|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 24. November 2006 06:41
John,
I'll make sure MacNeil gets your invitation. He said he's working on a chromosomal reorganization saltation hypothesis inspired by your semi-meiosis hypothesis.
I evidently made the unforgivable mistake of not knowing that when two chromosomes are connected by a centromere they magically become a single chromosome composed of two chromatids. Burn the bridge and the two chromatids all of a sudden are two chromosomes once again. Fascinating stuff. No pendantry there. No siree! MacNeil flunked me out of basic biology (a class he teaches) for that. Hard to believe, isn't it?
[ 24. November 2006, 06:42: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 06:52
Springer
If you aren't going to readmit me without prejudice at UD, don't expect either response or respect from me here or anywhere else. That will also require a personal apology for your despicable behavior and foul mouth. Got that?
Write that down!
"A past evoloution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 24. November 2006 10:40
Is this an example of speciation in the lab? And present day speciation in the field?
quote:
Example one:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences.
(Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292.
Example three:
Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island.
(Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
[ 24. November 2006, 10:46: Message edited by: seer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 11:02
seer
Dobzhansky would never have used the word "incipient" if it had been true speciation and if testing the presumed ancestor and its presumed progeny for hybrid sterility has not been done, the answer to your question is no!
Even if that were accepted are we to believe that Genera and all the other taxonomic categories are also subject to evolutionary change? Not a chance in my book!
The Darwinian model is a disaster. It can account for nothing but the production of intraspecific varieties and they definitely are not incipient species.
In short -
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 24. November 2006 11:10
Thanks John. I quoted you and linked your paper on the TWEB (it is a very active site):
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=87528
They seem to be having a fit about your conclusions... It also seems that no one wants to challenge you directly...
[ 24. November 2006, 11:11: Message edited by: seer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 24. November 2006 12:41
John writes
quote:
If you aren't going to readmit me without prejudice at UD, don't expect either response or respect from me here or anywhere else. That will also require a personal apology for your despicable behavior and foul mouth. Got that?
Write that down!
This is just one more example of how selfish partisan biopolitics can interfere with meaningful dialogue.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 15:34
I wish someone else would remind David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberspace, that he is not welcome on a thread dealing with my Manifesto. I have no intention of responding to any more of his trashy comments and I wish others would do the same. He should not be allowed to comment anywhere. He embarrasses himself and Uncommon Descent wherever he surfaces.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
[ 24. November 2006, 16:09: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 16:08
Seer
Thanks.
No one ever wanted to challenge St George Jackson Mivart, William Bateson, Leo Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Otto Schindewolf, Alexander Petrunkevitch, Reginald C. Punnett, Pierre Grasse, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Soren Lovtrup or any of several other critics of the Darwinian fairy tale either. We were all either denigrated, ignored or both. We still all are. Intellectual cowards and ideologically predisposed atheists are like that. They have always pretended that none of us ever existed. Fortunately it doesn't really matter much any more as their days are numbered. Nothing that is currently being disclosed by molecular biology will ever be reconciled with Darwinian superstition, absolutely nothing. As near as I can determine, everything supports a "prescribed evolution." Otherwise I would never have published that thesis.
"Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for those that continue to promote the biggest hoax in the history of science."
after Ernest Hemmingway's novel "For whom the bell tolls."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. November 2006 16:17
I have some more news. For quite some time now I have been unable to access ATBC. Naturally I am pleased.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 25. November 2006 02:13
Well John,
The way I figure it is you shouldn't be welcome at any website where Bill Dembski is a founder after all the nasty things you said about him at your personal blog. Don't you think it's just a tad hypocritical of you to be using a forum created by a man you detest so much?
Read some of what Davison has written about Dembski at the link below. Search for "Wembski" as that's what John calls him.
http://newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/2006/03/new-prescribed-evolution.html
What do you have to say about that, John?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 06:51
This is typical Springer, out to deprecate no matter what it takes. He has done it before here and elsewhere. It is what he does best and he enjoys it immensely. Congenital bullies are like that.
