|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. August 2007 09:44
Apparently they have finally blocked me.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. August 2007 14:16
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46bc7eef38e98ba3;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=2820
Martin continues to make fools of the animals at Elsberry's zoo led by Elsberry himself! Usually Wes avoids exposing his bigotry but obviously things are getting pretty sticky at the "inner sanctum," "our forum," the Alamo of Darwinian mysticism.
Congratulations Wes. Don't you think it is about time to ban Martin? That is now your only option.
Mark my words.
The same for the Myers/Dawkins dynamic duo. That is all you three know what to do when you are caught with your Darwinian pants down. You prove it with every assault on the biggest hoax in the history of science. It is SO revealing. Pontificating, arrogant, hide-bound ideologues of every description are the same wherever one finds them. Don't take my word for it.
"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."
Albert Einstein
We are all victims of a prescribed evolution.
It is getting easy to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,"
John A. Davison
[ 10. August 2007, 14:20: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. August 2007 17:11
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46bcd9dc541c526b;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=2850
Wesley Elsberry continues to make a perfect fool of himself by now claiming Martin and I are followers of Lysenko!
Grow up Wesley and abandon Panda's Thumb as the failed experiment it so obviously is and always has been, nothing but a vehicle for the preservation of the Darwinian, atheist inspired fantasy, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. Quit while you are behind before it is too late to salvage what little is left of your reputation as just one more pathetic example of a prescribed evolution. You, Dawkins and Myers are finished as spokespersons for the great mystery of organic evolution. You all three, along with all your like minded followers, offer nothing but knee jerk vitriol toward your adversaries followed invariably by summary bannishment. Do what you have to do, the only thing you now can do and, just like Dawkins and Myers, continue to silence all voices of reason as you always have in the past. You are just one more garden variety internet "born thst way" bully in third place right behind David Springer and P.Z. Myers. Dawkins gets others to do the banning for him which is even more despicable.
It isn't so hard to believe any more is it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. August 2007, 17:13: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. August 2007 05:51
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46bd8721a1499a39;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=2850
Elsberry is really desperate now, accusing Martin of incompetence. That is the sort of thing one might expect from P.Z. Myers. Note however that Myers and his hero Dawkins at least have the common sense to keep their mouths shut when they know they are finished. Elsberry is bound and determined to go down swinging. Naturally -
I love it so!
It is Elsberry that is incompetent, swallowing hook line and sinker the biggest joke in the history of science. How anyone can still support a tychogenetic evolution is beyond my comprehension. There was never a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. There never will be!
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory,"
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Animals, page 245, the original in italics for emphasis.
"After any new type has arisen through a major mutational transformation, a controlled ORTHOGENETIC REMODELLING AND ELABORATION begins to work on the newly developed base."
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 355, his emphasis, originally in italics.
"Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The theory of the genes and of the accumulation of micromutants by selection has to be ruled out of this picture."
Richard B. Goldschmidt. The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396.
Here we have four distinguished scientists from four nations, Russia, France, Germany and America respectively, independently exposing the very core of the Darwinian fantasy as having nothing to do with creative evolution now or in the past.
I now challenge Elsberry, Myers and Dawkins to name their sources, here or anywhere else, so we may all compare their credentials and conclusions with those I just cited here. I predict they will remain mute, hoping in vain that we several critics of the Darwinian myth will go away. That will never happen so long as I live!
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 11. August 2007, 05:54: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. August 2007 06:29
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46bed7e9f9efdcfa;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=2850
Note that Elsberry cites "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory" as support for his attack on Martin and myself. Gould's opus maximus, 1433 pages in length, contains NOT A VALID WORD concerning the only issue which has ever been in question - the origin of species or any of the higher categories. It is unrestrained Darwinian, selectionist nonsense from beginning to end.
What is remarkable is who is absent from his enormous Bibliography which includes THREE AND A HALF PAGES of references to himself! Neither Grasse's "The Evolution of Living Organism" nor Berg's "Nomogenesis" are included. Those two books, more than any others, reveal the perfect bankruptcy of the selectionist approach to the great mystery of organic evolution. Natural selection has always been anti-evolutionary just as it still is today. Those who can still insist otherwise are, in my opinion, hide bound ideologues not fit to be considered scientists.
