|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. January 2007 23:03
INDY
The truth of the matter is that none of us know very much about the causes of either ontogeny or phylogeny. They are the two greatest mysteries in all of science. Only one thing is for sure. Chance had nothing to do with either of them.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"Men believe most what they least understand."
Montaigne
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2007 07:03
I hope others will visit alanfox.blogspot.com/ where Martin is still allowed to post. Alan Fox has once again blocked me from commenting.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. January 2007 12:12
Now I am even unable to view.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2007 06:06
Martin
I hope you are still able to post at alanfox.blogspot.com/
I have now been banned from any further participation. This is just to explain to you why you will hear no more from me there. So much for his "neutral venue."
Please communicate with me here via private mail.
Good luck.
Naturally, I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. January 2007, 15:58: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 08. January 2007 14:04
John,
I am fed up with that stupid thread too. I cannot send there my post anymore like you. Might be that stupid software there is unable to process more than 400 comments I guess. It is not suitable for more for 40 posts I would say -and darwinists send there also their stupid pictures in addition to choke any discussion.
Alan is begging me to start new thread on his dying blog. Probably no one is visiting his internet "child" anymore. There are at most 8 comments on his articles which I never bothered to read.
Btw. I would like - if you have time - ask you what is it "bbs"?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2007 15:46
Martin
The bbs to which I referred are the round little steel balls that are used in bb guns. They are .177 inches in diameter, 4.5 mm. Please refer to your profile to receive my message to you.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. January 2007, 15:48: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kleinman
Member
Member # 3541
|
posted 09. January 2007 14:44
John A Davison wrote:
quote:
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
I am new to this forum and this is my second post. My first post was on the thread Dr Strachan started several years ago on Dr Tom Schneider’s computer simulation “ev” of random point mutations and natural selection. I have interest in the mathematics of the theory of evolution. In my studies of Dr Schneider’s computer model several interesting properties become apparent. The first property that becomes apparent is that when you try to use realistic length genomes in the model, it takes huge numbers of generations to achieve only a tiny increase in the information in the genome. Another interesting property of this model is that increasing the population size in the model decreases the number of generations for convergence but appears to rapidly approach an asymptote. This decrease in generations does not appear to be sufficient to support the theory of evolution.
Based on the mathematical behavior of this model, it appears to refute the theory of evolution due to the huge number of generations required to accumulate only a tiny amount of information. In addition, this mathematical model conflicts with Gould’s hypothesis of punctuated equilibrium by mutation and natural selection because of the profoundly slow rate of convergence and the fact that small populations require more generations for convergence.
After saying all of this, I would like to address John Davison quote above. Is the past evolution that is detected in the fossil record simply a result of recombination and natural selection and in fact there is a present evolution going on which is still recombination and natural selection?
Did Darwin inappropriately extrapolate the variations he saw in finch beaks to mutation and natural selection when what he was observing was recombination and natural selection?
Did Stephen Gould inappropriately attribute punctuated equilibrium to mutation and natural selection when this concept does have applicability to recombination and natural selection?
Alan
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2007 15:37
Natural selection and allelic mutation never had anything to do with creative evolution. In other words the entire Darwinian model is a fabrication. Evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past, was entirely emergent and took place largely independent of the environment. I refer you to the thread here "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" and the discussion which followed.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable"
John A. Davison
[ 09. January 2007, 15:38: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kleinman
Member
Member # 3541
|
posted 09. January 2007 17:38
quote:
Natural selection and allelic mutation never had anything to do with creative evolution. In other words the entire Darwinian model is a fabrication. Evolution, a phenomenon of the distant past, was entirely emergent and took place largely independent of the environment. I refer you to the thread here "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" and the discussion which followed.
I agree with this. Recombination can not generate new information in the gene pool and recombination with natural selection can cause loss of alleles in a gene pool (and thus loss of information).
My point here is that both Darwin and Gould mistook the divergences you can get in a population by recombination and selection and attribute these divergences to mutation and selection. Recombination and selection is a rapid process as can be seen by the great variety of dogs that have been bred in only about 5-10,000 generations.
When you say that evolution occurred in the distant past, are you saying that humans evolved from a primate ancestor is the distant past?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2007 18:42
Apparently Homo sapiens is the youngest mammal species on the planet. I know of no evidence of our presence before 100,000 years ago. Furthermore, I believe our immediate ancestor was Neanderthal simply because there was no other known hominid around at the time we appeared. Incidentally there is no evidence of a new genus, plant or animal, in the last 2 million years. Macroevolution is finished. All that remains is extinction.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 26. January 2007 01:43
Basically I dare say that Russian religious philosophical thinking do not oppose theory of evolution. Vladimir Solovyov,
one of the greatest Russian religious philosopher ever accepted evolution as the fact too. I do not know how and if he influenced Leo Berg (Solovyov was a contemporary of Fyodor Dostoevsky, they were friends and Dostoevsky appreciated him). Some thoughts from Solovyov sounds like that from Leo Berg and even from Robert Broom (I have highlited it) - if I underestand John Davison explanation well:
"The fact that higher forms or types of existence appear after lower ones does not mean that they are the essence of their production, or creation of these lower forms. The order of reality is not the same as the order of events. The higher, more complicated and full forms and conditions of being exist (metaphysically) before the lower though they appear and reveal themselves after them. One cannot deny evolution because of this. No one can deny it! It is a fact!
To insist that evolution creates the higher orders wholly from the lower, in other words from nothing, means to replace facts by logical nonsense. The evolution of the lower orders of existence cannot create the higher by its own action, instead it produces material conditions or provides with accordance an environment so that the higher orders can reveal themselves.
Hence, each appearance of a new type of existence is in a sense a new creation, but such that the least of all could be marked as a creation out of nothing, because, first of all, the previous type serves as a foundation for the appearance of a new type.Secondly, even it's own positive essence of a new type does not appear new from nothing, but being in existence from the beginning of time, only enters (at a certain moment in the process) into a different sphere of existence, into the world of events. The conditions appear from the natural evolution of nature; that is revealed by God".
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2007 06:57
Martin
Thanks. It sounds good to me.
"If it sounds good, it is good."
Duke Ellington
"EVERYTHING is determned... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evoltion is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 26. January 2007 09:49
John,
Your conception continues with its own inovative way in the finest tradition of philosophical and scientific thinking. No wonder you have enemies on both side of dispute between ossified creationists and shallow darwininists. The conception challenges both of them to reevaluate their opinions - something their opposing dispute will never do. And such a challenge require new thinking, "new step". Something that according Nietzsche people are afraid at most.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2007 11:08
Thank you Martin.
I don't understand philosophy very well but I think Nietzche was very insightful when he claimed "God is dead." That statement clearly demands that God once existed and that is all that is required to proceed with an understanding of both ontogeny and phylogeny. Pierre Grasse said something very similar -
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him." his emphasis.
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166.
Of course I am not convinced of a "single" act of creation but otherwise I agree with Grasse. By capitalizing both He and Him I presume that Grasse speaks as a Christian. I hope he was a Catholic and not a Protestant Fundamentalist!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. January 2007 02:59
Martin
alanfox.blogspot.com/ is dead now too.
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
