|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. November 2006 07:36
I find that I can no longer reach "After The Bar Closes." The link is obscured by the overlying main page. Do others have the same experience?
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Poul Willy Eriksen
Member
Member # 1976
|
posted 30. November 2006 09:05
John A Davison wrote:
quote:
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.
Thanks for your reply, John.
Say that all mammals on earth were killed by some catastrophe. That would mean that there would be a lot of empty ecological niches, wouldn't it?
Would you think that evolution would be restarted in such a case?
I have read your 'Manifesto', and I find it interesting. However, I am no biologist, so I have to admit that I don't completely grasp the technical details about that meiosis; but I do get that you consider the individual, not the population, to be where evolution happens.
In my scenario above, the difference would be between whether evolution is a capability that can be invoked according to environment or it is gone for good.
Think about a computer program - it can have stopped, because it's all over, or because it's waiting for you to press a key on the keyboard, so it can continue running.
What do you say that?
- pwe
IP: Logged
|
|
Poul Willy Eriksen
Member
Member # 1976
|
posted 30. November 2006 09:22
John A Davison wrote:
quote:
I find that I can no longer reach "After The Bar Closes." The link is obscured by the overlying main page. Do others have the same experience?
Ummm, I have just been there and posted a comment that has shown up, so whatever the problem was, it's apparently over now. Try again, John ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
- pwe
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. November 2006 10:53
Poul
I see no indication that evolution is in progress. Neither did Robert Broom, Julian Huxley or Pierre Grasse as I have published. The history of evolution, like the history of ontogeny, displays a progresssive loss of potentiality. I am hesitant to invoke something for which not a shred of evidence exists. Others can believe what they want to believe. People are like that don't you know.
"Where little is known for certain, every man is an expert."
John A. Davison
"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
Montaigne
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Poul Willy Eriksen
Member
Member # 1976
|
posted 30. November 2006 12:42
Ok, I admit I was asking a hypothetical question, and it's not necessarily a good scientific strategy to deal with that kind of things.
But at least you will not deny the possibility that evolution could be a built in capability that could be invoked, if there are empty ecological niches (which might not have been the case for some time)?
- pwe
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. November 2006 14:26
Poul
Of course not. What I will deny is that there was ever a role for chance in either the origin or origins of life or its subsequent evolution. I will also deny that there is any place in science for the kind of ideological bigotry and personal denigration that characterizes much of internet communication dealing with a subject about which so very little is known with certainty. Those who must stoop to such measures as isolation, personal denigration, foul language and repeated bannishment should always be exposed and I will always do the exposing in whatever venues are at my disposal, including refereed scientific publication. Trust me. There is no place for those tactics in science. They are for schoolyard bullies and arrogant insecure blowhards.
Thanks for posting.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. December 2006 06:00
I hope all will frequently visit After The Bar Closes as well as Uncommon Descent and all the other forums that find it necessary to muzzle their critics by denigration and bannishment. There is no better testimony to the smallness of mediocre minds. If one is really interested in organic evolution, I have a simple formula for them to follow. Read those authors that have been neglected by the leaders of internet forums and their devoted followers. Those they neglect never found it necessary to establish what are little more than "fan clubs," most of which are dominated by one or a few ideologues whose only purpose is to establish their particular versions and interpretations of a phenomenon which has never been observed, the formation of a new "kind" of living creature. I can say that with complete confidence because the word Genus means kind and there is not a shred of evidence that a new one has appeared in the past 2 million years, during which period unknown numbers of species have undoubtedly become extinct. That is all that species are doing today - becoming extinct and doing so at an alarming rate. That is all, with rare exceptions, that species have ever done. The era of creative evolution is over with and has been for millions of years. I am aware that many others do not agree but I defy anyone to produce hard evidence to the contrary.
