|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 13. February 2007 04:59
John,
"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."
I agree entirely.
"All of evolution was driven FROM WITHIN just as all of ontogeny still is."
You mean all observed evolution? The lab experiments? I could agree on that. It is established by preexisting genetic elements: VIGEs (variation inducing genetic elements, commonly referred to as retroviral elements, LINEs, SINEs, transposons, etc)
"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."
Maybe several hundreds of times. I do not see the problem you have with special creation of multipurpose genomes? Why several times and not several hundreds?
"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."
But the chimp-human genome projects show the respective genomes harbor distinct sets of unique genes. Independent loss of the same frontloaded elements in distinct lineages is an awfull lot to believe.
Besides, how could these unique genes be retained in the absence of selective constraint? This requires explanation as it is crucial to your frontloading hypothesis, which, in your opinion is compatible with billions of years.
"I hope this clarifies my position."
I know your position.
Ciao,
Peter
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. February 2007 07:42
Peter
We agree on some matters but I will never accept a recent de novo origin of life in any form including Homo sapiens. The fossil record testifies otherwise and will not be ignored by this investigator. I also reject selection as an evolutionary force. It has no role in ontogeny either.
Your "unique" genes may have been there all along and simply repressed or otherwise disguised.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. February 2007 05:41
"Your "unique" genes may have been there all along and simply repressed or otherwise disguised."
This would be an option only when we would also find them in other primates, but we don't. In my opinion, the PEH has the same problem as darwinian theory: it cannot explain the origin of novel genes.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. February 2007 11:09
Peter
Then what can? De novo creation? I say not a chance. Man is very definitely an animal as internet communication alone proves beyond doubt. In my opinion there had to have been at least two Big Front Loaders, one benevolent, the other malevolent, and they are now, in my opinion, both dead.
"God is dead."
Nietzche
The idea of a personal God has never played any role in scientific progress. Quite the contrary, it has delayed it.
"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
ibid
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
ibid
"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being...does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the perceivable world."
ibid
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their actions."
ibid, my emphasis.
I believe that atheist Darwinism is a pleiotropic expression of the same "prescribed" genetic condition that produces an equally atheistic political relativism. It is demonstrated in the posture of our university faculties and the membership of the National Academy of Sciences.
"Birds of a feather flock together."
Cervantes
Einstein was not the first to reach the conclusion of a determined universe, a position with which I agree.
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative."
Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe (1882).
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. February 2007 16:07
I think a great deal of evolution involved the LOSS rather than a gain of potentiality. That is exactly what takes place in ontogeny and ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. Just where do these presumed new genes come from - God Almighty?
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
What say others?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. February 2007 18:34
I have been carrying on a correspondence with my friend Martin. He has asked me to explain how the semi-meiotic hypothesis might serve to establish a new species. I am going to present that scenario here since I am not permitted to introduce it as a thread. It represents a clarification of material presented in the Manifesto.
Those who are familiar with the history of Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster" realize that a primary objection to it was posed when the question was asked - Where will the hopeful monster find its mate?
As you will see from the following, an answer can now be presented to that question.
The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) is a purely gynogenetic form of reproduction in which a female organism bearing a single chromosome restructuring in heterozgous form can produce female offspring in equal frequency, one half like the mother and the other half homozygous for a new chromosome configuration, in principle a new species produced in a single cytogenetic step.
The following reconstruction assumes that all such semi-meiotic products will be females. It should be noted however that males can also be produced gynogenetically in frogs. Whether this can occur in higher vertebrates is still unknown.
I propose the following scenario. The novel females will breed with the males of the original species to produce the expected heterozygotes which will then, in typical Mendelian fashion, self to produce the usual Mendelian ratio of 1 original species to 2 species heterozygotes to 1 new species. This would demand that the original species and its gynogenetic product must coexist which I believe is in accord with what we know from the fossil record. We defintely coexisted with Neanderthal and there is some evidence for hybridization as well.
We differ from the chimpanzee with about 12 chromosome restructurings of what seem to be a common original karyotype. There is no need nor any convincing evidence that any new information need to have been introduced in this process.
I propose that there were 12 or so ancestors that were involved in our evolutionary separation. They are now all extinct.
I think that this number, twelve, is a reasonable number of hypothetical intermediates that were involved in our evolution from a common primate ancestor. It also provides an answer to the objection which was raised to Goldschmidt's "hopeful monster." The new form bred with its direct ancestor.
While chromosome restructurings in heterozygous form tend to produce sterility, it is only when several are involved that this becoems a factor in reproductive isolation as with the mule for example. Like the chimpanzee and the human, the horse and the donkey also probably had several ancestors which were involved in their separation as well. Those ancestors are also apparently extinct. The vast majority of all creatures that ever existed were doomed to extinction.
