|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. February 2007 06:57
Larry Moran at sandwalk.blogspot.com/ allowed me to post a few messages but blocked my last attempt which I present below.
________________________________________________
I will henceforth let others speak for me which is largely all that I have ever done. That way you will know who it is that are your real adversaries. I am but the spokesperson for some of the finest biological minds of two centuries.
"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."
Robert Burton
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"Many recent authors have spoken of EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION; there is NO SUCH THING. Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way."
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311.
"EXPERIMENTAL EVOLUTION" and "NO SUCH THING" are Schindewolf's emphases, italicized in the original. "TOOK PLACE IN THE PAST" is my added emphasis.
I hope this helps explain my signature below.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 06. February 2007, 10:27: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. February 2007 05:08
Larry Moran was kind enough not to block this one.
________________________________________________
Continuing with my practice of letting others speak for me -
"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind..."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 209.
So much for the objectivity of the Darwinian mind.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:56:00 AM
[ 07. February 2007, 05:10: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. February 2007 17:37
Larry's response is now to make it quite impossible for me to view his blog from this computer.
It is easy to believe isn't it?
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 08. February 2007 06:55
I would like to take this opportunity to thank Martin for his unflagging support of my evolutionary science, a support that has resulted in his bannishment from Panda's Thumb and made him the subject of abuse from other blogs and forums as well. I am reminded of the insightful comment by Samuel Johnson of dictionary fame -
"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence."
At present I am welcome at only two major forums, "Overwhelming Evidence" and "Brainstorms." Even here I am denied the opportunity to introduce a thread, which I take to be an omen of impending isolation or worse, a fate I have learned to expect. Furthermore, I am now unable to establish communication with those who in the past have been my supporters or so I thought. This is not mere paranoia, a condition I will not deny, but a calculated expectation based on my long experience with internet communication and forum dominance by intractable, intellectually insecure ideologues who have carefully avoided even mentioning my name or the names of my sources. This is not a new phenomenon but has always characterized the proponents of both sides of the ongoing debate, the debate that should never have begun.
Thank you again Martin.
"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger
Forums and blogs that must deny the voice of dissent are not worthy of the further attention of any real scientist which, like my several sources, I regard myself to be. Nevertheless, I will continue to present my convictions at any venue where it is allowed. By so doing I will also expose those venues where that has become impossible.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 08. February 2007, 07:25: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. February 2007 16:17
Here is another example of my new approach which is to let others speak on my behalf. That way my adversaries will understand that it is not John A. Davison with whom they disagree but some of the finest minds of the past, minds which have been deliberately and cynically ignored by ideologues of several sorts who have their own selfish agendas to promote whatever the cost.
The following is for the Darwinians who insist on a gradual evolution through intermediate forms which have yet to be discovered in the fossil record, a record which is typically remarkably complete.
"The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record; they are not illusions but the expression of a NATURAL, PRIMARY ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS.
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 105, his emphasis, in italics in the original.
So much for Darwinian gradualism and with it the demise of the whole mutation/selection paradigm. Like every other aspect of the Darwinian fairy tale it is an illusion born of a mindless denial of the fossil record.
Let me add that this does not in any way support the special creation of "kinds" as some Christian fundamentalists might choose to believe. Rather it supports a reproductively continuous saltational sequence in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, a sequence in which each form appeared on a predetermined schedule. I am convinced that such transformations could never have occurred through conventional sexual reproduction and, as far as I can determine, are no longer possible except experimentally, experiments which have yet to be attempted. Darwinian evolutionists do not choose to do experiments as they are deathly afraid of the results. So are the Christian fundamentalists the vast majority of whom are not even scientists!
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links. They never existed."
Otto Schindewolf
"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
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. February 2007 01:16
I am disappointed at the lack of response to my recent messages. I have deliberately removed my hideous personality from consideration by letting my sources speak on my behalf. What more can be expected from me?