The real key to the problems with which we are now faced was identified long ago by Thomas Carlyle -
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Those great men, six in particular, have provided most of the basis for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which is why I dedicated the Manifesto, the subject of this thread, to them along with Carlyle's adage below their names. Those who have cynically ignored them provide transparent proof of the wisdom of Carlyle's pithy commentary. They have proved their "littleness" beyond question.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 01. December 2006, 06:09: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. December 2006 11:06
I hope that those who can still post at "After The Bar Closes" will remind Alan Fox and the other gossips there that just because Martin and I are not Darwinians does not mean that we are not evolutionists. That is the sort of mindless reasoning that typifies Wesley Elsberry's inner sanctum, the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. They can also be assured that we are not the same person.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 01. December 2006 15:11
They have started denigrate me for my english. Anyway they do not seem to underestand any other language. I tried to improve babelfish translation of Fridrich Nietzsches thoughts on darwinism they do not seem to underestand in german at all -
quote:
Anti-Darwin: What concerns the famous struggle for life, then it seems to me meanwhile more stated than proved. It occurs, but as exception; general aspect of life is not dearthe, hunger or starvation but abundance, sumptuousness, even absurd wasting, lavishing - where fight occurs there one fights for power... One should not confound Malthus with nature. - Let us assume however, that this fight happens - and it really happens - then it runs out unfortunately in reverse as the school Darwin's wishes, when perhaps one might wish with it: indeed to detriment of the strong ones, the privileged, the lucky exceptions. The kinds do not grow in the perfection: the weak ones become again and again the masters of strong ones, - they have large numbers, they are also more intelligent... Darwin forgot the spirit (- that is english! ), the weak ones have more spirit... One must to have need for spirit, in order to get spirit, - one loses him, if one does not need him any more. Who has the strength, get rid himself of spirit (- "go away! one thinks today in Germany - wee must keep the Reich"...). I understand as spitit the caution, the patience, the ruse, the adjustment, the large self-control and everything what mimicry is (to the latter a large part of the so-called virtue belongs).
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. December 2006 16:10
Denigration is all that those animals at the "Slippery Floors Saloon" know. You have them on the run Martin. Believe me. Why else would they have to call you names? Give them all my "warmest" regards.
I love it so!
"When all think alike, no one thinks very much."
Walter Lippmann
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
[ 01. December 2006, 16:12: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
REC
Member
Member # 3097
|
posted 01. December 2006 16:44
So JAD, if the following:
"Not allelic mutation, not natural selection, not sexual reproduction, not population genetics - absolutely NOTHING"
Has to do with evolution, what does? What is the molecular mechanism of nomogenesis? Please point to examples therein.
As a counter-example, I'll choose one of Vmartin's (and I think yours!) favorites:
"Heliconius wing patterns: an evo-devo model for understanding phenotypic diversity"
http://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v97/n3/full/6800873a.html
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. December 2006 18:28
REC
Read my papers. I have no intention of repeating my published conclusions. Besides, I am not on trial. It is Darwinian mysticism and Protestant fundamentalism that are on trial and always have been. I have no respect for either of them.
Don't you post at ATBC? Give them my regards. Thanks.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. December 2006 10:29
Hey folks,
Be sure to read the latest post by k.e. (whoever that is) at "After The Bar Closes" where you can see the depths to which both sides of the ideological fence have descended. It is on the Uncommon Descent thread and is an education in ethical and foul mouthed degeneration. I hope "brainstorms" never finds it necessary to fall so far. Dembski and Ellsberry should both be ashamed of themselves.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 02. December 2006, 11:36: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 03. December 2006 18:08
Prof. Davison,
At your suggestion, I'm replying here to a point you made in Peter Borger's thread.
You said:
quote:
There HAVE been and still ARE "multiple methods" for each of the following:
1. Sex determination.
2. Sources of the germ cells.
3. Origin of the mouth.
4. Origin of the anus.
5. Methods of gastrulation.
6. The animal Phyla and Classes.
7. The plant Divisions.
8. etc.
None of these can be converted one to another. They indicate profound discontinuities which remain unexplained. It is only when we reach the level of the animal Order and below that we can be reasonably certain even of reproductive continuity. The plant discontinuities are even more mysterious than the animal ones.
The entire Linnaean taxonomic system is based on unmistakable discontinuities which make the existence of taxonomic keys both possible and very effective.
If I understand your position correctly, these discontinuities are evidence against chance-based evolution.
My question is then: Do you think that these discontinuities can be interpreted as evidence against common descent (from a single biological source) as well?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. December 2006 19:14
Daniel
I cannot answer your question because no one knows how many times life was created, how many Creators there were, how many front loadings took place or when they took place. All I can say is that there is no solid proof for a monophyletic evolution and obvious reasons to keep an open mind on the matter which is all that I am doing.
Leo Berg went much further than I am willing to go when he claimed without reservation -
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis, page 406
I learned long ago not to underestimate the greatest Russian biologist of his generation, in my opinion the greatest evolutionist of all time. I predict we will one day be discussing Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution. The Darwinian fairy tale should have been dispensed with long ago. It actually was by every one of my sources. It persists for reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with scientific verifiable reality. It is the only paradigm acceptable to the atheist mentality, a mentality which seems to be largely, like evolution itself, "prescribed."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
