|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 15:45
If William Dembski created this forum then William Dembski can ban me from it. He has already seen to that twice at Uncommon Descent, the other Forum he created. There he let Springer do the dirty work. Maybe this time he would do it himself or of course empower Springer once again to do it for him!
Let me repeat the phrase that the great David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberdom, used to justify removing my papers from Uncommon Descent the first time -
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.
It seems Springer is God!
That most certainly had Dembki's full approval didn't it? Isn't everything that is allowed at a forum the responsibility of the nominal sponsor of that forum? Is bannishment the only acceptable response to criticism? So it would seem at most internet forums. If that must be true even here at "brainstorms," so be it.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 17:48
seer
I will say this about irreversibility and evolution and you can transmit that for me. No evolutionay step has ever been reversible, No amphibian has ever evolved into a fish, no bird into a reptile and no mammal into a reptile either. That is one of several reasons why I know that Mendelism and allelic inheritance never had anything to do with creative evolution because the elements that they involve are freely reversible. Evolution has never been reversible and never will be. It is finished anyway as any objective observer would be forced to conclude. So much for the objectivity of Darwinian observers. They are not only congenitally blind but stone deaf as well to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres." They are to be pitied but it won't be by me. Trust me.
William Bateson realized the total inadequecy of the Mendelian, sexual model and made that very clear over eighty years ago as I quoted both in the Manifesto, II-6, and in my 1993 paper - (The "Blind Alley". Its significance for evolutionary theory), Rivista di Biologia 86: 101-111.
There is nothing of value in the Darwinian myth beyond the production of intraspecific varieties none of which are incipient species anyway. It is the biggest hoax in the history of science.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 25. November 2006 20:04
Thanks John, I will post that. BTW - no one ever gets banned from TWEB (well almost). ; ) Come on over if you run out of options...
[ 25. November 2006, 20:10: Message edited by: seer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. November 2006 22:01
seer
I tried to register but was told I aready had. Apparently my password is unaccceptable. I appreciate the invitation as I will hold forth with confidence on any forum anywhere anytime as long as I am not subjected to mindless rabid bullying from anyone. If that sort of thing is tolerated, I am not interested. That goes for right here at "brainstorms" as well. Forums whose leaders must ban potential critics from participation in their proceedings are not fit to be called forums. They are nothing but sanctuaries for insecure egocentric blowhards and cowardly sociopaths.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 26. November 2006 02:30
Davison writes
quote:
Forums whose leaders must ban potential critics from participation in their proceedings are not fit to be called forums. They are nothing but sanctuaries for insecure egocentric blowhards and cowardly sociopaths.
Yet earlier he suggested I be ejected from this thread.
quote:
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.
It seems by his desire that I be removed he wishes this forum to be a sanctuary for at least one insecure egocentric blowhard and cowardly sociopath.
[ 26. November 2006, 02:35: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. November 2006 05:59
Springer said it all when he proclaimed -
"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away"
as justifcation for banning me (the second time) from Uncommon Descent. And then he has the brazen gall to say that I am an "elitist."
Well Lord, ban me from here too if it will make you feel more powerful to do so. That way you won't have to behave the way you do any longer as you will have found "The final solution to the Davison problem" just as P.Z. Meyers, Esley Welsberry and so many others already have.
Why Dembski tolerates you is beyond me, but you are doing his Intelligent Design movement great harm. You remain by far the biggest bully in the history of internet communication. You must be very proud. Enjoy your moment in the sun because that is all that it is.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 26. November 2006 06:05
quote:
seer
I tried to register but was told I aready had. Apparently my password is unaccceptable. I appreciate the invitation as I will hold forth with confidence on any forum anywhere anytime as long as I am not subjected to mindless rabid bullying from anyone. If that sort of thing is tolerated, I am not interested. That goes for right here at "brainstorms" as well. Forums whose leaders must ban potential critics from participation in their proceedings are not fit to be called forums. They are nothing but sanctuaries for insecure egocentric blowhards and cowardly sociopaths.
John I assure you that the mods at TWEB are much more laid back. I have been there for years and have not seen anyone banned.BTW - if you e-mail them you can get your password...
