such a personal God exists either now or at any time in the past. The ultimate causes of both ontogeny and phylogeny will probably always remain unknown but it is foolish and obviously counterproductive to continue to attempt to force those phenomena into the realm of religious belief. I say a pox on both houses. I am not alone in that conclusion.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
It is always a mistake to ask the question "why" and, when one does, trouble invariably ensues as the ideologues spring into prominence, dominating the scene with their devout, "prescribed," irreversible and often bigoted, even personally directed hostilities as those emerge as this forum and others can testify. The only question the real scientist ever asks is "how." When one does, both chance and a personal God disappear from consideration in short order. There is no place for either in science, at least in my kind of science. It had no place in the science of any of my sources either.
My science is now published and nothing that ever transpires in the ephemeral meaningless world of cyberspace with all its uncontrolled nastiness, unreversed purges, bannishments and vicious innuendo will ever change that. It is sad that a medium which could be so very productive has often proven to be nothing more that a hate mill for unfulfilled intellectual misfits who spend altogether too much time trying to denigrate anyone who might take exception to their own view of the world. This forum, like so many others, has recently proved that beyond any reasonable doubt. That sort of unbridled viciousness would never be tolerated anywhere else except in the same medium that permits child pornography and all other kinds of denegerate behavior. The internet is often nothing but a haven for those with serious mental problems that could never be displayed in a decent venue and certainly never in a scientific journal. If you don't believe me visit "After The Bar Closes" or "U Dream of Janie" as a couple of typical examples. There are lots more of course. Right here is bad enough.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 08. September 2006 00:23
Well John, all I can say is that you certainly had no problem lowering yourself to the level of all the miscreants. One might even come to the conclusion that the real John A. Davison is evident on the internet.
The funny thing is, John, I too am published and my published work is as sterile and professional as yours. Amazing, isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. September 2006 07:05
I have behaved as a gentleman here at "brainstorms" while you have called me names, used vulgar speech, questioned my honesty amd integrity as you have always done. When I am insulted in intellectual pig sties like U Dream Of Janie,
udoj.blogspot.com/
I naturally and instinctively respond in kind. I hope everyone will review your history at that blog including your repulsive statements concerning not only me but those about Denyse O'Leary who had replaced you as blogmaster when you had been relieved of that responsibility. How you regained your power, your absolute authority, I will never be able to understand nor do I care to. One day it will become evident.
And so once more you introduce comments totally extraneous to the subject of this thread as you have done so many times before, wherever my papers have been discussed. You have but one purpose in mind which is to discredit me whatever it takes. In so doing you have only discredited yourself with your pompous interrogations and condescensions, treating me as a spoiled child and ignorant senile fool. Never once have you criticized the substance of my thesis and in the past even spoken highly of it. Instead you still attempt to destroy my credibility with every message you present. You are like a dog with a bone. Much more, you are a hypocrit, a schizophrenic psychopath judging from your behavior here as elswhere. It is hard to believe isn't it?
I take it then that you have no intention of ever replacing my 22 years of scholarship on the side board at Uncommon Descent. After all you wield the authority to do that don't you? They aren't there yet nor do I ever expect them to be so long as you are blogczar at Uncommon Descent. Once you are dismissed again as I am confident you will be, perhaps your successor will realize what a serious error it was to make an intellectual enemy of John A. Davison when it proves to be so detrimental to the purposes and reputation of Uncommon Descent. There is much more behind this than meets the eye. Of that I am certain. Sooner or later it will all emerge. It always does.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
Now do me a big favor and stop interrupting this thread with your asides and vulgar innuendo which have nothing to do with this thread and never did have. You are history as far as I am concerned and are of no signifcance except to the extent that you have exposed yourself once again as the biggest bully in the history of internet communication. You are doing Uncommon Descent no favors as long as its nominal sponsors permit you to continue with your one man reign of terror which is all that it has ever been both there and elsewhere, wherever you have surfaced. Why you were ever restored with an authority you have always abused is a mystery. You are a textbook school yard bully Springer, and the whole world knows it. You keep proving it time and time again.
I hope they are stupid enough to retain you. One more forum more or less means nothing to me at this stage of my career anyway and when they self destruct it makes life much easier for me don't you know. Panda's Thumb is already finished.
I love it so!
It will take more than the restoration of my papers before I will offer constructive comments at Uncommon Descent. It is too bad because I most certainly could have done just that on several occasions. You will have to once again be sacked as blogczar before I will ever participate in any forum that grants you any power whatsoever. You are a blight upon the face of the internet and always have been.
"The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."
anonymous
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. September 2006, 09:58: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. September 2006 16:28
Finally David Springer agreed to replace my several papers on the side bar at Uncommon Descent but with a qualification. He tried to make me promise not to do a bunch of things that I had no intention of ever doing anyway. In other words he made it impossible to accept his terms because he had accused me in advance of the things he claimed I would do if he hadn't warned me. This is the lowest shabbiest old propaganda trick in the book.. I was judged to be guilty and must promise not to repeat that guilt before he could approve my request to have 22 years of my research restored to the side board. My research, all of which pleads for Intelligent Dwesign has absolutely nothing to do with my personality whatsoever. For him to have removed those papers and now to refuse to replace them is indelible testimony to this man's character. I had no intention of doing what he insisted I would do.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
Now he has reneged and refused to restore my papers and furthermore my subsequent messages are not appearing. I have been in effect banned from any further participation at the whim of the biggest and most perfecty documented bully in all of cyberdom. All this proves is that Springer is what he has always been. His total authority absolutely will not be defied. He is a homozygous schoolyard bully. I recommend all visit the thread in which my views are now being validated by recent research. I believe it is the one "John Davison are you listening?" or something like that hosted by Pav. There you will find what I am talking about.
How Dembski and O'Leary can allow this man to so dominate Uncommon descent like this is a sad commentary on them and no one else. David Springer, the most "immoderate" person I have ever encountered, has no business "moderating" anything, anywhere, any time. He has just proved it once again there as he has here and elsewhere wherever he appears.
As I see it, I win and Uncommon Descent and especially David Springer lose big time.
I predict that my papers WILL reappear on the side board at Uncommon Descent as soon as this man is once again relieved as the "moderator"
and power crazed blogczar that he has always been. He is living proof of my "Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," a victim of his fate. He is a blight upon the face of civilized intercourse. It is he who should be banned not I.
Sic semper tyrannis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. September 2006 18:08
David Springer
This is in respinse to your last message here.
It is precisely because my publications ARE completely professional that you had absolutely no right to ever purge them from Uncommon Descent. And now you have found a shabby and totally unprofessional excuse for not replacing them. You are the best thing that ever happened to me and my sources. You have managed to ensure the acceptance of my PEH as the most acceptable explanation for the great mystery of evolution and you have done it all by yourself. Congratulations and thank you very much. Just as you were once my ally you are again for entirely different reasons. Keep up the good work. I need all the publicity I can muster.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
