|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 27. August 2007 15:00
quote:
Probably the best explanation is that snail's shell originated at once, by saltus.
"by saltus" is not an explanation, so hardly merits being described as "best". Saltus does not appear to exist as a meaningful scientific concept.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. August 2007 21:13
Martin's comment is valid. A saltus is a jump. Saltation is the opposite of gradualism and was proposed independently by Richard B. Goldschmidt and Otto Schindewolf and more recently by myself.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
Otto Schindewolf
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 27. August 2007 21:17
oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit
Would you please explain the picture? I doubt if I am the only one who doesn't get it.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. August 2007 20:26
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46d4c7464678f898;act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=30
Wesley Elsberry seems to take exception to my assumption that he is an atheist. For the life of me I don't see how any Darwinian can be anything but an atheist.
What role does any God, past or present, play in a random walk Wesley? Feel free to answer right here or post your response at Ben Stein's blog where you found my comment. Show the world what kind of religious fanatic you really are. Is After The Bar Closes the only place you post? So it seems. You should get out more! By the way, what is your IQ or would you rather not say?
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
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 29. August 2007 02:48
quote:
Saltation is the opposite of gradualism and was proposed independently by Richard B. Goldschmidt and Otto Schindewolf and more recently by myself.
This sounds like an assertion. Do you really mean to use "opposite" in the sense of cold being opposite to hot, rather than a subjective impression of the amount of heat energy present?
Referring to Goldschmidt's "hopeful monsters". didn't Gould once suggest that some of his ideas could be developed and incorporated into standard evolutionary theory, as large phenotypic changes can occur from single-point mutations?
The nub of the issue between you and Darwinists appears to be whether life on Earth is following a predetermined path or not, and I guess at least some theistic evolutionists would also suggest that it is.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. August 2007 05:12
Arjun
I meant exactly what I said. Gould dismissed Schindewolf, characterizing his evolutionary views as "spectacularly flawed," and didn't even mention Berg and Grasse. He was an egomaniacal, atheist, ultraliberal Darwinian of the first water, pontificating from his endowed chair at Harvard. He never proposed a new hypothesis of any sort. Instead he muddled up the literature with a pair of catch words which used to have real meaning until he and Eldredge got hold of them - "punctuated equilibria." Punctuation is for sentences and equilibria are for chemical reactions!
I lost all respect for him when I read his Foreword in 1993 to Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology." Imagine a Foreword in which the works and conclusions of the author of the book, probably the greatest paleontologist of all time, are described as "spectacularly flawed."
That is the bottom of the intellectual barrel.
Theodosius Dobzhansky did exactly the same thing to his old Professor and mentor Leo Berg when, in 1969, he wrote the Foreword to the paperback edition of Berg's Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law -
"A majority of evolutionists at present, including the author of this Preface, consider L.S. Berg's theory of nomogenesis erroneus."
page vii.
He then went on to "damn Berg with faint praise" in a most insidious manner. It is no wonder that Nomogenesis has never been received with the respect it most certainly deserves. It is a magnificent contribution from the greatest Russian biologist of his age.
Fortunately, Pierre Grasse was still alive when "L'evolution du vivant" was translated into English. God only knows what sort of Foreword might have emasculated it had he been dead!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 29. August 2007, 05:13: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. August 2007 11:55
Supersport
That, I would hope you agree, is NOT proof of ancestry. Also, I do not regard Wikipedia as a valid source and I am sure I am not alone! Furthermore, since all real evolution has been saltational, I am not at all certain that my challenge can even be met.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. August 2007, 12:02: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. August 2007 12:17
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/
I call attention to my latest comment, currently #875. I also now extend that challenge to anyone here, at ARN, EvC, After The Bar Closes, Sandwalk, Uncommon Descent or any other blog or forum within range of this message. Failure to respond will be interpreted as incompetence. Refereed journal publication is the only criterion which even remotely ensures scientific validity. Books sure don't. Their purpose is economic for the author and especially the publisher, whose only interest is profit.
"Study Nature, not books."