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. November 2006 06:18
Being ejected from a thread is hardly comparable to being ejected for life from a whole forum. This is not the first time here at "brainstorms" that you were asked to no longer contribute to one of my threads. The same thing also happened at EvC. As usual the biggest bully in cyberspace does not comply with the simplest of requests. Bullies are like that. Carry on Sergeant Springer. Show the world who is really in charge here as at every other place where you have invariably denigrated me. It means the world to you. That much is obvious. You are pathetic.
"sockittome"
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 26. November 2006 07:36
seer
Provide that email address and I will.
IP: Logged
|
|
seer
Member
Member # 1184
|
posted 26. November 2006 16:21
Hey John,
I tried to e-mail you but I'm not sure if it went through.
Here is Dee's address:
ddw@theologyweb.com
She knows what's going on and can help you,
Thanks...
Seer
BTW John, you might want to start posting here:
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/showthread.php?t=87591
On the "Has Evolution Ended" thread.
[ 27. November 2006, 13:14: Message edited by: seer ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Poul Willy Eriksen
Member
Member # 1976
|
posted 27. November 2006 10:07
Hi John ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
I like your sig:
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
I have read your paper Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information, and I found it quite intriguing.
In your paper you write:
It is when we come to preformation that things really become interesting. I now suggest that just as ontogeny and evolution share epigenetic features, so also may they share the characteristics we associate with preformation. In short, I propose that the information for virtually all of evolution may have been present from very early in the onset of that process. I realize that this idea may seem ludicrous at first glance, yet it remains compatible with an enormous number of otherwise enigmatic observations from comparative biology.
So, your idea is that all genetic information is preloaded, and evolution has been like a kind of program that has run to its end.
Assuming this is the correct understanding, I have two questions to you:
1) What was the result of the program run?
2) Are mutations part of the program, or do they at all exist?
best regards
- pwe
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. November 2006 14:21
pwe
Your questions have been answered in the paper you have cited. I meant exactly what I have written in that paper and elsewhere. I see no point in repeating myself.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 27. November 2006, 14:53: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. November 2006 02:06
Please all visit After The Bar Closes where Martin is making perfect fools of them all. Bravo Martin!
It doesn't get any better than this!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 28. November 2006, 02:07: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Poul Willy Eriksen
Member
Member # 1976
|
posted 28. November 2006 08:59
John wrote:
quote:
Your questions have been answered in the paper you have cited. I meant exactly what I have written in that paper and elsewhere. I see no point in repeating myself.
Ok, then let me ask you amother question. As I understand it, Michael Behe is into front-loading as well, claiming that irreducible complex systems cannot evolve from scratch. They must how been there from the start, to be activated at some time.
What is the difference between your theory and that of Behe?
- pwe
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. November 2006 12:42
Not much. That is what makes it so difficult to understand why I have been ignored by all the IDists including Behe who for my money is the only real scientist in the lot. I don't believe he ever postulated an evolutionary hypothesis as I have or at any time gave credit either to me or any of my sources. The "ID crowd," as I like to call them, act as if they were the first to discover what they call Irreducible Complexity and they still describe Intelligent Design as an "inference." It has long been recognized by my sources and myself that there was never a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Henry Fairfield Osborn, William Bateson, Pierre Grasse, Robert Broom and especially Leo Berg dismissed Darwinism long ago.
If not chance then what? My answer is contained in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). Unfortunately neither myself nor my many predecessors are allowed to exist by either faction in this idiotic debate. Since I have so thoroughly been rejected by both factions, I say a pox on both their houses. I wouldn't give you a nickel for any of them.
According to Springer, even the leader of the ID movement, William Dembski, regards me as a "nut."
I sure haven't seen him deny it and don't expect to. Cult leaders tend to be like that. That also suits me just fine. My work is published and now stands for all time next to the contributions of my several distinguished predecessors, real scientists without whom my own work could never have been realized. If I am a "nut" then so are each and every one them. Somehow I regard that as extremely improbable.
How others feel and act toward me means nothing to me, absolutely nothing. Their narrow bigotry and egomaniacal selfishness speak volumes only about themselves.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history."
anonymous (I think)
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 28. November 2006, 12:45: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
