|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. March 2007 21:59
I have discovered a very interesting conflict in what has otherwise been a seamless reconstruction favoring the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypottheis (PEH).
I am going by way of introduction, to introduce my intellectual sources in alphabetical order. These seven, I believe are the most important figures in pointing the way to the nature of the evolutionary scenario, a sequence that I believe is now finished as I have suggested elsewhere.
Here they are. I call them the magnificent seven after the movie by that name. I regard these as among some of the finest minds that have ever addressed the questions of man's organic origin and his place in the universe.
William Bateson
Leo Berg
Robert Broom
Albert Einstein
Richard B. Goldschmidt
Pierre Grasse
Otto Schindewolf
There is one outstanding feature that interrupts their collective support for the PEH. It involves only two of the participants, Robert Broom and Albert Einstein. I will present each in his own words so that everyone will recognize what the problem is.
First Robert Broom with the words with which he ended his book "Finding The Missing link."
"Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution is the result of an accident, or a series of accidents, are quite at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
And now Albert Einstein on the same subject -
"I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic."
I find this to be a remarkable comment from one who claimed - "Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
I never thought I would find reason to disagree with Einstein, but on this most fundamental issue I must side with Broom, especially since as far as I am able to determine, Homo sapiens is the last mammal species that will ever appear on this planet.
I would be interested in how others might respond to this analysis as I regard it as fundamental to the question of man's position in the world.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. March 2007 10:16
I have once again succumbed to the allure of blogomania and all the charming repartee that invariably entails. All may find me at evolutionisfinished.blogspot.com/
Don't forget to SOCKITTOME.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. March 2007 12:40
I am inclined to agree with Broom, not with Einstein. Broom studied evolution all his life so his conclusions are of relevance. Evolution had purpose and the purpose was mankind. There was forces behind evolution that drived evolution to this outcome.
Einstein seemd to have problem accepting some conclusions of quantum mechanics and his view turned to be false in the case. So there is no need consider Einstein as prophet.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. March 2007 16:09
Martin
I agree with you but do not underestimate the great contribution that Einstein made to our understanding of the human condition. It is every bit as significant as his physics. Relativity would have emerged even if Einstein had never existed.
I remain, with Einstein, a convinced determinist which remains the central and indispensable feature of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. In his own words -
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Amen
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. March 2007 09:15
https://www2.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=8514599844429716727&postID=5297892525635117558
I have been able to post a few messages at Kristine's new blog. Kristine is a great fan of Richard Dawkins as well as a habitue of After The Bar Closes.
To avoid repeating myself, I direct you to the above, comment #8, where I present my current view of the evolution contraversy. I am anxious to see how the audience here feels about my present appraisal.
You may rest assured that your comments will be welcome and will be given careful consideration.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 22. March 2007 14:52
There is an interesting part of a book available on inet that fully supports John Davison's conception. There are some citations of Leo Berg as well as some citations of the other scientists who considered convergence as contradictory fact to darwinism.
R.Gates:
quote:
The abundance of convergent types also involves recognition of the fact that groups, such as mammals, which are now regarded as uniform [i.e., descended from a single ancestor] have had polyphyletic (i.e., independent) origin.
Prosser:
quote:
Haemoglobins, different in protein but similar in heme, have evolved separately many times -- in chordates, a few molluscs, some entomostraeons, certain annelids, numerous holothurians, a few dipteran insects, even some nitrogen-fixing bacteria.
Berg:
quote:
Eyes with a lens are independently met with in annelid worms, arthropoda, and cephalopoda. In the latter we meet with retina, cornea, iris, ciliary process, and even (in some) with eye-lids.
I dont know John's opinion of it - what is the trigger of evolutionary process? Might be it is change of environment that "triggers" pre-programmed evolution inherent in genes. Such explanation would give environment a place in the evolution and yet contradicts darwinism.
http://www.custance.org/Library/Volume4/Part_III/Chapter2.html
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. March 2007 15:00
John didn't give response but I would like add his quotation I agree with. It's one from Schindewolf:
"At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAl THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT."
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 312 (his emphasis)
That's an idea that support Nomogenesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. March 2007 17:19
Uf, my antidarwinistic posts are deleted from atheistic Pharyngula regularly. See post 247 from Steve_C. It has no sense - because my previous post has been just deleted. It's like FIFO there. What a discussion! You see there just answers to my deleted responses. It's an atheistic democracy I would say. Communists should learn from darwinists there.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/02/the_false_equation.php
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. March 2007 00:01
Martin
Thank you for reviving interest in this thread.
