|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. January 2006 15:58
quote:
All you have to do is examine the bibliographies and indices of the many books and look at who has been either ignored or worse, debased. There you will find none of my sources.
John, I feel kind of sad about this. I am coming more to appreciate the sources you quote and hope that I can find the time to access and read them. I much enjoyed reading Pierre Grasse's book even before I knew of your work.
quote:
Meanwhile in the laboratories of the world more and more evidence builds up to favor the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
Yes, I think it is perhaps not long before scientists around the world will have to take a serious look at the PEH. I have been reading (or trying to) some of these papers that are being published on chromosomal rearrangements being most likely the dominant factor in speciation and in many human diseases . You will be vindicated in the end because you are a true scientist - honest to the facts.
quote:
I still believe the IDists have a Christian mystical agenda which they are unwilling to admit or even discuss.
I don't think having a Christian agenda is in itself wrong. The first scientists of what Jennifer Trusted in her beautiful book "Physics and Metaphysics" calls the "Grand Design period" of history (c1600-1700) were by in large all sincere Christians who did not hide their faith or their motivations in their pursuit of science. Guys like Newton, Boyle and Ray worked hard in their studies of nature primarily to reveal the "wonderful works of God" to the educated. Where would be without these guys? - perhaps a hundred years behind where we are now in our scientific understanding? - and all because they had this motivation. But I see your main objection is not the Christian faith per se(founded as it is on accurate historical literature) but the fact that IDists are not being up front about it. O.K. Three things I wish to point out here - (i) many Muslim scientists are just as much into ID (although they never believed neo-Darwinism in the first place!) and (ii) we now live in secular and post-modern times - a very different sort of culture to that in which Grand Design Period scientists experienced. (iii) IDists are not a uniform bunch but surely have a wide spectrum of motivations (a common feature in other areas scientific endeavor too - not just origins science)- for example my primary motivation is not that I want folk to believe in God (although I would be delighted if they did). No my primary motivation in furthering ID theory is one of simple fairness - namely to see true academic freedom for students (which is a basic human right). Freedom firstly to know about ID theories (and the reasoning behind) and secondly freedom to be able to discuss in a strictly academic setting (not religious setting) the pros and cons of ID theory and its alternatives. Hey, I am being honest arent I ? - probably said too much and this is probably not the right forum. Anyhow I am glad that at least here at iscid I have the freedom to express my views!- Chris
[ 18. January 2006, 17:46: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. January 2006 17:24
Yes Chris and I too believe in a God or Gods. But my Gods are apparently no longer with us and probably haven't been for eons. In that I agree with Einstein which shouldn't surprise anyone. I don't care a fig what someone else believes anyway. What matters is only what can be revealed at the experimental bench and I am not only satisfed but pleased at what that bench has to offer. I have presented a viable alternative to the Darwinian paradigm and I have heard nothing to even discredit it. It remains in concert with everything we really know. I am content.
I remain convinced that the adherence to the Christian ethic, which is a very good one, is inspired only by the fear that we might be mortal beings, something I accepted long ago. So did Einstein and for exactly the same reasons.
"Death is the biggest kick of all. That is why they save it for last."
Anonymous
Thanks Chris for keeping this thread alive. It is much appreciated. At most forums it dies on the vine.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. January 2006 18:11
One of the few virtues of growing old is the realization that death becomes more and more welcome as the final relief from the degeneration that accompanies having lived perhaps too long. Only by living long can one really appreciate such a seemingly incongruous revelation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 19. January 2006 06:29
Hey John - please don't think of going yet! You have are doing so well and there is so much more to discuss (particularly with regard to the SMH). Ever thought of turning that evolutionary manifesto of yours into a really nice book to illumine the next generation? Chris
[ 19. January 2006, 06:45: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. January 2006 12:56
Well thanks Chris but I really don't know what more to add. I am always happy to answer specific questions. It is interesting that when I offered the leading lights in evolutionary thought the opportunity to present their views, none obliged me. I attach great significance to that. My Open Tournament of Evolutionary Hypotheses was a glittering success in demonstrating to my satisfaction that no one is very confident of their position, no one that is except myself. Otherwise I would never have published.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. January 2006 13:03
Oh I forgot to respond to your question. I have made no attempt to get the Manifesto published and I haven't noticed any publishing houses expressing interest either. It is now six or seven years out of date. What I would like to see someday if I am still around would be a collection in chronological order of my several papers on evolution. My views have changed consderably over the 22 years I have been writing on the greatest mystery in all of science. Thank you for your interest and encouragement.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 20. January 2006 07:06
To John and others: The above diagram is an attempt to get behind what the PEH is really saying about bio-information, and how it drastically differs from the NDH (neo-Darwinian hypothesis). I place it here in the hope that it may act as a discussion starter.
