|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 24. August 2007 02:21
Thank you for the link , Martin.
It seems W Elsberry has an explanation for why Adolph Portmann did not mention niches . What would be your explanation for some species of gastropod having shells, and others lacking them?
IP: Logged
|
|
oldmaninthesky
Member
Member # 6038
|
posted 24. August 2007 02:46
quote:
It is only the MECHANISM that has ever been in question
As far as I can tell Davidson, your mechanism is 'some dead god diddit'
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. August 2007 07:07
--- sent by mistake, see my following post ---
[ 24. August 2007, 07:13: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. August 2007 07:12
Arjun.
Probably the best explanation is that snail's shell originated at once, by saltus. There is a complicated structure of internal organs matching exactly the mantle cavity. They couldn't accomodate before shell arose. On the other hand partial shell has no sense.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. August 2007 10:08
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit,
It is not Davidson but Davison you cowardly, anonymous, atheist, illiterate and yes, God or Gods are responsible and then they apparently DID die. Thanks for the inadvertant endorsement!
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245, the entire sentence in italics for emphasis.
That is exasctly what my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis DOES do.
Now, like the good little anonymous cowardly errand boy that you so obviously are, I DARE you to post a link to this page at After The Bar Closes. You haven't got the guts! I'll be looking for it.
It doesn't get any better than this.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 24. August 2007, 10:24: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. August 2007 12:21
oldmaninthesky,
I propose if you are drunk go to The bathroom wall and make your vomiting there first. This forum has some level and there is no need to mispell John Davison's name and behave here like in the pub full of soused singletons.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. August 2007 13:27
Good for you Martin.
Here is another message for oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit after he sobers up.
You tell the comedy trio - Elsberry, Myers and Dawkins - that Martin and I are waiting for them here for them to present the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, something they don't even dare do on their home blogs. You see they are ashamed to let anyone know that they still believe in the idiotic notion that natural selection could conceivably have been instrumental in the first appearance of any novel structure. This is the challenge first made by Mivart in 1871 and it is just as appropriate and unanswered today as it was then. That failure, today as then, sounds the death knell for the Darwinian hoax.
Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for the Darwinian firm of Elsberry, Myers and Dawkins, "prescribed," "dyed-in-the-wool," "born that way" atheists all.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 25. August 2007, 04:45: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. August 2007 14:05
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/i_think_i_know_whats_going_to.php#comments
Note that Myers has called me a "kook" when it was Myers that failed to defend the thread which HE had introduced on One Blog A Day, a thread which reached almost 1000 comments without a single response from Myers to the frontal attack which Martin and I launched against the Darwinian hoax. He should watch who he calls a "kook." The last time he started calling a published author names he got slapped with a potential libel suit.
Remember P.Z. that the one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. You are the perfect example, homozygous at the arrogant, vicious, nasty locus. Put that "kook" remark in a refereed journal and see what happens. No one else has. Just think, you could be the first. Keep up the good work and I'll see what I can do for you as well.
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 24. August 2007 18:51
http://www.pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/im_gonna_be_a_m.html#more\
Check this out where P.Z. is holding forth at Panda's Thumb just as he is at Pharyngula. What I find hilarious about both Elsberry and Myers is that neither of them has ever published a word in a refereed journal on the subject they so arrogantly defend. They are the self-appointed defenders of the Darwinian faith, a faith to which they have contributed not a scintilla of tangible support. Of course neither has Dawkins and neither did Ernst Mayr or Stephen J. Gould. Nothing that any of these five disciples of the Great God Chance has ever put in hard copy had ANYTHING to do with the only question which has always been in doubt. There is NO doubt that evolution occurred. That is a given. It is only the MECHANISM by which it occurred that has always been in doubt. It is also obvious that evolution is no longer occurring at least to Julian Huxley, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and John A. Davison. The five I have listed above will not even attempt to defend their unspoken, shared belief in the atheist Darwinian model to which they so blindly adhere because they know that it is indefensible! To abandon the Darwinian model is unthinkable to the congenital atheist mindset. It would mean that they have dedicated their lives to a phantom, something that never existed and never will - evolution driven by chance. Yet there was such a man in William Bateson, who correctly surmised that he indeed HAD dedicated his life to a phantom, to Mendelism for which he had been the champion, but, based as it is on random allelic mutation, had nothing whatsoever to do with organic evolution.
"By 1924 Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, 'that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general'."
Davison, J.A. 1993. The "Blind Alley": Its significance for evolutionary theory. Rivista di Biologia 86, 101-111.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 27. August 2007, 06:11: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. August 2007 04:38
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46cff193327cf462;act=ST;f=14;t=5054;st=390
Please note how Martin manages to evoke the most idiotic responses imaginable from the usual suspects at Elsberry's "inner sanctum," "our forum," where his effete elite meet to play "can you top this?" with one another. In so doing they prove beyond any doubt that they are "born that way," "dyed-in-the-wool," "prescribed" damn fools!
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