Louis Agassiz
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. August 2007, 12:21: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. August 2007 19:31
Let the record show that there has been no response yet either here or at Ben Steins's blog.
It is getting easier to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. August 2007 20:34
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/dont_waste_your_breath_warning.php#comments
Do not miss this demonstration of the depths to which P.Z. Myers is willing to descend in order to keep his blood thirsty atheist entourage gratified. Billy Graham has been a beacon of hope and inspiration for millions of Christians. To belittle him near the end of life like this is without question the most transparent exhibition of unfettered evil I have ever witnessed in internet communication. I am proud to convey this ghastly proof of the congenital moral and ethical trash that P.Z. Myers insists so proudly on proving himself to be. I can only wonder what he will have to say when Graham dies. You can be sure it will be derogatory, defamatory and, above all, revealing of Myers' own warped persona. It is my opinion that he must be mentally ill!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 31. August 2007 10:13
So come on Myers, sue me for defamation of your character, as if you had any. I'll bet you won't even mention this identification of you as nothing but a second class, homozygous, hard blowing bully. You have never published a word relating to the only thing that has ever been in question, the MECHANISM of a long past evolution. Neither has Wesley Elsberry or Richard Dawkins. You all three are much too busy desperately clutching at the flotsam and jetsam of the grandest, most long lasting hoax in the history of science.
Now that both Gould and Mayr are dead, I have two new "Three Stooges" of evolutionary science, in alphabetical order, Dawkins, the surviving member of the original cast, Elsberry and Myers. Just what are you going to do about it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. September 2007 14:19
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
Get this folks, 8 (eight) new threads in less than 24 hours nad there are still 7 hours left in September 1, 2007
1:00 AM, Grr'...
(I presume this was followed by bedtime for P.Z.)
6:00 AM, Sometimes conflict is the only answer.
8:54 AM, An insight.
9:36 AM, Carnivalia and an open thread.
11:45 AM, Another one-sided battle.
11:59 AM, Congratulations to Patrick!
12:26 PM Aww, poor Mike.
1:38 PM, The hollow man.
I have no reason to believe this is in any sense a record for P.Z., but it is certainly is a remarkable demonstration of the desperate insecurity this man must feel when he must go to such extraordinary lengths to dominate cyberspace with such meaningless drivel, so many "random biologocal ejaculations" in such a brief period of time.
Incidentally P.Z., I thought all ejaculations were biological, but random too? Not in my experience!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
P.S. P.Z.
I recommend you RSVP here, at Pharyngula, at Panda's Thumb, at After the Bar Closes, somewhere - anywhere! Otherwise you are going to look pretty "impotent" and we can't have that from the most prolific "randomly ejaculating" Darwinian in all of cyberspace.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 02. September 2007 04:14
John,
I adressed some issue on mimicry at AtBC and EvC. Franz Heikertinger in his book dismissed Natural selection as source of it. He considered work of Punnett, Goldschmidt, Vavilov and Przibram in his preface of "Das Ratsel of der Mimikry und seine Losung" as something that shed new light on the problem. I am afraid his work has never been translated into English. Darwinists see everywhere mimicry (as they see everywhere evolution in action).
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 02. September 2007 04:35
quote:
I adressed some issue on mimicry at AtBC and EvC.
But you overlooked mentioning your alternative explanation, which is "saltus", is it not?
quote:
Darwinists see everywhere mimicry (as they see everywhere evolution in action).
You obviously dislike the Darwinian concept of natural selection acting on variation in a breeding population to produce changes in that population (adaptations) enabling it to survive in its niche.
So far, you seem to have produced several examples where you believe the Darwinian explanation is incorrect. If you could firm up on the details of one example and produce evidence for it, I guess you will have managed to falsify Darwinian evolution. Although this is not sufficient for your mentor.
quote:
Karl Popper's nonsense about falsifying hypotheses (not theories)is ridiculous. Hypotheses can only be verified or not. If verified they become theories, if not they must be wrong. The Darwinians have cleverly constructed a scheme that is falsifiable proof by asuming that evolution has been gradual and there isn't time enough to observe it. Of course that is dead wrong.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