I am not particularly happy about being considered persona non grata here at "brainstorms." That has been my fate at Uncommon Descent and Panda's Thumb and a number of other venues where I can no longer present my convictions concerning the great mystery of organic evolution. I have no intention of ever returning again to any forum that has found it necessary to ban me from its proceedings.
Here is what I propose. I will, if allowed, continue here to offer the conclusions of my several sources for consideration by others. If they fail to evoke responses here, I suggest that David Springer or Salvador Cordova of Uncommon Descent present them there for discussion and Alan Fox of After The Bar Closes do the same there. I feel that it is very important to establish and expose the level of polarization that has come to typify the contemporary intellectual scene concerning the question of the mechanism of out origins. As far as I am concerned it is only the mechanism that remains in question.
If this request cannot be implemented it will mean only that the polarization that still plagues the discussion of our origins will continue mindlessly to stifle dissent from either side of a debate which I am convinced should never have begun. It has become transparent to me that neither Darwinian Mysticism nor Christian Fundamentalism have any role in evolutionary science. The truth lies elsewhere and I am convinced that I know where that is and always has been. I have summarized it in "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," largely based on the conclusions of my several sources.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"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
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. February 2007 06:55
Dear John,
this might interest you.
"Over the last 20 Myr, five species of stickleback have diverged; some extant stickleback species employ XY or ZW genetic sex determination systems, implying that one or perhaps both of these systems have evolved during this 20 Myr period of divergence."
The multipurpose genome of stickle backs was apparently frontloaded with two sex determination systems, that have been lost independenly in the five species that emerged from it.
do you know similar examples?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. February 2007 10:18
Peter
Thanks for giving me this opportunity to present my appraisal of sexual reproduction as a creative evolutionary mechanism. The question is did their evolution take place through sexual means or did the evolution of compulsory sexual reproduction put a stop to their further evolution? I say this because I know of not a single example of the formation of a new true species that took place through sexual means. It certainly has never been demonstrated experimentally employing the most severe selection imaginable. Theodosius Dobzhansky tried his best with Drosophila and failed. I regard sexual reproduction as a terminal and totally anti-evolutionary device which has been separately invented many times. Its sole purpose seems to be to stabilize the species and in so doing, with very rare exceptions, ensure ultimate extinction.
Sexual reproduction can, coupled with selection, do no more than generate intraspecific varieties and in some instances subspecies which are not incipient species anyway. Most so-called subspecies have not even been tested for hybrid fertility against the "presumed" parent species.
In my opinion sexual reproduction never had anything whatever to do with creative evolution and I will continue to believe that until it is established experimentally that it does. That has yet to be achieved. I regard it as quite impossible, one of several reasons I have abandoned the Darwinian fairy tale. For a further discussion, I refer you to section IV-1 of my Manifesto on this very thread where N.N. Vorontsov also presented the evidence for the independent invention of sexual reproduction mechanisms.
This is just one more example of the total bankruptcy of the Darwinian delusion.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 09. February 2007 10:39
John,
Not only Darwinian, but, in my opinion, evolution in general is facing total complete bankruptcy.
Assuming the hypothetical common ancestor's genome of the five stickle back species had one mode of sexual reproduction (why would it harbour two? It would be redundant and genetically unstable), how reasonable is it to assume the descendants evolved another mode of sexual repoduction. Is that an option? Why not stick to the original mode? The frontloading of two systems and the independent loss of one in seperate species is here a more powerful explanation. However, in my opinion, frontloading cannot explain unique novelties found in for instance humans, but not in other primates. Please your comments.
Thanks and regards,
Peter
[ 09. February 2007, 10:40: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. February 2007 13:19
Peter Borger.
I was noticed at one of our forum (where I am now banned btw.) of the same patterns of XY/XY vs ZZ/ZW in frogs.
quote:
Two different types of sex chromosomes, XX/XY and ZZ/ZW, exist in the Japanese frog Rana rugosa.
.
.
.
