|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 28. May 2007 13:44
There is no place for me to express my opinion except ISCID and EvC. I have been banned by darwinists from AtBC, Pharyngula - they use a bald-faced lie btw that I am someone else - and on One blog a day and Zimmer's Loom I have to wait for "approval" to all of my posts. This is the latest one which have been intercepted at Loom:
...I don't know who Carroll is. Anyway Jaroslav Flegr (who translated Carl Zimmer's Parasite Rex into Czech) wrote in his latest book "Frozen evolution" 2006 that there are many genes that are not expressed alone or that have cumulative effect so to say. It means that there are let say 10 genes and expression of one of them depends on the 9 remaining - so called gene interactions. These gene interactions are very complicated - there are many alleles of the genes involved so the outcome is always somehow specific. Many of alleles are not expressed and yet present for many ganerations. Then suddenly due specific combination of alleles of interacted genes they become "visible". So probably it is not correct idea that
genes/alleles become corrupted if they are not used. Otherwise eugenic should be possible and scientific.
Flegr came to the same conclusion as Broom, Huxley and Davison - who is banned here btw - that evolution is frozen (darwinian newspeak for finished). Of course Flegr give his brand new - as far as I can judge - theory of the phenomena. It should be due "frozen plasticity" of species. It is also crux of his probably original thought that domesticated animals are "evolutionary" youngest, just developed. The other, older species are so "frozen" that they cannot be domesticated whatever effort you make using selection!
An interesting idea. Flegr is heretic and yet somehow evolutionary scientist who dont need a God.
"Front-loading" is the same miracle as the fact, that homo sapiens would have evolved due "random mutation". Natural selection play no role in evolution according Punnet, Schindewolf, Heikertinger etc. - it just removes extremities. Flegr idea correspond with Davison idea that sexual selection probably hindern further development and stabilize species.
Of course my opinion is that evolution was directed process towards origin of mankind. Once mankind arouse evolution is finished. Its creative forces are not taking Effect any more. Its like when you study processes in a cell of dying organism and want from it to establish process and forces in development of zygote. No way. And yet information is still there, from the beginning (zygote) till the end - the death of an organism. The same for phylogeny.
(I quoted Flegr because he translated Rex and because Charles Uni Prague seem to be source of darwinian heretics. The most prominent from them is professor Zdenek
Neubauer who publicized world wide - also in Nature - and then became an antidarwinist. He called neodarwinists to be sorcerers of modern era who kill beauty of life.
Neubauer: A brief consideration on the meaning of the lysogenic conversion. Nature (1967) 213:1263
Oppenheim, Neubauer, Calef, Antirepressor: A new element in genetical regulation. Nature (1970) 226:31
)
[ 28. May 2007, 14:19: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. May 2007 17:45
Bravo Martin. How have you managed not to be banned at EvC?
I would go "bear hunting with a switch" with my friend and sole ally Martin. The section in quotes is an old southern expression most appropriate to the situation here.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undeniable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. May 2007 17:55
Martin and anyone else who is interested.
What "freezes" amd has always
"frozen" evolution is obligatory sexual reproduction. There is not a shred of evidence that any higher organism reproducing by bisexual (Mendelian) means has ever produced a product fundamentally different from itself. They never did and they never will.
You may quote me and please do! Of that I am now absolutely certain.
I love it so!
" A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 29. May 2007 00:16
It would be probably more and more accepted opinion that sexual reproduction hindern further evolution as you claimed. And asexual evolution would support more "selfish gene" conception of Dawkins. So I wonder if Dawkins fancy is correct at all.
What do you mean about opinion that we can domesticate only species that have developed just recently and that "frozen" species in "stasi" we cannot domesticate?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. May 2007 04:24
Martin
All species are "frozen" in stasis as near as I can determine. Evolution is no longer in progress. Apparently the final step was the production of Homo sapiens. Again, this is not original with me as anyone familiar with the literature knows. Robert Broom is the person who convinced Julian Huxley (in private correspondence) that a new Genus had not appeared in two million years. Huxley carried it even further as his language made indelibly clear. I recommend all read the revealing paragraph on page 571 of Huxley's "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." You will find that paragrph in section II-3 of the Manifesto. Apparently independently, Grasse also concluded that evolution was finished and it is implicit in the language of Schindewolf as I have repeatedly indicated in the Manifesto and in my papers. If others fail to come to this conclusion it certainly is not my fault.
Darwinians see "evolution in action" everywhere they look but never test that conclusion with experiment. They are afraid to. It has become a true monotheistic religion complete with patron saints, Gould, Mayr, Dawkins and Myers, devout atheists all. The first two were lucky to die before they could be "martyred." The last two will not be so lucky if it us up to me. They are finished in any event as everything we are now learning points to a directed sequence very similar to that of ontogeny, internally controlled by goal seeking processes in which the environment has played a very minor role. One thing is now certain. Natural selection is anti-evolutionary and always was. It is not only a vacuum that Nature abhors. She hates change, especially now.
The question of domestication is a very interesting one. Some animals, like cats and dogs, seem to think they are human while others do not and apparently are incapable of being tamed. I suspect it wll prove to have, like everything else, a firm genetic, "prescribed" basis.