Incidentally nosivad is John A. Davison. I forgot my password and was supplied with an old one.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. March 2007 00:30
Martin
The way you are being treated at Pharyngula is the best proof imaginable that P.Z. Meyers is afraid of our shared views concerning evolution. He insults both of us. Rejoice, as I do, in what that really means.
I invite him here to join in a rational discussion just as I invite Dawkins. Neither will even acknowledge the invitation. Trust me. These pathetic ideologues are scared to death of us and our sources. If they were not they wouldn't resort to such shabby tactics. Deletion, bannishment, insult and silence are all symptoms of profound fear and always have been wherever you find them. Don't waste your time dealing with "prescribed" homozygous bigots. They are victims and are probably not even responsible for their hideous behavior. Like lemmings they are committing intellectual suicide and don't even realize it. That is why I coined that new word -
SOCKITTOME
The object is to help them along!
I love it so!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. March 2007 06:19
Martin
You ask me what the trigger IS of the evolutionary process. I have no idea except to say that I do not believe creative natural evolution is any longer in progress. Experimental evolution remains possible and I have pointed one way with the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH). One of these decades it will be tested with appropriate material but it won't be by a Darwinian. They don't even test their own hypothesis any more. They are afraid to. It is a scandal.
Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has proven to be a self-limiting, self-terminating phenomenon and as far as I can see, Homo sapiens was the terminal mammalian product. What you should have asked is what WAS the trigger of the evolutionary process. I can only surmise that it was necessary in order to pave the way for the next step in a predetermined sequence, a sequence which I believe has been terminated with the creation of a rational creature, Homo sapiens.
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
Am I the only person who is flabbergasted by the fact that man is the youngest mammal on this planet? I attach great significance to that reality.
I have grown tired of issuing challenges only to see them ignored. It is happening again right now at my blog -
evolutionisfinished.blogspot.com/
I, my sources, and the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis simply do not exist. It is as simple as that. The silence is not limited to the Godless Darwinians but characterizes all the leaders of the so called "Intelligent Design Movement" as well. I have lost all respect for both "schools of thought" which is exactly all that they are. When bannishment, denigration, and, above all, silence becomes their last resorts, such venues no longer deserve my respect. They have, by their actions, become my mortal enemies. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 27. March 2007 15:16
John,
there are two interesting links in Russian language:
http://www.philos.msu.ru/libfiles/Berg1.doc
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/popov.htm
and this one
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/
header of which is "Problems of evolution", some articles are in English, but what's more important they are from Russian authors who probably bring new views (I haven't time to read it yet.).
First link I have given above is some summary of Nomogenesis directly from Leo Berg, I have read it yesterday. The second one is on history of ortogenesis, directed evolution from Popov. There is a table of many prominent proponents of directed evolution. What's more interesting is a fact, that Popov somehow have the same opinion of spreading of evolutionary novelties in population as Berg in the first article. According Berg a novelty originate at once in all members of species and not by propagation from one or few members as darwinists claim. Same for Popov - "elite" amongst given species has no evolutionary, progressive value at all.
Popov see all darwinistic concepts of "developmental constraints", "epigenetic traps", "spontaneous order", "evolutionary channeling" as new words for old ortogenesis thoughts.
His personal site with articles in English is on :
http://www.kli.ac.at/institute-b.html?personal/popov
Maybe Popov is like Berg ichtyologe, at least he works at State Research Institute of Lake and River Fisheries in St. Petersburg, Laboratory of Salmon Populations Monitoring.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. March 2007 18:20
Thank you Martin.
I never understood how all members of a species could simultaneously show the same evolutionary changes. Berg definitely believed that and said as much. I took exactly the opposite view in the Manifesto by assumng that all genetic changes originated in the individual which is certainly the case for Mendelian factors as I am sure you would agree. That does not mean that Berg is wrong or that I am right. I simply can't imagine what would synchronize creative evolutionary changes as Berg believed. I do not underestimate Leo Berg in any event. He may have been right. He certainly was with his appraisal of natural selection as a purely conservative anti-evolutionary device, a conclusion which had been independently reached by Reginald C. Punnett seven years before Berg published Nomogenesis. Berg, to his credit, gave Punnett precedence. They obviously had reached that conclusion independently.
Leo Berg was not only a great biologist, he was a gentleman which is more than I can say for most Darwinians and Fundamentalists alike, who tend toward pompous condescension and ridicule toward their adversaries. They sure do delight in banning their critics, as we both can testify. Both factions really seem to be "born that way," or "prescribed" to believe and behave as they do.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
Grasse noticed this Darwinian arrogance as well.
"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by accident and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded assumption which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
So much for the Darwinian fairy tale, the most long lived intellectual disaster in the history of science.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
