|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Catfish Khan
Member
Member # 537
|
posted 08. September 2006 20:22
In Chapter 12 of Michael Denton's "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", the author talks about percent sequence differences in proteins in various specious. For example, horses, tuna, yeast, etc., all exhibit approximately the same percentage sequence difference when compared to bacteria. To explain this phenomenon, Darwinists have come up with the idea of a "molecular clock", which states basically that the changes in a given protein sequence have occurred at the same rate for all species throughout time. Michael Denton goes on to show that Darwinist explanations fail to account for such a “molecular clock”. Can PEH account for such a clock, or does it offer another explanation to account for this phenomenon?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. September 2006 20:58
I am not sure what that data really means. One of the things that may vary is the capacity for various organisms to repair mutational damage. Also changes in amino acid composition at loci not at the active site of the enzyme (protein) probably have no effect on the animal in question. I realize that is not a very good answer but it is the best I can come up with on short notice. One thing occurs to me. Creatures that live in mutation protected environments like the deep sea might shed some light on that kind of data. For example the coelocanth is a very old "living fossil" that lives at great depth. Its proteins would be interesting to analyze. Maybe they have. It is also interesting that most "living fossils" are small animals with high reproductive potential which allows some of their offspring to avoid the accumulation of protein differences that might prove damaging simply through Mendelian segregation and recombintion. The coelocanth is the largest "living fossil" that I know of which would favor this explanation. I don't think anyone really understands what all that data really means. I don't. Maybe someone else would offer their input. Quite separate from that, Darwinism has no signicance to evolution in any event as sexual reproduction cannot support creative evolution. At least that is my conviction. All sexual creatures can do is become extinct which is what 99.999 plus % of them have always done anyway.
Thanks for the question.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. September 2006 21:34
I just attempted to present a completely innocuous reply to an interesting statement about me by carlos over at Uncommon Descent. It was presented on the samwe thread I just mentioned. It was prevented from appearing so I will answer him here. I hope someone would alert him of my answer. He decribed me as a materialist non Darwinian which is entirely accurate. However I am also a convinced Creationist. Everything in the universe is material and was created by one or more Creators in the distant past. There should be no conflict between Creationism and evolution. Without Creators there could never have been evolution or anything else in the universe for that matter. If carlos would like to respond here I would welcome it. I have once again been banned from Uncommon Descent and my papers will not be restored, both apparently by the edict of David Springer. The hypcrisy is that I am allowed to offer comments and transmit them but they never appear. I hope that can be rectified so I don't waste my time typing out my comments and poking the send button. Get it over with Springer and ban me for God's sake.
He is a powerful man don't you know and will tolerate no deviation from his views. As he so often says - you're outta here! Yes sir Sergeant Springer, whatever you say sir. He is an ex-Marine you know.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 09. September 2006 00:49
John,
If the so-called innocuous comment hadn't ended in a threat about the consequences of it not appearing I would have approved it. Try staying on topic, keep the threats to yourself, and see what happens. I don't ban people. I tag their name so that all their comments have to be approved by a moderator in the hope something acceptable will appear.
I was disappointed that you couldn't bring yourself to promise to abide by our rules. Sal or PaV probably would have done most of the work of reformatting your papers from PDF to HTML (a job that took me about 8 hours) and I was willing to then spend a half hour putting them back and even figuring out a way for them to appear in the chronological order you wanted. But noooooooo... that was too much to ask of the implacable Doctor Davison.
Spare me your protests of innocence. In the very comment you protested your innocence you again flippantly mentioned altar boys being molested by Anglican priests like it's an institutionalized practice. Are you so insensitive or stupid that you really don't know how offensive that is to Catholics or do you get a kick out of trying to reopen deep wounds?
[ 09. September 2006, 01:42: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 09. September 2006 01:23
John,
It is precisely because my publications ARE completely professional that you had absolutely no right to ever purge them from Uncommon Descent.
No right? That's a privately owned website and I was given adminstrative authority by its owner. I had every right to do what I did. I'm really at a loss in imagining how it is you think I had no right.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 09. September 2006 02:05
You should check out UDOJ again, John. The whole thing was a setup designed to trap me into propositioning a teenage girl. The perpetrator wrote a long exposition admitting who he was and why he did it. The funny thing is, the only person who was lewd with them was you. Good thing for you it was me he was gunning for. He left you a little goodbye message, by the way.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. September 2006 07:50
I asked you not intrude here unless you had something constructive to say about the subject of this thread.