In the top diagram representing the PEH, the jagged black line represents only the EXPRESSED bio-information. This is not the same thing as the total CSI present as some of the CSI is repressed (as in ontogeny) and as in ontogeny it awaits some kind of signaling to switch it into action. [This results in a time delay]
In the top diagram the red line (hypothesis #1)shows how the bio-info (CSI) varies with time in the way that I believe John sees it. Here bio-information is inputted quickly in a single shot (although I believe that John is not dogmatic on this! - am I correct John?) onto the DNA medium when life first began. I am more enclined, however, to believe that something like the blue line (hypothesis #2) is what took place (in the first approximation). One reason is that bio-info could not be present at the cosmological Big Bang (temperature too hot) - its injection had to wait for the planet earth - and moreover for the planet earth to cool sufficiently for liquid water to exist. [Thus we already have two "information input" events (the Big Bang being the first) - why not more?]. Moreover, there is some evidence that novel genes were injected for Eukaryotes (see this paper ). Perhaps there were also other CSI injections that caused for example the mammalian radiation and perhaps the genesis of the homo-genus (as shown in speculation in H2)??.
Whether there was a single shot of CSI or multiple shots is not really so important at this stage. To me the important issue is that for BOTH forms of prescribed evolution the CSI is at all times on the DECREASE (except at the very fast injections) while for the NDH the CSI is on a monotonic INCREASE . [True, I have not explicitly in the above diagram considered the effect of extinctions in the NDH - but we may as per a thought experiment consider extinct species depositing their unique genes in a gene bank - or alternatively we can believe the above diagram is inclusive of genes lost to extinctions -i.e. it is the cumulative CSI]. This strongly suggests that the PEH and the NDH are in principle distinguishable. By studying present day genomes using molecular phylogenetic trees and the fossil record it may thus be possible to infer the more likely theory? - Chris
[ 20. January 2006, 07:36: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. January 2006 07:58
Chris
The PEH may prove to be wrong but that will in no way influence the abyssmal failure of neoDarwinism.
I have no idea how many times life was created, when it was created. where it was created and most certainly how it was created, but THAT it was created I regard as a given. By that I mean that chance played no role in it and played no role in subsequent evolution, none whatsoever. I also feel that everything now revealed in the experimental and descriptive literature favors the PEH and none of it can ever be reconciled with the neoDarwinian paradigm.
Beyond that all seems to be speculation at present but not for much longer.
Thanks for the interesting diagrams. I will have to digest them which will take a while.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. January 2006 15:29
Chris
The blue line would be in full accord with the explosive periods in evolution which were several. I find no fault with it. The problem is that the Darwinians won't accept any injections at any time. They believe everything was by chance. I believe it is not necessary to assume independent injections and I don't think genes die with extinction necessarily either.
What we observe when we examine the genes of organisms is which genes are being expressed. We do not see the whole genome by any means. There is a whole new kind of genetics involved here which can be called the genetics of position effect. It is independent of Mendelism which deals only with the distribution of expressed genes and their alleles. I don't believe these genes were the critical ones in evolution, a process no longer in progress.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. January 2006 01:01
Chris
The PNAS paper you cite now requires three cell types to fuse to form the eukaryote cell. Yet such fusions have not been demonstrated. I still feel that the PEH offers a perfectly viable explanation. When one considers all the assumptions that have to be made to account for even the simplest steps, the less likely the Darwinian model becomes at least for me. I still must concur with LeoBerg that there never has been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I hope you can see why.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 23. January 2006 01:42
John and others,
Please correct me if I am wrong - with regard to the prokaryote to eukaryote transition, is it not true that the DNA in the prokaryote forms in a ring - and that there is no "junk" DNA present in this ring of DNA - i.e. all the ring is full of functional genes (although some may be re-pressed). My point is this - if the 347 genes special to eukaryotes came from the prokaryote genes then there must have been a whole lot of gene splicing and recombination into novel genes going on inorder to get a functional eukaryote. This a bit akin to cutting up different paragraphs from a book - sticking them together in a new sequence and hoping to come up with new meaningful paragraphs. I do not see this as a "position effect" but I may be wrong? I see this as evidence against the "single shot" hypothesis - Chris
[ 23. January 2006, 01:44: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. January 2006 07:59
"the prokaryote to eukaryote transition"
