|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 15. August 2007 17:05
quote:
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.
I am puzzled why climate change appears to be connected to the issue of RM + NS vs ID.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. August 2007 06:32
Arjun
That is an excellent question and here is my answer.
What we have today with internet blogs are a bunch of isolated enclaves each dominated by one or a few intellectual czars whose sole purpose is to protect their own convictions whatever the cost. That is why the vast majority of comments are directed against their adversaries rather than in support of their own "presumed" convictions which are typically not even mentioned. Springer's tirade against "Warm-mongers" is a typical example. Rather than provide evidence that global warming is not occurring he chooses to denigrate those that have concluded that it is.
Here are some other examples of the same practice. The Darwinians don't even attempt any longer to defend the notion of natural selection which lies at the very core of their "presumed" hypothesis. Instead they lash out at anyone who might think otherwise. They do this because the Darwinian model is indefensible. Out of desperation they attack anyone who holds a different perspective. Many forums deliberately keep a few house adversaries around to be used as punching bags rather than promote their own agenda assuming they even have one. After The Bar Closes is a beautiful example of this. They keep Martin and Heddle around so they can attack and ridicule them and for no other reason. Their treatment of Martin, calling him a "slopehead," is characteristic of the depths to which they must descend. It is disgusting. Otherwise they would have little to do because they certainly cannot defend the Darwinian fairy tale. If they had any integrity or confidence whatsoever they would openly invite their adversaries to participate rather than banning them from their "closed union shop" proceedings.
Let the record show that Martin and I have invited any and all to come here to promote and defend their convictions, assuming they even have any! Where are they?
Internet so called forums often prove to be nothing but mutual admiration societies. Any forum or blog which must ban its adversaries, as nearly all have, is not fit to exist. By so doing they have proven to be isolationist, protectionist, "groupthinks" of one ideology or another in which most of the comments are in support of the thread initiated by one of the "club."
Go to any of the forums and read the threads and you will see what I mean. Uncommon Descent continues, day after day, to kick the dead Darwinian horse while Panda's Thumb does the same to the IDists.
By way of contrast, my two major threads here support a new hypothesis for organic evolution. This is not a defensive position but rather a positive approach to the great mystery of organic evolution. It is ignored by all factions who are much too busy lashing out to consider that they might all be dead wrong.
The situation is reminiscent of the battle that once raged between the "spermatists " and the "ovists" each imagining they could see the litte man, "homunculus," hunkered down inside their respective gametes. A similar battle took place between the "Vulcanists" and the "Neptunists" each of which was convinced they held the secret of life. They even had recent proponents in the persons of Sidney Fox, the Vulcanist, and George Wald, the Neptunist, with his "Organic Soup Hypothesis" for the origin of life. There are still tens of thousands of like minded souls who actually believe that life arose and then evolved spontaneously. They are widely known as Darwinians!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"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
[ 16. August 2007, 06:44: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. August 2007 09:56
Come one, come all to first proclaim your convictions here and then to then defend them in civil dialogue. Let me name you so no one will wonder who you are. Wesley Elsberry, P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins representing the monolithic atheist Darwinians and, let us say, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells who also hold Doctorates in the biological sciences to present their evidence in support of Intelligent design. I will round out that team as I have already presented evidence for Intelligent Design under the titles "The Direct Evidence" and "The Indirect Evidence" in my paper "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" available right here at "brainstorms." I assume that a prescribed evolution implies intelligence.
Let us now see the direct and indirect evidence for the Darwinian model as well as for any other model which might require the intervention of a personal God. My thesis requires neither.
So once again I offer a challenge which I am confident will be ignored as all my earlier challenges have been. To continue seeing them ignored has become my primary motivation for presenting them!
I love it so!
"Silence is golden."
Thomas Carlyle
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. August 2007 15:08
John,
quote:
They keep Martin and Heddle around so they can attack and ridicule them and for no other reason. Their treatment of Martin, calling him a "slopehead," is characteristic of the depths to which they must descend. It is disgusting.
I am not quite sure of it. I would say they would like to get rid of me - at least Chatfield and other darwinits hystericaly proposed it more than once. But it has not happened yet. Perhaps the forum would like to preserve some kind of democratic decorum. I don't know, because the guys there do not response to any problem in fact. They are repeating their naive questions and calling me names. Obviously they have no arguments. Study and explanation of mimicry is nice example what mess is in darwinians' heads. No wonder they use abuses instead of arguments (having none in the case).