According to this reconstruction, while the original chromosome homozygote was produced semi-meiotically, sexual (Mendelian) reproduction can finish the job of establishing the new species. I feel that this hypothetical reconstruction is in full accord with what we know from the fossil record as well as what we know about the meiotic two step process, a process in which the first meiotic division is very definitely a means to produce diploid female offspring half of which can be a new species produced in a single step.
The experimental semi-meiotic production of normal diploid frogs has been long known and there is no reason why such a process might not have occured in any organism now reproducing by sexual means.
I repeat my conviction that a primary effect of obligatory sexual reproduction is to bring creative evolution to a complete halt and that it serves, as in the past, to almost invariably result in eventual extinction. In short sexual reproduction does not now and never did support creative evolution. Neither did natural selection which can now, as in the past, only maintain the status quo.
I hope this serves to stimulate a rational discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. February 2007, 19:24: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. February 2007 02:35
I have finally figured out what I think is going on here. My threads, in particular this one, have become here at "brainstorms" what "Davison's soap box" was at Panda's Thumb and "Boot Camp" was at EvC. I am allowed to rant and rave with very little reaction except from Peter and Martin. It has become a form of isolation as it was in those forums. Nevertheless, let me say I am grateful for whatever opportunities are allowed me. The important thing is that my convictions are being expressed.
What I find revealing is the lack of recognition of my position. Surely my views cannot be acceptable to either the Creationist or the atheist Darwinian factions. Why then do they not respond? Could it be that they are unwilling to recognize that their own positions are without foundation? I am inclined to think exactly that.
It is hard to believe isn't it? Actually it is what I have come to expect. There is more than one way to deal with the "Davison problem." At least I haven't been banned yet!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. February 2007 08:46
John,
you say:
"We differ from the chimpanzee with about 12 chromosome restructurings of what seem to be a common original karyotype. There is no need nor any convincing evidence that any new information need to have been introduced in this process."
And this has very recently been shown to be untrue. Dozens of genes have been added to both the human genome and chimp genome independently. 1800 genes have been added over the past 100 million "evolutimaginary" years That is what I am trying to discuss with you here. Chimps have distinct sets of socalled microRNA genes, whereas humans have too. The facts as they appear to us are that these genes are not found in other primates. They are UNIQUE genes. In humans they are required to build the bulky brains. In addition it has been shown that there are unique protein coding genes in humans. So genetic additions have been made after these organism allegedly split. Who or what added this information? Your Benevolent and malevolents gods cannot be dead for long, because modern human cannot be much older than a few hundred thousand years (by standard evolutionary analyses). The new biology observations have convinced me of recent creation of biological systems, including man.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. February 2007 08:57
"I repeat my conviction that a primary effect of obligatory sexual reproduction is to bring creative evolution to a complete halt and that it serves, as in the past, to almost invariably result in eventual extinction."
What was the reason the asexually reproducing biological system did not become extinct?
[ 20. February 2007, 08:59: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. February 2007 13:17
quote:
The facts as they appear to us are that these genes are not found in other primates.
How do we know they are not there? Is really genome so good explored that also possibility of
it's divided parts must be excluded? My point is that information could be there but should be reassemble from parts like IKEA furniture.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. February 2007 14:33
John, you say:
"How do we know they are not there? Is really genome so good explored that also possibility of it's divided parts must be excluded?"
Yes, John, this has been done. Nowadays you can simply subtract DNA libraries, or amplify candidate genes. The new biology tools allow for rapid identification of novel unique genes. If you have extracted the DNA from different species its only a matter of days and you know whether a gene is unique or not. Unique genes have been found in humans and chimpanzees. It has come as a big shock to the evolutionary establishment. It is not discussed in the media but the data have been published in the science journals. The Darwinian conundrum is of course that "microRNA genes are the motor that drive evolution as they have a selective value". Fact is, they cannot explain these genes in a Darwinian mode. Here, science comes to a grinding halt. What is left is belief in hypotheses. Darwinian, Davisonian, whatever. The new biology are clear about it: species can not have their origin in an evolutionary process.
"My point is that information could be there but should be reassemble from parts like IKEA furniture."
Maybe this could sometimes happen in bacteria. They have all sorts of mechanisms to take up and process DNA from their environment, and also have DNA elements required for shuffling their genomes in order to provide adaptive phenotypes. For the higher organism this may not be a major evolutionary factor. The genes we are talking about are real novelties, unrelated to other genes. It turns over the whole idea of evolution. I am a creationist now.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. February 2007 16:24
Peter
You are responding to Martin not to me.
You know Michael Denton in his first book called "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" made the same mistake that I feel you are making. You both seek to deny evolution. First of all, evolution is not a theory; it is an undeniable reality. You can't deny realities and expect to have any credibility in the scientific community.
Denton has changed his mind and now seems to think that evolution is an intrinsic property of organic matter. I don't believe that for a millisecond either. With Robert Broom, I am convinced that the whole thing was planned from beginning to end and the end is now. It is only the mechanism that is yet to be completely understood.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution... We must look elsewhere for the source of the evolutionary flux."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. February 2007 03:43
"You know Michael Denton in his first book called "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis" made the same mistake that I feel you are making."
