|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
iconasostacles
Member
Member # 5227
|
posted 28. July 2007 12:07
It is a very compelling idea that we confront no substantive observations of creative evolution occuring in direct conformity with standard Darwinian postulates. There is obviously some trace of the mechano-industrialist attitude among persistent Darwinists.... the ongoing 'assembly line' of biology which changes with the fads of the ecological marketplace.
As I understand it, what we do have observations of are (a) a pre-existence informational template (b) ecological circumstances that varying allow or disallow the unfoldment of the priorly established seed-pattern (c) a fossil record which shows punctuated rather, rather than continuous, arising of (seemingly) novel patterns.
Is that correct?
My interest in the overlap between ID, CTMU and NKS leads me to wonder about the possibility of rapid shift between established informational templates. Although we may, perhaps, exclude gradual, circumstantially-caused transformations -- is there any possibilty of sliding between patterns? Analogous to, say, islands in an atoll or celestial bodies being drawn from one regular orbit into the orbit of another body.
By removing a creeping journey from ape to Man, is it still possible (but not necessary, of course) that this constitues a leap from one established island to another? An accelerated valley-journey from one peak to a nearby, structurally resonant peak?
Or is this precluded in some way?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. July 2007 14:01
I am a scientist, not a philosopher, so I am not prepared to answer your questions.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 28. July 2007 14:05
John Davison has noticed me that darwinists at AtBC use Theory of evolution for darwinism. Of course it is not correct because there are many theories of evolution and darwinism is only one of them.
Now the folks at AtBC are lost how to explain coloration in animal kingdom. Having no arguments they started again their tactic of denigration. You can see they are lost - their argument now is that every mohths are published hundreds of papers supporting "theory of evolution" and that is why it is correct and scientific.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. July 2007 19:51
Martin and anyone else for that matter.
THEORIES, sensu strictu, are verified HYPOTHESES. As yet there is no valid theory of evolution, only two major and thorougly discredited hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) has yet to be experimentally verified but remains compatible with everything we really know about a past evolution. The Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH), which is the cytogenetic vehicle for the PEH, has yet to be tested with suitable material. Even if it should fail to produce new life forms will not prove the PEH is wrong because, as nearly as we can tell, there is not a single living creature, plant or animal, that we KNOW is capable of any further change beyond intraspecifc variety or subspecies, neither of which are incipient true species.
All current evidence indicates a finished organic evolution, something the Darwinians cynically and deliberately ignore. They see "evolution in action" everywhere they look yet steadfastly refuse to test their convictions. In short, Darwinists are not scientists! They never were. Even Dobzhansky, after he admitted he was unable to transform Drosophila through the most intensive selection, remained a Darwinian to the end, providing verification for what has been concluded from the studies on separated identical twins. We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others. Another lifelong Darwinian even described himself as a "dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself."
Ernst Mayr. The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132.
Of one thing I am certain. If a new true species appears, it will not be the result of Mendelian sexual reproduction which is much too conservative a mechanism to produce even a new member of the same genus. In short, Mendelism never had anything to do with organic evolution just as Bateson realized over eighty years ago. I refer you to the subject of this thread for documentation.
I also realize that I am wasting my time repeating myself here, but it is only for the record by establishing the intractability of the Darwinian atheist, purposeless mindset which still dominates the evolutionary scenario just as it always has for a century and a half. It is now finally in its death throes.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 31. July 2007, 08:33: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. July 2007 02:16
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/07/come_out.php#comments
P.Z. Myers is now exhorting his atheist followers to "come out" and declare themselves with the scarlet letter A. I didn't realize atheists were ever in the closet. The next thing you know we will have atheist parades, rallies and a political party with Myers running for President on the red A ticket! There is still plenty of time for Myers to declare for 08! Oh how I wish he would!
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
|
|
iconasostacles
Member
Member # 5227
|
posted 30. July 2007 14:56
I am definitely coming at this from a more philosophical angle. Thus I continue to bear in mind that 'theory' is a word that a variety of uses including the particular 'scientific rigor' use that definites it as a verified hypothesis.
In that sense it is fascinating that, rather than a discredited Theory of Evolution, we face a situation in where there IS no theory of evolution. At least in the conventional, populist sense.
I wonder if anyone here is familiar with the work of Eric Chaisson at Harvard and now Tufts University? He traces an "arrow" of cosmic time which progressivley increases a variable of 'energy rate density.' The point being that although stars have much higher energy than animals, animals have a higher 'energy rate density.'
At each demonstrable phase of cosmological history there is an emergence of increased energy-rate-density... clouds of gas, stars and planets, vegetation, animals, etc. The important point for the present discussion is that although the human brain trumps all previous cosmological history it is no longer the top scoring system on the ERD scale. That position current falls to certain microprocessors and other products of technological culture.
It might be hypothesized, then, that the evolutionary purpose of biospheric species becomes fulfilled when the capacity 'opens' to generate higher degrees of ERD.
A cosmological selection principle of this kind might fit well with a historical pattern of evolutionary biology that now no longer demonstrates its presence.
Obviously one major reason why people tend to ignore the absence of current evolutionary data is that it makes intuitive sense that the creative processes of history must be continuing. If that continuance is allowed to exceed biological then it becomes un-necessary to irrational defend its place within the realm of biological science.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. July 2007 18:04
There is all kinds of current evolutionary data and all of it demonstrates that progressive evolution is finished and has been for a very long time. We observe only extinction.
I challenge anyone to identify a single naturally generated new species along with its ancestor known to have arisen in the past 10,000 years (roughly historical time).
