|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 28. September 2007 15:21
For the record, the hard core porn at After The Bar Closes was deleted AFTER I called attention to it here.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 29. September 2007 03:00
quote:
For the record, the hard core porn at After The Bar Closes was deleted AFTER I called attention to it here.
Are you sure. John? I recall odd instances of spam posts at AtBC before you noted it. I can check if you think it is significant. Now that you are aware of the problem here, why aren't you condemning it?
I thought it was amusing that the only people at ISCID able to initiate threads are spammers. It does seem that the management are engaged in other matters.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. September 2007 06:00
I see that AlanFox/arjun continues in his futile attempt to get me to acknowledge his existence. That will never happen either here or at any other of my threads he chooses to contaminate with his mindless intrusions. He, like very other habitue of "After The Bar Closes," offers nothing of substance either there, here or anywhere else he is allowed to surface. He never has. He is a blight upon the face of rational communication.
If the management here chooses to allow his presence, that reflects on the management not on me.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 30. September 2007 07:37
This is what I am referring to.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. October 2007 06:11
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=4700cc8c62f94705;act=ST;f=14;t=5199;st=180
As can be seen in the above link, Daniel Smith, like Martin before him, is dismantling the Darwinian fairy tale in great form. It will be interesting to see how Elsberry deals with him. Someone there will probably recommend that his comments be relegated to the "Bathroom Wall."
That is what they did with me. EvC had a similar solution for me. They called it "Boot Camp." The function of "Boot Camp" was to learn how to debate, as if the truth were subject to debate. Debate is for "debating teams" which is exactly all that we have in today's wonderful world wide web. That suits me just fine!
"Let my enemies destroy each other."
Salvador Dali
My advice to both Daniel Smith and Martin is -Don't let up. Keep exposing these animals for what they are, nothing but a bellowing herd of knee-jerk Darwinian, "born that way" atheists. It is they who are the mystics, bobbing up and down before the Altar of Chance. It is gloriously revealing!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 01. October 2007 12:30
I agree.
Daniel is conducting himself very well.
Martin just needs to post his alternative to natural selection and he will silence his critics.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 01. October 2007 21:41
Natural selection never had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. Quite the contrary, it has always been anti-evolutionary, preserving the standard, preventing change, and prolonging stasis as long as possible. In the past, as new life forms appeared, most of their predecessors succumbed to extinction much of which was preprogrammed. Even today much of extinction is apparently endogenous. The dinosaurs died for the same reason the giant amphibians did before them. It was part of the Plan, a word I also capitalize as did Robert Broom, one of my most valued sources. The difference today is that the creative period is finished just as Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse all claimed. It is my belief that the Plan was completed with the appearance of Homo sapiens. We now observe only rampant extinction without a new documented, experimentally verified species in recorded human history, not a new genus in the last two million years.
Those who deny a deterministic evolution are fools, oblivious to the transparent testimony of the fossil record, totally unaware of what is and what is not going on around them, still mindlessly clutching to the notion that the universe is an accident. They keep right on spouting the most idiotic notion ever conceived by an unfettered human imagination, an evolution resulting from the interplay of chance variation with the phantom called "natural selection." It is hard to believe isn't it?
The current principle spokespersons (Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry, Christopher Hitchins) for this myth no longer defend their convictions publicly because they know the Darwinian paradigm is indefensible. Instead they send forth their hired goons to disrupt any alternative interpretation of the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny, while they smugly remain in their own bailiwicks, pretending that their adversaries are all Bible-banging Christian Fundamentalists. Nothing could be further from the truth. Not one of my sources was either a Darwinian or a religious fanatic and neither am I. Not one of us was an atheist either.
Just as the development of the individual proceeds driven entirely by information contained in the fertilized egg, so has phylogeny proceeded on the basis of preformed specific information contained in and released from one or more continuous reproductive lineages of ancestral forms. Those lineages have terminated with the present flora and fauna which, in my opinion, can only become extinct. There is not a shred of tangible evidence that any extant organism will ever become anything fundamentally different from what it is right now, a conclusion I share with Robert Broom. Any proposed hypothesis for evolution must cope with this reality. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis does exactly that.
As for the infantile assumptions on which the Darwinian model so resolutely still depends -
"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
ibid, page 245, the statement in italics for emphasis.
This the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis does as well.
"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 02. October 2007 05:40
Be sure to check out today's edition of Pharyngula where P.Z. Myers endorses Richard Dawkins' suggestion with -
"Let's disband the theology departments."
I guess we should not be surprised at this from a man whose philosophy is introduced at the top of his introductory page with -
"Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal."
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 02. October 2007 09:14
Incidentally, I copied this page to Ben Stein's blog.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. October 2007 05:24
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=47035e017ca74a3f;act=ST;f=14;t=5199;st=240
Daniel Smith has them definitely on the ropes above. Oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, whoever that is, asks Daniel what natural selection CAN DO.
The answer to that is simple. It can do what selection has been experimentally demonstrated to do and nothing more. It can produce intraspecific varieties and subspecies, none of which are incipient species, only more or less specialized dead ends.
"Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographic races, are not incipient species. There is no such category as incipient species. Species and the higher categories originate in single macroevolutionary steps as completely new genetic systems. The genetical process whch is involved consists of a repatterning of the chromosomes, which results in a new genetic system."
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396.
I would add only that Goldschmidt might better have used the past tense as there is no evidence that such macroevolutionary processes are any longer in progress. His summary is otherwise in perfect accord with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and our present knowledge of the mechanism of a long past evolution. It is only the "mechanism" that has ever been in question, and Goldschmidt properly identified it sixty-seven years ago. Natural selection, the sine qua non of the Darwinian fairy tale, never had anything to do with it.
It is both unfortunate and revealing that I am unable to participate at Panda's Thumb, which is why I must and will do it from here or from any other venue from which I have not been excluded. Any blog or forum that must exclude those with which its sponsors disagree should be granted no credibility whatsoever. Such venues, whatever their ideology, are nothing but fan clubs, magnets for like minded intellectual bigots, deserving only of contempt, a contempt I delight in heaping upon them every opportunity that I am granted.
I love it so!
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wllde
"Let my enemies destroy each other."
Salvador Dali
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 03. October 2007, 05:41: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 03. October 2007 16:04
quote:
It is both unfortunate and revealing that I am unable to participate at Panda's Thumb, which is why I must and will do it from here or from any other venue from which I have not been excluded.
Are you sure about that, John? The bar for reasonable conduct is not set that high at AtBC and PT. If you really wanted to discuss your ideas in a neutral venue, the opportunity is there. All you have to do is adopt a civil tone. It is not that hard to do.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 03. October 2007 18:53
The notion that Panda's Thumb or After The Bar Closes is a "neutral venue" is the most idiotic statement ever presented in the history of internet communication. It is just about a "neutral" as Pharyngula or Uncommon Descent.
'A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 04. October 2007 04:11
Not idiotic at all.
There is no arbitrary censorship as exhibited at UD. Alternative views are not censored. Posts that are on-topic and civil are not deleted. (They may be mocked, but that is not censorship.)
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. October 2007 18:53
They did appear but the numbers are now 1745 and 1753. Many thanks to Ben Stein's blog.
Any port in an internet storm, especially one in which so much is "much ado about nothing." The only issue which has ever been in question is the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution. Everything else is meaningless.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 04. October 2007, 19:07: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
