|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. January 2006 00:13
The problem has always been the formation of a new homozygous chromosome pair. The Semi-meiotic hypothesis provides this in one cytological event. There is no need for simulatenous male and female production. Once we have a new unique female produced, Mendelian genetics will automatically provide the necessary mechanism for the establishment of a new species. All first generation products will be heterozygotes, the next generation will produce both homozygotes and both species will coexist for a while. That is why I remain convinced that Neanderthal was our immediate ancestor. If this is correct there will always be coexistence for a while between each species and its immediate new product. I believe this is in perfect accord with what we know from the fossil record. Certainly no new species appeared de novo and that includes ourselves. While I am very definitely a primordial creationist as I can see no way to avoid that, all subsequent evolution involved reproductive continuity. Certainly chance played no role in that process either in the beginning or subsequently. In any event Darwinism is a total disaster and must be abandoned as a creative device.
Goldschmidt was aware that the real problem was the formation of the chromosome homozygote and the first meiotic division provides the solution.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2006 05:44
I am inclined to disregard all allelic mutations as having evolutionary significance. They may represent only neutral or detrimental effects. The key steps have always been the restructuring and release of contained preformed chromosomal information both in ontogeny and phylogeny. There is no place for chance in either process.
I don't expect anyone to agree with my on this but it represents my present position and will until it is proven to be erroneous.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 25. January 2006 07:52
John, I dont yet have a full grasp of the Semi-Meiotic mechanism. You say:
quote:
Once we have a new unique female produced, Mendelian genetics will automatically provide the necessary mechanism for the establishment of a new species. All first generation products will be heterozygotes, the next generation will produce both homozygotes and both species will coexist for a while.
If I am correct the "unique female" is of the new species type (am I correct?) - She is homozygous in the sense that her karyotype has two novel chromosomes (produced by some chromosomal rearrangement after the first meiotic division such as an inversion or a fusion) that are identical in everyway (same genes at same loci). I can understand how this "unique female" can find a partner to breed with from the old species population from whence she orignated - but surely the offspring will be sterile as in the case of the Mule - the reason being that the novel chromosome (found in the gamete of the 1st generation) will not match up properly for cross-over with the old chromosome (as found in a gamete of the original population)? Hope you can put me wise on this.
[ 25. January 2006, 09:43: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2006 10:27
Chris
Not at all. A single chromosome restructuring is certainly not going to produce sterility at all. It would have a negligable effect. The only lethal meiotic products (gametes) of such a heterozygote would be those products which resulted from a cross-over in the region where the original and the new chromosome underwent synapsis. Many gametes would be produced in which such a crossover never occurred. It is only in two forms in which there are several new chromosomal differences that sterility becomes a factor and even then there is a very low probability that a balanced gamete could be produced. The more differences, the greater the likelihood for sterility. One or even a few would allow for plenty of fertility. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if a chimpanzee crossed with a human might produce a viable hybrid but with all the many rearrangements that separate us from chimps, at least a dozen, that hybrid would most certainly be sterile. I think such experiments should be performed and the results reported with the female being the chimp of course. Maybe they have been done.
Josef Goebbels, Hitler's Propaganda Minister, once claimed and I paraphrase because I can't come up with the original:
"It has not yet been shown that nonAryans cannot hybridize with apes. Were the Germans doing these experiments? If so, what were the results?
Now I hope somebody doesn't jump all over me for making that suggestion. It is a perfectly valid experiment and should be done. Experiments are what science is all about. The Darwinians stopped testing their hypothesis long ago. They grew tired of failure. Let us not continue that tradition.
It's hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2006 16:51
I am aware of the Arabidopsis experimnets and I feel they are perfectly compatible with the PEH.
The beauty of the PEH is the possibility that infomation which has not been expressed for some time might reappear. I am not suggesting that is the case here however. The PEH also permits the appearance of novel structures ahead of time such as placentas in certain sharks. I still subscribe to Leo Berg's unqualified opinion:
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406
This may be traced back even further to William Bateson who had independently reached the same conclusion:
"...the entire process of evolution my be regarded as 'an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.'"
quoted in Berg, page 359
The Darwinian establishment of course has pretended that neither of these great scientists even existed.