[ 16. August 2007, 15:10: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. August 2007 20:15
Of course you are right Martin but they THINK they are winning when they insult you and Heddle. That is why it is very important to hang in there as long as possible. Sooner or later they will show how shabby they are by banning you as they did me. In the meantime keep exposing them as the intellectaul trash they really are.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 17. August 2007 03:06
quote:
Let us now see the direct and indirect evidence for the Darwinian model as well as for any other model which might require the intervention of a personal God. My thesis requires neither.
Do you have any evidence, indirect or otherwise, for your thesis? Or is that another thing it does not require?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. August 2007 05:46
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit
I refer you to my published 2005 paper -
"A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," available right here at "brainstorms," a touch of your mouse away where you will find both direct and indirect evidence presented under those headings. I have no intention of repeating that which has been published just because you obviously have not read that paper. If you had you wouldn't ask such a question. I also recommend "Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information," Rivista di Biologia 93: 513-524, 2000.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him him read it."
after the old saw about the horse that wouldn't drink.
Your tactic is a typical ploy to change the subject in a futile attempt to discredit an adversary.
The evidence for a planned evolution is enormous and any serious student would at least be aware of the pertinent literature. All you clowns at "After The Bar Closes" know what to do is to congratulate one another with your infantile mumblings. Just like Pharyngula, EvC and RichardDawkins.net, Panda's Thumb too has never addressed the one thing that really matters - the MECHANISM of a long past evolution, an evolution no longer in progress.
Darwinism in all its silly trappings is ridiculous, a figment of a collective congenital imagination which never had ANYTHING to do with speciation or the formation of any other taxonomic category. It is the biggest and most lasting hoax in the history of science.
Now, like a good little devotee of the Great God Chance, retreat to Elsberry's "inner sanctum," "our forum" and call attention to this page by providing the link demonstrating the fool you have just have made of yourself here at "brainstorms." You won't of course. You will pretend it never happened. That has always been the Darwinian way.
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 17. August 2007 09:22
Aside from their shared atheism, there is another interesting characteristic common to Myers, Elsberry, Dawkins, Gould, Mayr or for that matter any other Darwinian extant or extinct. Only one of them ever did an experiment to test their hypothesis of natural or artificial selection. Theodosius Dobzhansky performed such an experiment and admitted, much to his credit, that he had failed. How Dobzhansky, a student of Leo Berg, failed to recognize the significance of his own experiments has to be one of the greatest mysteries in all of the evolutionary literature. Another example is found with Julian Huxley who correctly surmised that evolution was finished and published his convictions, yet remained a Darwinian nevertheless.
The power of a congenitally biased ideology can never be overemphasized. It obviously can completely overwhelm rational inquiry. Fortunately, this seems to be limited to those questions which deal with our own origins. It is unthinkable that such an attitude could prevail in other experimental sciences such as Chemistry and Physics where hypotheses are routinely dropped instantly when they are found to be without foundation. The Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics are perfect examples.
Imagine if you can (I can't) a scenario in which Nature, that which obviously must have been created somehow, became its own further creator. Exactly when did this transfer of power take place I ask and, having asked, do not hesitate to answer - It never did take place! How anyone can still profess otherwise is beyond me.
"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 17. August 2007, 12:50: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 17. August 2007 13:16
quote:
I refer you to my published 2005 paper
any experiments?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. August 2007 18:44
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit
Everything being published in the field of molecular biology pleads in favor of an evolution predetermined from the onset. I reviewed some of that work in my 2005 paper. Have you read it yet? Apparently not.
Besides it is possible that, as Otto Schindewolf suggested, evolution may not be an experimental science and in his own words - "cannot be studied that way." Furthermore it may be quite impossible to experimentally study a phenomenon that is no longer occurring.
One thing is for sure. No Darwinian with all the artificial selection in the world at his disposal has ever transformed one species into another even in the same genus let alone a transformation to a higher taxonomic level. Such attempts are not even being made any longer and I know why. The lesson to be learned from Dobzhansky's failure with Drosophila is very clear. Obligatory Mendelian bisexual reproduction can not facilitate true verifiable speciation or any other form of progressive evolution. Sexual reproduction is much too conservative a mechanism to allow anything beyond the generation of intraspecific varieties. The secrets to evolution lie in the structure of chromosomes and not genes. Any major reconstruction of the chromosome immediately prevents hybrid fertility even if the genes remain unchanged. The reason is purely mechanical and has nothing to do with allelic mutation. This immediately explains why all living things are so remarkably similar at the genetic (DNA) level.