On the basis of these results, it is assumed that the Y and Z chromosomes originated from no. 7 chromosome of the West Japan form, whereas the X and W chromosomes originated from that of the Kanto form.)
I am not very wise from it.
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/164/2/613
[ 09. February 2007, 14:21: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. February 2007 16:29
Peter
The various sex-determining devices which have appeared are in perfect accord with the notion that the role of sexual reproduction is to PREVENT organic evolution, a key feature of the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis. Have you ever read the Manifesto, the subject of this thread? Apparently not.
No sexually reproducing organism has ever been demonstrated to undergo either true speciation or the formation of any of the higher categories. That is the substance of my last message which apparently you do not even understand judging from what you are saying. You don't reject hypotheses just because you don't like them; at least I don't.
If you are going to reject reproductive continuity with change (evolution), don't expect any agreement from me. I recommend you join Uncommon Descent and present your views there or at some of the Fundamentalist Creationist blogs where they support the Genesis account. What do think my signature means?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
"All life from life."
Pasteur
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend it."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. February 2007 10:16
It seems my Manifesto will appear translated and published in Czech before it ever is in English. That suits me just fine!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. February 2007 05:20
John,
"The various sex-determining devices which have appeared are in perfect accord with the notion that the role of sexual reproduction is to PREVENT organic evolution, a key feature of the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis. Have you ever read the Manifesto, the subject of this thread? Apparently not."
Yep. I did, a few times several years ago. Then I thought it could potentially explain speciation. What it does not explain is the arrival of novelties, such as the unique protein & siRNA genes in man recently discovered in the chimp genome project. It can also not explain the stability of genetic redundancies. So, as I see it now, it may provide another mechanism of organic change on the level of the genera. To account for novelties your hypothesis must rely on some gradual, slow Darwinian mechanism (duplication-divergence-selection) and we both know that is false. For your information, when I got aware of these biological facts I was convinced the creationist's have a very strong case.
"No sexually reproducing organism has ever been demonstrated to undergo either true speciation or the formation of any of the higher categories. That is the substance of my last message which apparently you do not even understand judging from what you are saying. You don't reject hypotheses just because you don't like them; at least I don't."
If I am correct the ancestor of the five species of extant sticklebacks reproduces asexually? Then, its descendants evolved two distinct sexual systems? Both must have been frontloaded? And both systems must have been stable in the ancestor for billions of years? I don't think so. That is not conform the genetics as we observe them. Your frontloading hypothesis is not compatible with billions of years. I have argued this several times now, but you seem to deny it.
"If you are going to reject reproductive continuity with change (evolution), don't expect any agreement from me. I recommend you join Uncommon Descent and present your views there or at some of the Fundamentalist Creationist blogs where they support the Genesis account. What do think my signature means?"
I am not looking for agreement. I am looking for (biological) truth. It cannot be frontloading, because genetics speak against it. The new biology data support a recent origin of biological systems, and fast-track speciations are in accord with the Genesis account.
Kind regards,
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 12. February 2007 14:31
Congratulations John! Once translated into Czech it will be accessible also for Slovakians at the same moment.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. February 2007 16:10
Peter
I have rejected Mendelian genetics as the source of evolutionary change. So did William Bateson. All that has ever been verified has been the production of intraspecific varieties and subspecies. Allelic mutation has played no role whatsoever in evolution. Neither has selection, sexual reproduction or population genetics. All of evolution was driven FROM WITHIN just as all of ontogeny still is. As for front-loading, like the creation of life, we have no idea how many times they took place and there is reason to believe both took place several times. Until reproductive continuity can be established beyond doubt, these options must remain open. Ontogeny is the best model for phylogeny and it results entirely from contained original information. I assume the same for phylogeny.
By 1924, Bateson had come to realize and told his son in confidence 'that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a "blind alley" which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general.
Davison, John A. (1993) The "Blind Alley". Its significance for evolutionary theory. Rivista di Biolohgia 86: 101-111.
I hope this clarifies my position.
[ 12. February 2007, 16:12: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