Ahh that reality does not so easily conform to conceptual thought, If it would then we could then take the blueprint(DNA) for a conventional gas powered car and the blueprint for the electric car and mix the two sets together without any engineering change and poof we would have the hybrid car, however for those of us that do the actual mechanical designing of complex systems we must observe the three F's form, fit & function and such an infolding of two complex systems would require an almost complete alteration of every inspliced gene section of the DNA's.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 23. January 2006 18:46
Hi KBC,
I tend to agree - but to me the prokaryote to eukaryote transition is more like a pedal cycle somehow transmuting into an modern automobile. Form, function and fit all seem to be markedly different. In terms of function the mitosis and meiosis that occurs in a eukaryotic cell is a highly delicate and complex programmed machine with nothing like it present in the prokaryote cell. In terms of "fitting" there needs to be a variaty of histone proteins accurately shaped on which to "wind" the DNA - from where are these derived? Fred Hoyle in his book Mathematics of Evolution further points out that without "bisexual" transmission of genes there is not possibility of any evolutionary advance (demonstrated mathematically) and this makes things even stranger - how did such a complex bisexual meiotic process ever get started from a prokaryote base - especially when deleterious mutations will stiffle any advantageous mutation (if such exist) and thus prevent any evolutionary advance. To me this transition seems almost as remarkable as the origin of life itself. - Chris
[ 23. January 2006, 19:06: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. January 2006 21:08
Thankyou for replying to my post Chris,
When you said "but to me the prokaryote to eukaryote transition is more like a pedal cycle somehow transmuting into an modern automobile" I could only think of a humorous reply; On a scale of zero possibility to infinite impossibility this is definitly a ten. (hopefully a bit of humor is not frowned upon in the forum)
In your decription of the differences "Form, function and fit all seem to be markedly different." which is to say that the endosymbiosis of even a multitude of say level 1 complexity cells cannot add up to a level 5 complexity cell is something I have believed since I gained the understanding of what it truly means to incorporate 2 "systems" into one. I find it particularly offensive mentally to imagine that the combining of the lesser prokaryotes could ever fuse together to form so many novel mechanical constructs that are obviously not in any of the prokaryotes.
As for the transition from asexual to bisexual transition I have always asked how bisexual reproduction could ever have a selectable advantage over asexual? My thought on this is that whoever concieved of it was not mechanically inclined.
I feel that the mechanical side of ID's arguement could become much richer by solidifying the proof that complex mechanical systems have zero chance of evolving thereby absolutely eliminating chance from the equation, This I believe would be the next logical pillar of ID's foundation that I am sure is testable and falsifiable since it should be easy for someone to show a mechanical system where all the components are interconnected with highly specified input output demands for each component along the lines of a real living system and then defy anyone to show how it would be possible to evolve it in step by step fashion without upsetting the mechanically specific relativity of the system and causing it to be less selectable.
[ 23. January 2006, 21:11: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 23. January 2006 22:36
John,
I read your thread stsrter and I began to envision in my head how the mechanics would work in such a system as you describe and it all seemed to work flawlessly until I reached the stage where procreation of a species becomes bisexual, and I stumbled on the timing factor that would require a male and female both existing at exactly the same time and also importantly the same place in order to continue at that level of derepression.
I didn't see anything that might address how at each derepression the two necessary male and female creatures could form autonomously and then find each other in a world this size within the lifetime of the organism.
It seems kind of like the chicken and egg arguement if you see what I mean?
I also had a vision of the food chain that we observe in action today and I must ask the question of how you see the derepression stages forming each of the very separate chains? would not the original organism have to make some very extensive sideways derepressions to form all the food chains beginning with the first level organisms before moving up to the next layer of the chain or would you say that life began in the ocean and eventually derepressed its way to land?
Now if it derepressed itself until the entire underwater food chain was complete and I would presume that the killer whale would be an approximate candidate for top of the chain how would it then derepress itself to the lowest part of the dry land chain presumably grass but surely something in the photosynthesis line?
I know that I should not post negatively and I hope you don't take it that way, it did appear as though you were inviting us to point out any perceived weakness in the original paper and IMH Observation the absence of the explanation for my questions are purely driven by the concept hitting dead ends within my mind when considered from my mechanistic point of view, so I hope in the spirit of helping to strengthen your arguement I may be enabling you to add additional detail that might help it be more palatable to the mechanistic side of things.
[ 23. January 2006, 22:44: Message edited by: KBC1963 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