"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
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. May 2007 05:02
http://www.uncommondescent.com/off-topic/atmospheric-co2-increase-varies-by-100-year-to-year/#comments
David Springer over at Uncommon Descent has come up with another (to put it very mildly) misleading pronunciamento.
Accurate continuous measurements of atmospheric CO2 have been made at Mauna Loa, Hawaii since 1958. There was never in sequential years levels which varied by anywhere near 100%. Quite the contrary, levels have steadily increased with both maxima and minima higher than the preceeding year without a single exception. The minimum values occur at the end of the summer in the northern hemisphere as one would expect since CO2 is consumed by plants during that period. The maxima occur in spring prior to the growing season.
The January 1959 value was .0315%, the January 2007 value .0383%, an increase of 21.6%.
The Mauna Loa data are the most reliable available and do not support the blanket assertion claimed in the above thread. Springer's comments are irresponsible which is why I am compelled to call attention to them.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. May 2007 06:20
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/05/john_a_davison_is_such_a_tattl.php#comments
In the meantime, while waiting for a response from David Springer, the above has produced over 80 comments thereby proving to be the most popular thread Myers ever produced. Thank you P.Z. I need all the publicity you insist on presenting.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. May 2007, 06:22: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. May 2007 16:48
Meanwhile, back at Uncommon Descent, Springer, in his typically arrogant fasion, is "straightening out the misconceptions" of others. No one dares take exception to him there because he will ban them if they do. Take it from someone who knows!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a presemt evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. May 2007 05:46
http://oneblogaday.com/web/2007/05/21/pharyngula-evolution-development-and-random-biological-ejaculations/
This thread has reached 767 messages without a word from the man who so proudly and arrogantly initiated it. One then should not be surprised at my message #767.
It seems that Martin and I do not exist, just as Bateson, Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Grasse and Goldschmidt never did either. "Prescribed," "born that way, "dyed-in- the-wool" ideologues are like that!
"Conscience doth make cowards of THEM all."
after Shakespeare
I also wait, apparently in vain, for a response from David Springer.
There are sins of omission as well as those of commission. It seems to me that both camps in this idiotic debate are guilty of both sorts. Debates are for "debating teams" and the internet is crawling with them.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
Not any longer it isn't!
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. May 2007 10:10
I never thought I would see the day when David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberspace would fail to respond to a direct challenge to his intellectual integrity. By remaining silent he has joined the second biggest bully in cyberspace, P.Z. Myers, who has also failed to do the same and for exactly the same reason. Neither is secure in a neutral venue where they cannot wield absolute control. All arrogant "born that way" ideologues suffer from the same malaise. They always have and they always will. All they know how to do is to ban their critics and then pretend they never existed.
It is no longer hard to believe. It has been demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt, both here and at One Blog A Day.
Naturally,
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 01. June 2007 14:20
According a reserach published in Nature 1998:
quote:
At least five lineages of placental mammals
arose more than 100 million years ago, and most of the modern
orders seem to have diversified before the Cretaceous/Tertiary
extinction of the dinosaurs.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...and that most mammalian orders were involved in a Cretaceous radiation that predated the Cretaceous/Tertiary extinction of the dinosaurs (Fig. 3). The origin of most mammalian orders seems not to be tied to the filling of niches left vacant by dinosaurs, but is more likely to be related to events in Earth history 12.
Amolecular timescale for vertebrate evolution
Sudhir Kumar & S. Blair Hedges
http://www.kumarlab.net/pdf_new/KumarHedges98.pdf
This support more than anything else Broom's opinion that evolution of mammalian orders is over and no darwinian "emptied niches" after K/T boundary play any role in evolution of mammals. Emptied niches as source of "adaptive radiation" of mammals after extintion of dinosaurs is only another darwinian fancy. Robert Broom (I quote from John Manifesto):
There were great varieties of evolution in the Orders that had appeared, but strangely enough Nature seemed incapable of forming any more new Orders.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. June 2007 18:11
Thank you again Martin.
It is hopeless venture to attempt to reason with homozygous atheist Darwinians. So also with the Christian Fundamentalists. Both camps are littered with fanatics exactly as Churchill described them.
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
They also all pretend they have no adversaries. This forum and One Blog A Day have proved that beyond any reasonable doubt.
The internet is crawling with fanatics of every description. I am fed up with the whole damn business.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 02. June 2007 01:45
Dear John,
While it is true that CO2 level has increased every year as you said (I didn't say it hadn't) the magnitude of the increase can vary by over 100% from one year to the next. The amount of human generated CO2 hardly varies at all year to year - it increases by a small amount one year to the next. Maybe you should read a little more carefully before writing knee jerk reactions.
Another notable thing which you must have missed is that the magnitude of the increase is never as much as the human generated CO2 that was pumped into the atmosphere. Obviously this means that something is sucking some of the human generated CO2 out of the atmosphere and the whole point of the blog article was the highly variable amount that gets taken out. If we understood what the variable factor is that is removing what in some years can be most of the human generated CO2 we could address the "problem" of excess CO2 not by limiting fossil fuel burning but rather by increasing the amount that is removed. The only variable anyone can think of to explain this is variable uptake by plants and I suggested a practical way to increase this uptake is by planting forests and harvesting the wood for structural use. The carbon in the wood would be first locked up for decades as the tree grows and then for decades more after it is harvested and used to build durable goods like homes and furniture.
[ 02. June 2007, 02:02: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