Whatever the motives of "U Dream of Janie" may have been, the fact remains that you grossly insulted Denyse O'Leary there, one of the cosponsors of Uncommom Descent.
Of course you have the legal right to do whatever your superiors permit you to do. It was not your legal rights to which I was referring. It was your total disregard for the substance of my professional publications which completely support the concept of Intelligent Design. I can only conclude that those papers were considered a threat to the leadership of the so called "Intelligent Design Movement" and still are. That was never my intent but I can draw no other conclusion. On the other hand it may very well be true that the forum is not in the hands of Dembski and O'Leary any more, that you have somehow gained complete authority over what will and what will not be presented there and they are nothing but figureheads whose pictures appear at the top of the page. That is the impression that is created by your high-handed actions. Why don't you replace their images with your own Sergeant Springer, complete with that silly hat that accompanies your messages at other blogs? It is obvious that you are in complete charge there. Who needs Dembski and O'Leary any more?
Incidentally, I would like to withdraw my statement concerning my papers ever being restored at Uncommon Descent. I don't think I would ever allow that to take place at a forum which allows the kind of tactics that are now being practiced there.
Aren't you satisfied that you have now for the second time banned me from Uncommon Descent? I would think you might be celebrating what to me looks like a resounding defeat. When you not only have to once again, ban a published evolutionary scentist from the proceedings of Uncommon Descent, but you also have to block the reintroduction of his papers, papers you yourself had proudly presented there, there is no room for speculation as to what the purposes and motives of Uncommon Descent must still be. They are, as they apprently always have been, to stifle any potential opposition to any feature of the evolutionary scenario as seen through the eyes of the leadership of Uncommon Descent, a leadership of which you are now the principle member.
Congratulations.
Personally I think the smartest thing that Uncommon Descent could do would be to close its shop. Just for fun I will take that one step further and predict that is exactly what it will do and the sooner the better as its integrity and influence is rapidly disintegrating thanks largely to the tactics employed by its self-proclaimed blog czar - David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberdom.
Now let's get on with the subject of this thread, a brand new hypothesis concerning the mechanism of organic evolution. I had hoped to do that at Uncommon Descent but was prevented by the same David Springer who now pursues me here with the same motives he has always had, which are to discredit me with whatever means he can muster. That he will never be able to do. My papers are now published and stand next to the contributions of my sources in the world's libraries. What others think of me or my works are of no consequence whatsoever. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it probably was "prescribed" to be. Don't forget -
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over wich we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. September 2006 14:01
If I haven't been banned at Uncommon Descent, then why have none the comments I send ever appeared, or have they? I know of none that have, all of them totally innocuous and all informative as far as I am concerned. Of course I don't know who is doing the blocking but I figure they are just following orders don't you know. That is the usual procedure at ideologically dominated forums, like Panda's Thumb, EvC, Pharyngula, ARN and of course Uncommon Descent. The very name "Uncommon Descent" gives me indigestion. Homo sapiens is very definitely an "animal" as internet forums clearly demonstrate. To suggst otherwise as the title of that forum obviously does is without foundation.
A don't know of a single Roman Catholic that would be offended by my characterization of Richard Dawkins, the most rabid atheist in the history of science. Besides Anglicans aren't Catholics anyway, not by a long shot. They have women priests and bishops for starters and they openly endorse all sorts of devious behavior if you ask me. Come to think of it, Dawkins is one of the very few declared atheists that ever pretended to be a scientist. Certainly Gould, Provine and Mayr don't qualify as scientists either or do some think they do? I sure don't. Being a confirmed and baptized Roman Catholic myself, I will stick with the "One True Faith", thank you very much. Baptists, Episcopalians and Moonies don't impress me much. Presbyterians at least accept predestination which is definitely in their favor.
Incidentally of all the leaders of the so-called "Intelligent Design movement," Michael Behe is the only real scientist and the only one I admire and he happens to be a Roman Catholic.
Now before someone dumps on me for questioning a living caring God, I am just keeping my options open as I sure haven't out and out denied one. I even take communion once in a while. I find it a rewarding experience. Besides it is nice to imagine an afterlife and I know of no proof it isn't so. Neither does anyone else, not even Richard Dawkins.
