|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. August 2007 08:52
There is an interesting feature that distinguishes Pharyngula from all the other forums from which I have been banned. I am still able to transmit messages to Myers which, naturally enough, I do. Of course none of them ever appear. I mention this in case others might like to let Myers know what they think about his "forum," a "forum" in which he is the only author!
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
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 03. August 2007 02:02
One of the founders of the theory of Orthogenesis was Theodor Eimer. As John Davison noticed all proponents of directed evolution are neglected by nowadays establisment. Their work doesn't exist.
Theodor Eimer observed the fact that evolution of color patterns on butteflies wings follows a transformtion rule (Homoegenesis). Many authors confirmed that this observation is correct. First lungitudinal stripes, their dissolution into spots and tranformation of these spots into transverse striping and finally into one-coloured appereance. He described even leaf-mimic butterflies and their trasformation from the beginning to the end (break-up of mimicry patterns which should have given "survival advantage" to species and should be strongly selected against its break-up according darwinism.)
Intersting one-page description of coloration of lizards is to be found here:
http://links.jstor.org/sici?si....rgePage
I put something more about it at AtBC and now I am looking forward to darwinisic responses from "knowledgeable evolutionists", "scientists" there ("Go away!", "We are wasting time with you!", etc... you know).
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46b2b73b98591533;act=ST;f=14;t=5096;st=180
[ 03. August 2007, 02:03: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. August 2007 06:22
Thank you Martin.
Eimer unfortunately was a Lamarckian which was often the case with those who rejected Darwinism.
A prescribed evolution is neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian. Otto Schindewolf dispensed with both Lamarckian and Darwinian explanations.
"What is more, neither the Lamarckian nor the selectionist view explains why horses became perissodactyl (one-toed) and not artiodactyl (two-toed), a foot structure which in some cases makes it possible to run just as fast across the plains; the antelope is an example: with its two toes and delicate foot structure it can even exceed the one-toed horse in speed....This leads to the conclusion that THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY TREND WERE LAID OUT RIGHT FROM THE START WITH THE ABRUPT DISCONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF THE TYPE, AND WITH EVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL BEING RESTRICTED RIGHT FROM THE START TO CERTAIN PATHS."
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, his
emphasis, originally in italics.
Having thus dispensed with both Lamarckian and Darwinian dogma, we are left with Einstein's universal determinism and, in my opinion, with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I see no other conclusion.
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 03. August 2007, 11:06: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. August 2007 08:33
I transmitted this current and very significant page to P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula and asked him to respond to it either here or at Pharyngula. I did it on the thread where he is ridiculing Pope Benedict, addressing him as "benny," after the Holy Father has endorsed organic evolution!
This it vintage Myers, arrogant, nasty, and vicious.
It has become easy to believe hasn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. August 2007 11:35
Myers' Pope bashing began at 8:00 AM today, August 3 and reached 124 comments by 12:20 PM, an interval of 4 hours and twenty minutes!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 03. August 2007 12:08
Thank you John. Schindewolf's observation is really interesting.
I know that Eimer was some kind of Lamarckist, but peculiar one. He like Nietzsche proposed something like cyclic processes.
I hit also on this interesting experiment done by Goldschmidt. These experimentents aren't so popular nowadays as they were before WW2. It was Goldschmidt who coined the term phenocopy:
quote:
Goldschmidt (1938) produced one of the most striking phenocopies. He observed that heat-shocked specimens of the central European subspecies of Aglais urticae produced wing patterns that resembled the Sardinian subspecies, while cold-shocked individuals of the central European variety developed the wing patterns of the subspecies from northern Scandinavia (Figure 3).
.
.
.
Recent observations by Shapiro (1976) on the mourning cloak butterfly (Nymphalis antiopa) and by Nijhout (1984) on the buckeye butterfly (Precis coenia) have confirmed the view that temperature shock can produce phenocopies that mimic genetically controlled patterns of related races or species existing in colder or warmer conditions. Chilling the pupa of Pieris occidentalis will cause it to have the short-day phenotype (Shapiro 1982), and this phenotype is similar to that of the northern subspecies of pierids.
http://8e.devbio.com/article.php?id=213
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 04. August 2007 05:40
novisad notes: quote:
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!
Martin said at ATBC:
quote:
he conceived not only selfish gene nonsense but farted also this sentence in NYT:
of Dawkins. It's Dembski that does the fart jokes don't ya know?
quote:
You have no idea what are you babbling about
quote:
You make perfect fools of yourselves.
quote:
Except denigration, abuses, lies and stupid questions you dont know anything. You cannot read German.
I have tried to open a thread at EVC forum where the contibutors are on much higher level than stupidos here.
quote:
We are having fun at ISCID reading your stupid responses.
ATBC FrontLoading Is the Dumbest IDea Eva thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. August 2007 09:21
oldmaninthesky
Exactly what does your repetitious litany accomplish for you and your chance-worshipping cronies at After The Bar Closes?
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
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 05. August 2007 04:43
work it out for yourself....
goodbye!
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. August 2007 04:54
oldmaninthesky
Thanks. Martin and I win. The ATBC mob loses.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. August 2007 04:21
Just for fun I attempted to post a comment at Panda's Thumb and guess what? - it worked!!
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/07/gert_korthof_re.html
Mine is message #193250, posted today August 7, just a few minutes ago.
It will be interesting to see how long it is allowed to stand. God knows it should as it is critical of the ID crowd.
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
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. August 2007 09:44
Naturally they are both gone now. I wouldn't have it any other way!
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 07. August 2007 12:38
Your messages are removed, John. Darwinists are afraid of theory of saltationism more than anything else. That's reason why you are banned in so many "neutral venues".
[ 07. August 2007, 12:40: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