I recommend the comments I cited in the Manifesto by the distinguished Australian cytologist M.J.D. White. In his opinion, the many species in the Genus Drosophila did not arise through Mendelian bisexual means. That is one of the most significant comments in all of the cytogenetic literature which is why it has been ignored by the Darwinian establishment. It was not ignored by this investigator and provided a key clue to his Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH).
I find it amazing that anyone would mention the word experiment in defense of the Darwinian fairy tale. If the Darwinians had ever seriously recognized and implemented the experimental method they would have abandoned their idiotic dogma long ago. The history of the Darwinian fairy tale has been written entirely by prematurely retired, sedentary, pedantic, pontificating wordsmiths squatting in endowed chairs at some of our most prestigious institutions like Harvard, Oxford and Cornell. Not a true scientist in the lot, they have produced several meters of library shelving and not a single sentence preserved there has identified the mechanism for a progressive ascending evolution. Those who still believe otherwise are also hide bound intellectual bigots trapped and blinded by their congenital inability to recognize a planned and fully terminated evolution even as it is staring them squarely in the face.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 17. August 2007, 18:49: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Supersport
Member
Member # 1989
|
posted 17. August 2007 20:41
Nosivad:
I find it amazing that anyone would mention the word experiment in defense of the Darwinian fairy tale. If the Darwinians had ever seriously recognized and implemented the experimental method they would have abandoned their idiotic dogma long ago. The history of the Darwinian fairy tale has been written entirely by prematurely retired, sedentary, pedantic, pontificating wordsmiths squatting in endowed chairs at some of our most prestigious institutions like Harvard, Oxford and Cornell. Not a true scientist in the lot, they have produced several meters of library shelving and not a single sentence preserved there has identified the mechanism for a progressive ascending evolution.
This paragraph needs to be reprinted on fine cloth, framed, and posted in every university science building in the United States. Maybe this would help deprogram our nation's young minds from the onslaught of philosophy that's passed off as "science" in this country.
[ 17. August 2007, 20:43: Message edited by: Supersport ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 18. August 2007 02:09
quote:
...not a single sentence preserved there has identified the mechanism for a progressive ascending evolution.{my emphasis)
But is that not unsurprising, given that the theory of evolution is supposed to be an unguided and goal-less process, driven by the honing of natural selection on genetic variability arising spontaneously in populations of organisms; rather the opposite of "progressive ascending".
Or (following your link) as W Elsberry puts it: quote:
Niche
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 18. August 2007 02:18
quote:
Maybe this would help deprogram our nation's young minds from the onslaught of philosophy that's passed off as "science" in this country.
The implication being that biological sciences carry out no field research or lab experiments, whereas Intelligent Design now has the evolutionary informatics lab at Baylor. There does not appear to be much informatics information available, yet, though.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. August 2007 06:36
I do not speak in favor of the "ID movement." They have isolated me from their proceedings. It is dominated by the Christian ethic which I feel has no place in science any more than does the Darwinian ethic if it can be called that!
It was the IDists who initiated the debate which I feel was a mistake. The opposing sides now even have "debate teams." There is no place for debate in science. It produces nothing but rancor and polarization as the internet so clearly demonstrates.
Whether or not a personal God exists is unknown and to make that an issue is a waste of time. I also have no time for "non-material forces" or any input from the Bible.
I have gone out of my way to accommodate the atheist Darwinian faction by agreeing that God or Gods may no longer exist, but I am quite incapable of concluding that they never did. I cannot imagine the origin or origins of life ever occurring by chance. Neither is it conceivable for life, once present, to then evolve without guidance. Those who adhere to a Godless philosophy suffer from some sort of congenital malaise which renders them stone deaf to what Einstein called "the music of the spheres."
It has now been firmly established that whether or not one believes in a Creator has a heritable component. I am certain that there are degrees of virulence for this syndrome which are at their maxima in creatures like P.Z. Myers, Hitchens and Dawkins. They are fanatics, helpless victims of their determined or "prescribed" fate. Einstein has addressed this phenomenon several times. Here are some examples.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
"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."
"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."
As for fanatics of whatever genre -
"A fanatic is one who cannot change his mind and will not change the subject."
Winston Churchill
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