I'll soon try to send another message to Uncommon Descent. Nothing ventured, nothing gained as they say.
"A past evolution is indeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. September 2006 18:27
With repect to whether or not I am banned at Uncommon Descent, I just sent off comments to counter the claims of Darwinians who are still so weak minded as to believe that population genetics ever had anythimg to do with creative evolution. Neither of these responses have appeared. What makes this especially revealing is the thread where I attempted to introduce these commnets is the one titled "John Davison, are you listening." Introduced by Pav, this is in support of my PEH. Imagine now, if you can, that I cannot respond to the Darwinians on a thread in full support of my own published science. And I am to believe that I am not banned? I will let others draw their own conclusions about the purposes and methods of Uncommon Descent. I have already drawn mine. Some one or ones are following the explicit orders of some one, most likely David Springer, the proud blogczar at Uncommon Descent. Imagine that a published scientist cannot defend his science on a thread which asks - John Davison, are you listening? Isn't that precious? Need I say more?
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 09. September 2006 23:08
As you all know, I have complained here about my messages not appearing over at Uncommon Descent. Apparently that paid off as they finally produced a couple of them. When I posted my favorable response to that action, it too did not appear right away and perhaps it may never show up. No one likes to be treated as a second class citizen and this published evolutionary scientist is no exception. I expect to be treated exactly like any other contributor at any forum where I am permitted to transmit my views. Otherwise outright bannishment is much more desirable and far less hypocritical. We will never know of course whether my comments would ever have appeared had I not complained about it here. As I mentioned in my latest message there, which is also probably "stuck in moderation" too, my mother once told me that it is the sqweeky wheel that gets the grease. Apparently that was pretty good advice. Thank you mother.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. September 2006 23:13
The wheel squeeks not sqweeks.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. September 2006 06:43
None of my susbsequent messages have appeared including one in which I solemnly promised I would never say anythimg vulgar or lewd (as if I had ever intended to do so in the first place). Besides,it is now of no consequence as the thread - "John Davison, are you listening" is about to disappear off the bottom of the page and the subsequent oblivion to which all such threads are doomed at Uncommon Descent. The system here is much better as I was able to resurrect my Manifesto at the touch of my mouse when it was eliminated at Uncommon Descent at the touch of David Springer's mouse. It is a very convenient and revealing device for those that fear criticism of any sort. The system at Panda's Thumb is like the one here but over there they don't even mention my papers any more, and never really have, which I take to be a very good sign that I am doing something right. They do insult me as often as possible, secure in the knowledge that I cannot reply. But that is to be expected as they insult everyone and anyone that would ever dare question the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.
For those of us who KNOW that there was purpose in the design of the universe, it is very instructive to occasionally observe what goes on in places like "After the bar closes." It makes one realize just how pathetic "Camp Chance," the "Alamo" of Darwinian mysticism, really is. The methods employed at Uncommon Descent are also worthy of our attention.
As far as I can tell, "brainstorms" has no blogczar and is doing just fine without one. I sincerely hope that never changes. It remains the best forum on the web, one of the few where I can still speak. I appreciate that.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. September 2006 14:19
Glory be, my last messages did appear after considerable delay. My very latest appeared immediately. I suspect it may depend on who is minding the spam filter when my messages arrive. I think there may be hope for Uncommon Descent after all. I hope the readers here will visit the thread - "Is John Davison Listening," or whatever it is called as I can't remember, and respond to the several challenges I just presented there. The more the merrier I always say.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 10. September 2006 21:29
Nope, it was me that approved your comments. I was busy all day and didn't get to them sooner.
Since then, since you gave the promise I asked for, I removed you from the moderation list and restored 6 of your papers to the sidebar. There are more papers I think, the original 1984 paper on Semi-Meiosis is one of them. I don't know where to find it and asked for a volunteer to change the format from PDF to HTML once it is located.
If that's the only one I couldn't easily recover I'll probably take the time to reformat it myself. It took an hour or two as I recall. You do need to point me to an electronic copy of it. Also I need you to give me the chronological order you'd like for them to appear in. The papers themselves don't seem to be dated so I couldn't figure it out on my own.
[ 10. September 2006, 21:33: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. September 2006 02:20
I have no electronic copy of the 84 paper or the 87 one either. Salvador knows where to find it. At least I think he does. Ask him.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
