|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 24. October 2006 07:15
John
I am confused. As a bench scientist do you not;
quote:
formulate laws based on limited observations of recurring phenomenal patterns.
[Wikipedia - inductive reasoning]
???
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. October 2006 18:34
Mel
I have done many experiments and some have not come out as expected. Those are the really interesting ones. That which proves to be logical is often very boring as it leads nowhere.
"Treasure your exceptions."
William Bateson
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 25. October 2006 07:05
John
It seems that you are using the term “logic” as “the set of formal guiding principles of a discipline.” I can understand your trepidation with respect to these guiding principles or rules. In case the results of an experiment violated the guiding line of thought in the discipline [say your work and mainstream Biology], then the results would be discarded as invalid reasoning. You resist the philosophical game playing of logical rhetoric and stick as closely as possible to the cold hard facts of hypothesis – experiment – conclusion.
Consider this; the very process you follow is a “system of reasoning”, a logic, however basic the use of the term. Perhaps the brick wall response you are getting is due a lack of preciseness in meaning not in a fundamental disagreement. Just a thought.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. October 2006 18:48
Mel
The lack of response to my papers and conclusions is due to one thing only. I have rejected the Darwinian scheme as a total failure just as did every one of my sources. I have also managed to alienate the Christian Fundamentalists by refusing to accept a living God. This has placed me in a kind of no-man's-land which is exactly where I am happy to be. I am delighted to be where I am at this point in the history of evolutionary science. Look at what these two factions do to each other? I wash my hands of the whole business. Neither of these factions has ever contributed a scintilla to our understanding of biological science. They each are interested only in destroying the other through the most devious of devices imaginable, each totally unaware that it hasn't a leg to stand on.
As to my methods, they have always been the same. It is called "following one's nose" and it has never let me down yet.
There is no place for logic in science and I am happy to repeat that mantra, especially since it seems to really inflame both The Dawkins fans and the the Panda's Thumb "groupthink." I took a course in logic as an undergraduate at the University of Wisconsin. It was the most unhappy experience of my student career and I suspect that may have influenced my subsequent attitude toward any form of philosophy. Every phenomenon should be approached by first doing everything in ones power to erase what is etched on ones cortex by previous experience. Every assumption should be examined and destroyed if possible. Having done so, I am now confident that the environment played no role whatsoever in creative evolution just as it plays no role whatsoever in the development of the individual. All it does now or ever did was to provide a suitable milieu in which both ontogeny and phylogeny could take place. Both have always been driven from within. Phylogeny is now finished and has been for a very long time. I believe that much of past evolution occurred only to provide a suitable environment for the rest of the evolutionary scenario to be completed. That idea is not new with me as Robert Broom offered the same interpretation long ago. All those bizarre animals and plants of the past may have been little more than devices to preserve the balance of nature so that a "prescribed" evolution could continue and be terminated.
I don't expect anyone to agree with my assessment, but I can assure you that I am convinced of its validity or I would never have published. To date, nothing I have ever published has been challenged or discredited in hard copy. Until it is I cannot even respond except in the ephemeral and largely meaningless world of the internet where I have managed to attract amateur adversaries like meat attracts flies. The "professionals" continue, as they always have, to pretend that they never had any critics.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"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
|
|
REC
Member
Member # 3097
|
posted 21. November 2006 15:51
Here is a rolling debate, over at antievolution.org. I understand people over here are interested in replying, and I would like to extend the opportunity to have a civil debate.
I argue nomogenesis (evolution according to laws) hasn't been updated-and the utter lack of inclusion of molecular biology hurts its cause. It might have seemed spectacular that mutliple species develop the same long teeth, or color-patterns, or whatever in the 1960s-so much so that JAD critiques evolution on this basis (which I think are poor examples anyway).
BUT, evolutionary biology now knows about things like HOX genes. If the mammalian skull 'plan' is laid out genetically in a common ancestor, and the expression level of a certain gene controls tooth length, are we surprised two species across the globe could converge on a mammalian skull with long teeth?
Or, in the case of butterfly mimetics, do recent publications suggesting lack of expression of a
single enzyme discount the theoretical guesses that many genes would have to simultaneously mutate (and therefore have low probability of occuring by 'normal' processes)?