How wrong can an hypothesis possibly be? Are there no limits to its absurdity? Is there no limit to the egomania which has always characterized its supporters?
Gould's colleague, Ernst Mayr, down the hall at Havard's Museum of Comparative Zoology, at least listed Grasse and Berg in his equally giant Bibliography for "The Growth of Biological Thought," yet failed to refer to either author in the text! That is the acme of insolent arrogance and intellectual bigotry. Mayr only dedicated TWO FULL PAGES to his own publications in his Bibliography.
There are sins of omission as well as those of commision. These two incredibly prolific spokespersons for the Darwnian myth are masters of both.
"Study Nature, not books."
Louis Agassiz, who founded the Museum of Comparative Zoology, must be tossing in his grave.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 12. August 2007, 14:29: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. August 2007 06:58
http://www.uncommondescent.com/
I see that David Springer and others are now carrying on about Karl Popper. Popper's notions concerning hypotheses being falsifiable has nothing to do with science and never did have. All that matters is whether or not an hypothesis is verifiable - nothing more and nothing less. If an hypothesis cannot be verified it is WRONG. That is why the entire Darwinian model is WRONG. EVERYTHING in it is WRONG from gradualism to population genetics to sexual reproduction to natural selection to the accumulation of allelic mutations. None of these ever played any role in the emergence of species or any of the higher categories. Exactly like contemporary ontogeny, phylogeny was always controlled from within the genomes of a relatively few organisms which had the capacity to produce offspring fundamentally and irreversibly different from themselves. The numbers of such creatures, plant and animal, have steadily declined until at present there is no evidence that further evolution is possible.
Just as ontogeny terminates with death of the individual so will phylogeny terminate, as it nearly always has, with the extinction of the species. To assume otherwise is to deny the transparent testimony of the fossil record. There are only a handful of species alive today that were present just a few million years ago. Ontogeny remains the ideal model for phylogeny and to ignore its implications is without foundation and intellectually unacceptable. The era of evolutionary creativity is over with and has been for a very long time. Not a single species known to have become extinct in historical times has ever been replaced. It is my conviction that they never will be. All the new niches produced by man have failed to become occupied with new true species, at least eukaryotic species. Prokaryotic species are extremely difficult to even define and are not models for eukaryotic evolution in any event.
I welcome any experimentally verified refutation of this position, confident that none will appear.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 13. August 2007, 14:19: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. August 2007 05:37
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/karl-poppers-white-swans/#more-2570
DaveScot (David Springer) is now claiming that ID can never be proven to be either true or false. He is apparently quite taken with Karl Popper's nonsense about falsibility. The reality of Intelligent Design far beyond our capacity to comprehend is firmly established. ALL alternative explanations for both ontogeny and phylogeny have been thoroughly rejected in both the experimental laboratory and by the testimony of the fossil record, the ultimate referee in the debate which the IDsts introduced and which I feel, like most debates, has proven to be counterproductive, leading only to rancor and further polarization. Science is not subject to debate, only to discovery and presentation. There has never been any role for religion, especially "Devout Darwinism," in the history of scientific progress.
Paley hit the nail on the head with "Where there is design there is a designer," with but a single qualification. What he should have said was "Where there is design there WAS a designer.
I tried to make this abundantly clear in my only thread which I managed to introduce at RichardDawkins.net -
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."
My deliberately provocative title served to allow me to survive for about a week in a milieu dominated by Dawkinsian knee-jerk, compulsive atheism. During that brief stay it amassed some 60,000 views, undoubtedly a record for such a short stay. I am still not allowed to view that forum from this computer, an achievement of which I am extremely proud. I managed the same tribute from ARN.
Let me explain my position with respect to God. The fact that God cannot be proven to exist means nothing. Gods are like that! I decided at the age of 70 to become a confirmed Roman Catholic. That was partly in response to my daughter's discovery that I had never been baptized. My mother had made the arrangements with the local Presbyterian church prior to my birth in 1928, but apparently changed her mind when she got a good look at me. The other reason was my uncertainty about the Christian ethic so I decided to take no chances and go first class with the "one true faith," a decision I do not regret. However, I am still saving my first and only confession for my death bed. My daughter Jennifer has assured me that a priest will be handy.