Dembski's greatest sin was allowing Springer to have any presence at Uncommon Descent. He has, with his Fascist tactics, destroyed the credibility of that forum. The truth of the matter is I have little respect for either of them or anyone else who treats a published scientist as they and so many other internet personalities have done. I have a standard by which I identify those who must resort to any or all of the tactics employed by those who insult, ignore, ridicule, defame and finally bannish those with whom they disagree. They earn their new names by such actions.
Here are a few of those for whom I have lost all respect. I am sure you will have no problem identifying them.
Spravid Dinger. M.P. Zeyers, Esley Welsberry, Falan Ox, Wonathan Jells, Dichard Rawkins, Jillip Phonson, Dilliam Wembski, Pott L. Scage, Charden Atfield, and while still alive and long before their death, Mernst Ayr and Gephen J. Stould. There are many more but I don't want to burden this audience any further. Springer is by far the most virulent of them all and has the record to prove it.
The vast bulk of my scientific contributions rest on the shoulders of my many distinguished predecessors, every one a real scientist and a leader in his field. Not one of them was a Darwinian mystic or a Protestant Fundamentalist. When I am treated with contempt so are they. That I will not tolerate and those who practice such wholesale venom deserve the manner with which I dispense with them as the intellectual lightweights they have all proven by their actions to be. It is a small price for such pathetic creatures to pay. I am delighted to identify them for what they really are and I will continue to do so wherever I am allowed.
"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
I am that dwarf and I will not stand by and silently watch my sources treated as they have been by either side of this idiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place. A pox on both their insecure and thoroughly degenerate houses.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 25. November 2006 10:01
John this is another response I got to your points:
quote:
Re. “not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he [Darwin] proposed and, “That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus.”
Despite abundant evidence of speciation, (see http://www.google.com/custom?q=spec...talkorigins.org ) you go on imply that artificial selection is expected, somehow, to produce such observations and has failed to do so. Some questions:-
1) How could anyone expect artificial selection to demonstrate natural selection? Any demonstration of artificial selection producing speciation is met with, “Ha! It took a designer (the experimenter) to produce speciation. What, then, was the relevance of your assertion that artificial selection cannot “transcend the species barrier” anyway, even if your assertion had been correct?
2) What do you understand by the “species barrier"? What is your definition of ’species’, and what do you propose is the nature of the ‘barrier’?
3) Why would you expect ‘observed’ speciation (by which I take you to mean a record of in vivo observations as opposed to less direct obsevations) to transcend genera, bearing in mind that a) genera are human conventions and b) the evolutionary application of the concept of generic divergence involves extremely long periods of time?
One other thing in particular is puzzling me - “the capacity to become resistant to insecticides and all other phasic responses which, unlike evolution, have proven to be reversible. ” What makes you say that evolution precludes reversal?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=87528&page=3&pp=16
Perhaps you could deal with them or join the discussion. And this idea of evolution not being reversable seems to be a main sticking point.
[ 25. November 2006, 10:03: Message edited by: seer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 25. November 2006 11:16
You deprecate yourself, Davison.
Your lame wimpering that "published scientists" should be treated with deference is laughable elitist nonsense. You're no better than anyone else.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 14:42
Do you see what I mean about Springer? Where there is a way to be the bully he will find it. I am no elitist and he knows it. The Big Lie Technique is one of his favorites. It always has been. All he has ever been interested in is dominating every situation in which he is involved. Dembski should be ashamed of himself.
They need and deserve one another.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 14:58
seer
You are wasting your time trying indirectly to engage me with Darwinian mystics. I have no respect for them. My work is published. I will be happy to respond to anything they present in the same venue. They never have because they are afraid to let their mindless bigotry show in hard copy. It is as simple as that. Cowards on either side of the ideological fence bore me to tears. They continue to clutch at straws. They are primarily either unfulfilled intellectual losers or homozygous schoolyard bullies like David Springer. You may transmit my feelngs to them for me. Thank you very much.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