His book was published two decades go. What do you think happened over the past two decades? The genomes of many organisms were sequenced from start to end. Every nucleotide of their DNA is know. All differences, all mutations are known. What does it show? Similar functional sequences, but not common descent. Sudden apparition of completely novel genetic systems.
"You both seek to deny evolution."
I few years ago I thought you might have a point with a prescribed evolutinary hypothesis. But the genomes testify otherwise. Genetic redundancy is the rule. The facts are redundant genes do not change faster than essential genen and they are not assocuiated with gene duplications. This is sufficient to bring down any evolutionary hypothesis. It means the genes cannot have been in the genomes for millions of years and their origin cannot be explained. These are the biological facts, not evolution. I was under the impression you were argueing against darwinian gradual evolution. What is the best biological evidence of rapid, prescribed evolution in your opinion? And, it cannot have taken millions/billions of years. It is biologically speaking impossible.
"First of all, evolution is not a theory; it is an undeniable reality."
No, it is not. That was your argument. You keep saying that it has happened, but now it ceased. Thus evolution is not a reality, but something from the past. The genetic changes that we observe today are the result of reshuffling genomes and the action of variation inducing genetic elements; Mechanisms to produce variation within species. Evolution is a hypothesis and it has been falsified over the past decades. I read most of the scientific literature of the last ten years in search of scientific truth an found falfiers of evolutionary theorie everywhere.
"You can't deny realities and expect to have any credibility in the scientific community."
It is what you say but different: the scientific (darwinian) community is denying the new biology data. They squeeze the data in a framework no longer existing.
"Denton has changed his mind and now seems to think that evolution is an intrinsic property of organic matter. I don't believe that for a millisecond either. With Robert Broom, I am convinced that the whole thing was planned from beginning to end and the end is now. It is only the mechanism that is yet to be completely understood."
Sometimes we have to change our minds. In particular when the data do not fit the framework. This accounts for everyone of us. I have changed my mind recently (from prescribed evolution to divine creation). You should also consider doing so.
best wishes,
peter
[ 21. February 2007, 03:50: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. February 2007 06:29
Peter
Thank you for your candor. I am sorry but I will never assume de novo creation except in the very beginning or more likely beginnings.
By taking your position you have isolated yourself from the scientific community even more surely than I have. What journals will publish your conclusions? Who will respond to your claims? I and my sources are completely ignored by the materialist worshippers of the Great God Chance. That is bad enough, but when you abandon reproductive continuity which apparently is your position, I can assure you that you have isolated yourself from all but the most extreme Christian Fundamentalst factions. That is unfortunate.
There IS evidence for the presence of very ancient gene families in organisms in which those genes have no apparent function. I refer you to the work I mentioned in my 2005 paper* with Acropora millepora. The larva of this coelenterate, one of the most primitive of living animals, is very complex genetically and contains many genes previously thought to be of recent vertebrate origin.
What becomes the critical step is the demonstration of the origin of the unique genes which you postulate. Where did they come from? I will not assume they came from nowhere.
When we observe the genetic make up of any adult organism we see only a tiny fraction of its prior genetic potential. The embryos of those same forms will prove to be, like the planula larva of Acropora, far more complex than the adult into which the embryo develops. Embryonic differentiation results from the closing down of pathways, a narrowing of potentiality. All real evolution resulted from a change in the development of the embryo, not a change produced in the adult. Both Goldschmidt and Schindewolf recognized this. That is why the experience of the adult organism can never have been instrumental in producing evolutionary change. It was all preprogrammed, "prescribed," by regulating the events of embryonic development.
That is why all the selection in the world is a monumental waste of time, an exercise in futility, a lesson the Darwinians still have not learned. Apparently they never will.
Furthermore, there is no reason whatsoever to believe that creative evolution is even occurring any more. Robert Broom, Otto Schindewolf, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse all reached that conclusion and so have I.
There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe in Divine intervention and certainly no evidence for it now or in the past. It is only in the beginning or beginnings that we must resort to such ideas.
Pierre Grasse put it this way.-
"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."
The Evolution of Living organisms, page 166, his emphasis
* Davison, J.A. A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, Rivista di Biologia 98:155-166.(2005)
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 22. February 2007 03:49
"There IS evidence for the presence of very ancient gene families in organisms in which those genes have no apparent function."
This suggests they are redundant and CANNOT be ancient genes. Redundancy CANNOT just sit in the genome for longer than a few millions of years, but most likely less. I think this is the biggest (unsolvable) problem for long age evolutionary theories that nobody seems to acknowldedge. It means these biological systems cannot be as ancient as claimed. Speciation was an instant event so it does not requires Darwinian evolutionary time. Your PEH doesn't require long ages, and I still think that is a strong part of PEH (although you don't seem to like that idea). The weak part is that PEH cannot explain genetic novelties.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