While God cannot be established directly, that is quite unecessary in any event. What cannot be denied by any rational observer is that one or more Gods must have once existed. Pierre Grasse said much the same thing.
"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, original in italics.
I should add that I am not at all certain about either a single act of creation or a personal God but that is a trivial consideration.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
[ 14. August 2007, 23:17: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. August 2007 09:24
http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warming/global-warming-heretics/#comments
DaveScot, like Old Faithful, has erupted again with not one but two threads questioning, even ridiculing those of us who are taking global warming seriously, calling us, among other names, "warm-mongers" and "pseudo-religious fanatics."
He seems to be oblivious to the fact that polar ice is disappearing at an alarming rate and some predict we will soon be able to visit the North Pole by luxury Love Boat. If polar ice should disappear, as some reliable sources think likely, does anyone think Dave might change his mind? Knowing him as only I do, I can assure all that is quite inconceivable. The man has never been wrong in his life. As he often says -
"Write that down dummy," followed typically with "You're outta here" or "______ is no longer with us."
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 14. August 2007, 09:26: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. August 2007 10:49
I was interested in the forum "helives.blogspot.com" but am unable to leave a message. Does anyone know why?
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 14. August 2007 12:28
quote:
I was interested in the forum "helives.blogspot.com" but am unable to leave a message. Does anyone know why?
Just out of curiosity, I tried posting a test comment which did not appear. It looks like David Heddle does not allow unmoderated posts. You may find your message appearing later, or not, as the case may be.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 14. August 2007 23:11
While I am unable to comment at Uncommon Descent, RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula, ARN, EvC or Panda's Thumb, including After The Bar Closes, as far as I know the sponsors and blogczars of those forums are free to comment here. If they continue failing to respond here to my challenges to what I regard as their flawed pronouncements, there can be only one explanation. It can only be due to fear that their own positions might prove vulnerable to the rigors of open discussion. At present, as near as I can ascertain, this forum is the only one that is worthy of the name forum - "a public meeting place for open discussion." I think I can safely claim that "brainstorms" has banned but a small fraction of the numbers which have been banned from any one of the blogs I have just mentioned. That remains its greatest strength. Failure to appear at the most tolerant and most civilized venue of which I am aware exhibits a profound insecurity with respect to ones core convictions. Since I have been banned from their protectionist blogs, those who ignore my challenges to their pronouncements by not responding here will not gain my respect. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be. I can only conclude -
"Conscience doth make cowards of them all."
after Shakespeare.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. August 2007 14:45
http://www.uncommondescent.com/global-warming/mark-steyn-warm-mongers-and-cheeseburger-imperialists/#comments
David Springer's terminal comment here is without foundation when he says a rising CO2 level is conducive to more photosynthesis. I know of not a single instance in which CO2 has proven to be limiting plant growth in nature. I suspect it is very difficult to demonstrate even experimentally. There are claims it can be limiting under greenhouse conditions but I don't regard them as having any application to the natural world. Natural plant growth is usually limited by water, light, temperature or mineral nutrients. This pronouncement is typical of his approach to every controversial question, arbitrary, condescending, and typically without verified foundation. The dangers posed as a greenhouse gas far outweigh any imagined virtues CO2 may have for agricultural productivity.
The fact remains that atmospheric CO2 levels have consistently increased every year since they have been accurately monitored in 1956 in Hawaii. Not only are they steadily increasing but are doing so at an accelerated rate, demonstrating their exponential trend. These increases may very well be the greatest per annum CO2 changes in the history of the earth. To dismiss them as a virtue is arrogant and irresponsible, a Springer trademark. Look at his history with respect to the causes of global warming and you will find more of the same, his way or the highway. He has banned more commenters than any individual in the history of internet forum communication. Some, like myself, he readmits so he can ban them again! It means the world to him.
No one will challenge him at Uncommon Descent because they know darn well they will be abused if not banned. The man is a bully.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 15. August 2007, 14:55: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