Koch et al Curr Biol. 2000 May 18;10(10):591-4.
Do these examples still indicate a supernatural "frontloading?" In short, once you strip away the semantics, the "laws" you claim guide evolution are PREDICTED by understanding molecular mechanisms shared due to common ancestry.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. November 2006 17:13
REC
I agree entirely. Someone or something wrote those laws. That is my only point. It is probably the same thing that created mathematics and everything else. You must understand that I have rejected Darwinism in its entirety. That means that the environment played no role whatsoever in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Once that is accepted as a starting point, one is left with no other alternative. As I asked in one of my papers - Do not our elected representatives have a purpose in mind when they enact legislation? Those evolutionary and developmental laws did not arise de novo and I will never accept such a notion. Intelligence beyonds our comprehension must have been involved. I see no evidence for intervention now nor any need for it. Neither did Grasse -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE.
Evolution of Living Organisms. page 166., his emphasis.
"I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
Robert Broom, Finding the Missing Link, page 101.
I further agree completely with Leo Berg's assessment of both ontogeny and phylogeny -
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis page 134
and
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
Everything now being disclosed by the molecular biologists and the students of chromosome structure and function points to the elements of a Prescribed Evolution as outlined in my 2005 paper.
I also intend to keep an open mind on the question of a single origin of life. There is no reason to make such an assumption and plenty of reasons to question it. Life is a miracle and a dozen miracles are no more miraculous than one. Miracles are like that. There is also no reason to assume that front-loading the evolving lines took place only once and again there are reasons to think otherwise.
The greatest miracle of all is that so many could possibly still imagine that the origin or origins and the subsequent evolution of those created products involved any role for chance.
First causes have always been shrouded in mystery and probably always will be, but that they once existed cannot be denied at least by this investigator.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 21. November 2006, 19:34: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 21. November 2006 17:39
REC.
I would say that chance also play no role in polymorphism of Papilio Dardanus.
1) All males look identical, yet there are 14 different female mophs. Most of them are mimetic, but in some races coexist mimetic and non-mimetic forms. Even
quote:
The situation is different in Abyssinia where, unlike that in South Africa, 80 per cent of the females are male-like while 20 per cent are entirely distinct from them, being polymorphic and mimetic.
http://www.bulbnrose.com/Heredity/Ford/FORD4.HTM
On my opinion it is very hard for neodarwinist account for the fact that non-mimetic forms outnumbered better protected mimetic forms.
2) It is accepted theory that butterfly mimicry to be effective first step should be a "great" one to enable enough similarity to unpalatable species to confuse predator (birds with extraordinary good vision). To explain this step Nijhout(2003) proposed that polymorphism of P.dardanus evolved from P.phorcas - it is much more easily for neodarwinists assume this as assume that monomorphic P.dardanus males represent ancestral form. Yet then, why are only females of P.dardanus nowadays polymorphic?
According Darwin the phenomenon that males are rarely polymorphic as females are due the fact of sexual selection by females giving priority to ancestral males patterns. Yet if females polymorphism is advatageous for females it should not represent disatvantage for males if it occurs in males too - at least to say. So sexual preferation is the darwinian explanation of the fact. I would say that Nijhout weird conception of ancestor looking like P.phorcas is in contradiction with Darwin explanation - we should ask, why is it possible that female are polymorphic and males no? Because both of them have to undergone patterns/color changes to their nowadays "look" and females sexual preferention did not hindern males to change color/patterns. So why females admitted such non-mimetic change of males but do not admitted mimetic males change? We know that also male mimics in butterfly realm exist as well.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/modern-science/chapter15.html
These question are of such importance that neodarwinists are forced use very untraditional explanations like "transvestite evolutionary step", "females to escape 'sexual harrasment' by males" and so on.
It is really hard work to defend darwinism in case of Papilio dardanus.
They should be rather prepare to accept fact that behind some curious phenomenon of mimicry are no random mutation/selection but until today some unknown internal factors. Proposed by Punnet and cited by John Davison in his Manifesto.
Nijhout fancy on Papilio Dardanus evolution via "transvestite evolutionary step" and subsequent "genetic effect of large magnitude":
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf
[ 21. November 2006, 17:42: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. November 2006 18:55
Martin
Thank you for laying it on the "groupthinkers" over at the saloon. You have them on the run and I don't think they even realize it. "Prescribed" ideologues are like that. Thank you for doing that which they won't permit me to do so I will do it here where I am allowed. I hope they are listening.