I say it hasn't happened. I further predict it will not happen. What say others?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. July 2007 21:43
I will be happy to defend this challenge at Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes, ARN, Pharyngula, RichardDawkins.net, Uncommon Descent or at any other forum from which I am currently banned. Since I am unable to speak at those forums, I ask others to transmit my challenge to those venues all of which have a long, revealing history of banning their critics.
I predict they will either pretend the challenge was never presented, refuse to respond here at "brainstorms" or not allow me to engage them on their home turf. Any of these will be interpreted as a validation of my position.
Prediction through an unambiguous experiment is the acid test in science. I have just performed such an experiment and now await the result.
"I am an old campaigner and I love a good fight."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 31. July 2007 07:34
Hi,
There seem to be quite a few speciation events listed here
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
E.G 5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis
quote:
Gottlieb 1973 documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population < 250 plants among a much larger population > 25,000 plants of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes N = 8. S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
As I guess you are not going to be able to debunk each one in turn (there are over 2 dozen examples give) , how do you debunk them in the general case? I guess your definition of "speciation" will do that?
If so, I guess your definition of speciation differers from everybody else's and I have to wonder what evidence you would accept that fits your definition? Could you give an example of the type of event you would accept as unambiguous evidence of speciation?
[ 31. July 2007, 09:12: Message edited by: oldmaninthesky ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. July 2007 09:27
I use Dobzhansky's definition of species. If two forms produce a fertile hybrid they are considered to be the same species. This is a physiological and unambiguous definition. It must be tested by combining the haploid gametes of each species in question and raising that product to see if it is fertile. If it is they should be considered the same species. If the product is sterile they would be considered to be separate. Not choosing to mate is not an acceptable criterion. As for all the examples you have in mind I will simply ask - has that criterion always been met? If it has and the product is invariably sterile I stand corrected. There is also the question of time. Discovery of a new presumed species is not proof of its recent production. It could have been produced long ago. That is why I introduced the qualification of 10,000 years. There is also the question - how was it produced?
I realize I have taken a bold step by extending the claims of Julian Huxley and Robert Broom that a new genus has not appeared in the past two million years.
Even if my claim proves to be technically erroneous, there is not a scintilla of evidence that any organism reproducing strictly sexually will ever become anything very different from what it is right now.
My specific claim is that if a new species should appear it will not have been produced through the agency of sexual (Mendelian) reproduction. If it were it would be fertile with repect to the parent species. It is my firm opinion that the accumulation all the allelic mutations in the world will not confer species status on such a product with respect to its parent form.
I also find it interesting that there has been not a word (of which I am aware) published in a refereed journal refuting either my claims that creative evolution is finished or that sexual reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary mechanism. Until such refutations appear, I will stand by my published convictions.
In the meantime, consider, as I have, these three questions posed by Pierre Grasse -
"Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations that are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren't our plants, our animals, lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71.
I answer with an emphatic yes!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. July 2007 10:00
I presume that "oldmaninthesky" is the same anonymous regular from After The Bar Closes who masquerades there as "oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit."
Here is what "oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit" had to say about my ally Martin -
"So why are you still here? To wave your intellect around like a deboned fish or what?"
That is the kind of bottom-feeding remark, characteristic of Elsberry's "inner sanctum," the "Alamo" of Darwinian mysticism.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. July 2007 10:51
Furthermore, I see no reason to respond to anonymous posters except to identify them as cowards.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. August 2007 05:12
Let's hear from Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry, the sponsors of the three major internet venues still supporting the most pathetic hypothesis in the history of science. I would invite the folks at EvC too if I knew who they were! I have done all I can to engage those who are unable to recognize that, as Einstein put it -
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
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 01. August 2007 14:09
Neodarwinists suppose that Theory of Evolution =
Modern synthesis. John Davison noticed me it is not correct. I have written to darwinists at AtBC and EvC to take into consideration this:
I don't see reason why Theory of Evolution (ToE) is reffered as the modern synthesis. Many prominent scientists or "brilliant but unorthodox geneticist" like Richard Goldschmidt - according Gould -proposed "hopeful monster" or saltationism as Theory of Evolution.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/people/richard_goldschmidt.html
http://www.edwardgoldsmith.com/page29.html
The prominent German palentologist Schindewolf (director of the Geological Survey of Berlin; in 1948 he became a professor at the University of Tübingen) was also saltationist. He suggested that major evolutionary transformations must have occurred in large leaps between species.
Other Theories of Evolutions are:
1) Darwinism
2) Lamarckism
3) Nomogenesis - evolution governed by law
3) Orthogenesis
4) Idealistic morhphology
5) John Davison's Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis
etc...
There is no reason for presupposition that Theory of Evolution = Modern synthesis.
Especially take into consideration German idealistic morphology with it's long tradition and prominent proponents before second WW (prominent proponent of it with his research accepted world-wide Wilhelm Troll died 1978).
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. August 2007 20:07
Thanks again Martin.
The Darwinians equate evolution with their particular version of its mechanism. They identify it as ToE. Evolution is most certainly not a "theory" as it is a very real phenomenon of the past. Natural selection never had anything to do with the emergence of any new life form. Quite the contrary, it PREVENTED new life forms from appearing in the past just as it still does today. Until this fundamental error is recognized there is little hope for progress when dealing with a monolithic atheist "groupthink" which is congenitally incapable of recognizing that evolution was a goal-seeking process which has finally achieved its end which was the production of the only species, Homo sapiens, at least some members of which can be considered to be rational. Among those unable to recognize a planned evolution have been, unforunately, some prolific but ideologically, and probably congenitally, paralyzed wordsmiths in the persons of Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, not one of whom, in my opinion, ever qualified as a competent interpretor of the great mystery of organic evolution.
"He that I am reading seems always to have the most force."
Montaigne
"Study Nature not books."
Louis Agassiz
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
