|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. July 2007 02:22
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/01/books/review/Dawkins-t.html?pagewanted=2&ei=5070&en=d8f5c2fd225bf704&ex=1184385600
The above is the New York Times review by Richard Dawkins of Michael Behe's recent book "Edge of Evolution."
I call special attention to the sentence about half way through the review -
"Natural selection is arguably the most momentous idea ever to occur to a human mind, because it - alone as far as we know - explains the elegant illusion of design that pervades the living kingdoms and explains, in passing, us."
Of course natural selection never had anything to do with evolution. Quite the contrary, it prevented evolution in the past just as it does today. Dawkins even trots out dog breeds as an example of the powers of selection. They are all wolves!
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 13. July 2007 09:37
Darwin had his pigeons, all Colomba livia, and Dawkins has his dogs, all Canis lupus. Nothing has changed in a century and a half!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 14. July 2007 00:13
The NYT has blocked Dawkins nonsenses he wrote about BEHE's latest book. Anyway the article is still available here:
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/06/29/arts/idbriefs30A.php?page=2
Dawkins pondered about dogs and wrote also this biting darwinian observation:
quote:
Or a heavyset, thick-coated wolf, strong enough to carry a cask of brandy, that thrives in Alpine passes and might be named after one of them, the St. Bernard? Behe has to predict that you'd wait till hell freezes over, but the necessary mutations would not be forthcoming.
The facts are these:
quote:
As for the barrel on the collar, it first appeared in a painting by artist Edwin Landseer called “Alpine Mastiffs Reanimating a Distressed Traveler” in 1820; Landseer was only 17 at the time. The cask was thought to contain brandy and quickly caught on in the public imagination, though the monks and their dogs never actually used such a thing. (Alcohol, after all, could hasten dehydration—not a good treatment for a snowbound traveler.)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. July 2007 05:33
Bravo Martin!
Poor ignorant Arden Chatfield, Alan Fox and all the rest of the inmates at After The Bar Closes are now desperately "begging you" to go away! Don't you dare go away. Force them to ban you again. That is all those out patients know how to do. Before they do, please invite them to try their shabby tactics at a decent forum like "brainstorms." Of course some of them may already have proved they can't be decent here. I don't know the details and don't care to know them anyway.
Isn't it interesting that it is you and I that invite others to engage us? No one is inviting me to go anywhere (except occasionally to hell) and they are now "begging" you to go away!
It is beautiful Martin, absolutely beautiful!
It doesn't get any better than this!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. July 2007 21:01
This is for the record.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/audiobooks-the-intelligent-design-controversy-comes-to-life/#comments
Denyse O'Leary has announced the publication of Jason Rennie's audiobook including my contribution which she failed to mention until I emailed her complaining that I wasn't mentioned. As a result, please note her
"Whoops" at the bottom of her thread. There she erroneously claims that I have always been opposed to both camps in the evolution debate. I never even mentioned the word evolution until 1984, thirty years after my Ph.D., and I am very definitely a Creationist with a capital C. I am just not of the Fundamentalist Christian variety which is why I am not acceptable to the powers that be at Uncommon Descent. One does not ban allies, only enemies. Uncommon Descent has banned me three times!
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God....The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive....Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source....They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
As a fellow determinist I can only say -
AMEN
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. July 2007 04:47
I should be grateful that O'Leary even mentioned my name. Actually my criticism of her was unfair and I apologize. It was Rennie who found it necessary to call me a "maverick" and claimed I was that way ALL my career concerning evolution. Apparently it is my determinism that makes me a "maverick," a determinism I share with Bateson, Berg, Broom, Grasse, Schindewolf and Einstein. The real issue is the conflict that is intrinsic in the realization that we are not free to choose but are, each of us, a victim of a "prescribed" fate. Free Will is central to the Christian ethic. Apparently to question that is a cardinal sin. I plead guilty by reason of sanity, because I agree with Einstein -
"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 motion....EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
my emphasis.
It is clear to me that the basic conflicts that have always raged concerning our position in the universe are a direct result of powerful genetic predispositions and have nothing whatsoever to do with real science except to hinder its progress.
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a lttle conservative."
Gilbert and Sullivan, Iolanthe
Especially today, the words "atheist" and "theist" have become virtual synonyms for "liberal" and "conservative" repectively.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 16. July 2007, 15:27: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 18. July 2007 09:01
Dr. Davison,
You might be curious to know, William Bateson was favorably mentioned in a recent paper predicting the demise of neo-Darwinism. The paper was written by a premier molecular geneticist and member of the National Academy of Sciences.
quote:
Natural selection ...is not the fundamental cause of evolution
Historically, the word mutationism was used to refer to William Bateson’s saltationism or similar ideas, in which natural selection plays little role. Later Morgan (109) presented a more reasonable form of mutationism taking into account the role of natural selection. His view was abstract and based on a few lines of speculative arguments. However, recent molecular studies of phenotypic evolution support the basic
ideas of his view and have extended it to
a more comprehensive view presented in
this article.
The new mutation theory of phenotypic evolution
Congratulations Dr. Davison, Bateson's name will hopefully not be forgotten.
[ 18. July 2007, 09:02: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2007 09:16
Thanks Sal. It is about time you mentioned my name again. Try doing it at Uncommon Descent and see what happens.
Natural Selection is now and never was the fundamental cause of evolution. It always was entirely anti-evolutionary, serving only to preserve the status quo as long as possible.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2007 19:39
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=469ea88461ab9d2d;act=ST;f=14;t=5054;st=300
The degeneration that is exhibited by this page, and I am sure those which will follow, constitutes an indictment of Wesley Elsberry, his character, and the forum which is his sole responsibility. He gets more disgustingly desperate with each passing day. So does P.Z. Myers whose Pharyngula is no better. They both provide vivid demonstrations of Einstein's summary -
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres....Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
In other words everything remains in accord with a prescribed evolution. I can't complain!
It reminds me of the dying days of the Roman Empire when killing Christians became all the rage. Now it is ANYONE that questions the biggest hoax in the history of science.
I hope they both view this forum on a regular basis as I view their's.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