ALL of both ontogeny and phylogeny has been the result of "internal factors." The environment has played no role whatsoever in either creative evolution or embryonic development beyond the rather trivial role of allowing a milieu for the expression of those strictly "internal factors" The generation of intraspecific varieties and strains, none of which represent incipient species in any event, are all that the Darwinian model has ever been able to achieve. The experimental laboratory has made this conclusion perfectly plain. Mendelian genetics, natural or artificial selection, allelic mutation and sexual reproduction can only maintain and extend evolutionary dead ends. None of these ever played a role in creative evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past. Trust me but of course no one will. That is fine too. I wouldn't have it any other way.
How does that grab the Darwinian mystics? I imagine it smarts a little. I certainly hope so!
As for asking me to make predictions, I already have. There is little now to predict because it is all over. Creative evolution is finished and has been for millions of years at the genus level and for thousands of years at the species level. That is perfectly obvious to any serious student of the living world, fossil or extant. Today only extinction can be documented.
Darwinism is without question the biggest ideologically driven hoax in the history of science.
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 21. November 2006 19:26
REC
Incidentally I am not back at UD. David Springer decided to ban me once again, this time on the grounds that I had sent him an "abusive email" if you can imagine that. Why don't you ask the rest of the regulars over at Elsberry's inner sanctum to come here where we can have an open discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution. It is downright cowardly to deny me the opportunity to respond to the sahbby commments they direct not only at me but at Martin as well, or for that matter at anyone who questions "the one true faith."
If they don't show it will mean only one thing. Assuming they haven't already been banned, like Alan Fox for his behavior here, it will mean only that they are afraid to come. That is what I predict. In any event, please make sure they remain aware of the proceedings here.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. November 2006 07:48
Allen MacNeill is holding forth over at Uncommon Descent and obviously knows nothing about meiosis. I specifically invite him to come here to "brainstorms" so I can give him a free basic lesson in cytogenetics. If Blogczar David Springer had not banned me again at Uncommon Descent, I could do it directly. This is just one more example of how selfish partisan biopolitics can interfere with meaningful dialogue. I hope Martin or someone else who can post at either UD or ATBC will extend my invitation for me as I obviously am unable to do it myself. In any event I have no intention of ever posting again at Uncommon Descent as long as Springer is in charge. I don't enjoy being treated with foul-mouthed arrogant contempt.
Isn't it all revealing?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. November 2006 18:52
This is for REC and his cronies over at ATBC.
Since you won't come here to discuss openly but instead, knowing I cannot respond, claim that I don't believe in evolution, this is to remind you that I am a convinced evolutionist. What do you think my signature means? There is absolutely NOTHING in the Darwinian model that ever had anything to do with evolution. Not allelic mutation, not natural selection, not sexual reproduction, not population genetics - absolutely NOTHING. Got that? Write that down.
You and your many cronies can denigrate Martin and I until your nose bleeds, yet you offer absolutely nothing tangible in the way of a rational response to what we have proposed. Is insult and venom all that issues from Elsberry's inner sanctum? So it would seem. It is a mark of great insecurity.
"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World."
William Golding
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. November 2006 07:35
Allen MacNeill has a Masters Degree in Science Education and teaches a course in evolution at Cornell. That someone who doesn't understand the rudiments of meiosis should be teaching a course in evolution is truly frightening. I welcome MacNeill to join the discussion here for some remedial instruction. Alternatively he can consult my Manifesto for a presentation, complete with a diagram, of the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH).
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. November 2006 19:21
John,
what kind of people are there on After the bar closed? It looks there like in madhouse. Unbelievable.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 05:59
Martin
You are right. They are known as DARWINIANS, a dying breed. Isn't it great?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 06:21
I ask all to review the recent comments at Wesley Elsberry's inner sanctum, After The Bar Closes. It is unbelievable. They actually think Martin and I are the same person! I can't imagine a better demonstration of the complete bankruptcy of the Darwinian fairy tale. Some of them, like Arden Chatfield, are even using their real names, assuming that is his real name of course.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
It doesn't get any better than this!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