It is a scandal which has metamnorphosed into a hoax unparalleled in the histroy of science. I say without qualification that there has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I will stand by that until it is proved to be in error.
Even if the PEH proves to be wrong, nothing will rescue the Darwinian paradigm from certain oblivion. Of that I am confident. That it has prevailed as long as it has is miraculous.
IP: Logged
|
|
KBC1963
Member
Member # 1868
|
posted 26. January 2006 02:20
Well John even though your theory doesn't seem to work in my mind your comments about Darwin are like preaching to the choir here as I can personally say that once I took the time to sanely consider it in detail I knew the truth.
I would say that our greatest efforts now should not be to convince each other of its insanity but rather to solidify ID's case with more pillars of proveable truth that can't be swept under the carpet by others that continue to have faith in the dead end.
Complexity is the key, forming a bulletproof set of tenets is the goal, now if I could only think and reason in as complex a manner as I am formed then I would have this thing beat.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 07:30
My "prescribed" fate if I am use that word has been from the onset to restore some of the finest minds of the past to the prominence they deserve. The PEH rests firmly on their shoulders and I am the dwarf that Robert Burton described.
"A dwarf standing on the shoulder of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."
We must keep hammering away at the complete failure of the Darwinian model. These people (I don't know how else to describe them) are constitionally incapable of even consdering the notion that there was and is purpose in the universe. They are homozygous atheists.
Can you imagine a blind watchmaker climbing mount improbable? I can't, yet this man wields enormous influence over the millions of like minded ultraliberal so-called "intellectuals" that dominate our institutions of higher learning. I am convinced that, like our political preferences, our views on our origins have a firm genetic predisposition. This is a battle for the control of how man is to regard his position in the universe. I am now of the opinion that it is a battle between the forces of good and those of evil. I know that sounds extreme but it is my conviction at the present time.
Furthermore I believe that we are all victims of a "prescribed fate" and I am not alone.
"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."
Albert Einstein
"EVERYTHING is determined ...by forces over which we have no control."
ibid, my emphasis.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 08:01
That should be "constitutionally." Sorry.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 26. January 2006 10:08
KBC - I am interested in your statement to John
quote:
Well John even though your theory doesn't seem to work in my mind
Is it possible that you could elaborate for us your disquiet about the PEH? Do you have an alternative hypothesis in mind? Personally the PEH seems to make alot of sense to me of the available fossil data - and appears congruent with the concept of bio-information continually being either conserved or decreasing (4th law)[I wonder if you are ok with the 4th law? - and do you have any critique of my diagram posted on 20th Jan?].
One alternative to the PEH is a special creation (i.e. direct information injection) event for each of the thousands of different species of plants and animals (living and extinct) at their respective ecologically appropriate times. I guess many believe this (perhaps because a superficial reading of Genesis one might suggest it) - however the PEH does not negate Genesis 1 but fills in the detail of mechanism.
The Design one sees looking back in time is one of building on previously formed (created) and necessary substrata. I.E. first set up the material basis of life in the finely tuned cosmological Big Bang - This information then expresses itself through created natural law (that is incapable in itself of more information production) [The Universe quite likely has zero energy - but certainly is information rich in structure]. When the Cosmos has optimally developed then injection of information required for prokaryotic life which then (again through non information producing natural law) transforms the earth's atmosphere. When the atmosphere is ok the information for eukaryotes is injected and higher organisms with aerobic respiration develop (again through information conserving natural laws). And so it goes on - until all is ripe for Man's entry (possibly the homo genus) on the scene. That is there seems to be a general recipe - information inputs only when necessary. A kind of Occam's razor sort of economy that one might indeed expect from a super Designer.
You ask for tenets that can provide "more pillars of proveable truth" for ID. To me one of these tenets is the 4th law (that specified complex information can never increase under natural law). The 4th law is backed by sound theoretical reasoning [as provided in No Free Lunch] and through the PEH which seems to concur with all current observational evidence (including evidence of chromosomal reararrangments in speciation from genomic studies). Of course we cannot ask for proofs in science - especially with regard to things in the past - but we can surely find the PEH and acceptible theory if
(i) all facts we have available point to it,
(ii) none of the facts we have deny it and
(iii) of all available evolutionary theories it is the most parsimonious.
What say you to these thinkings?
Chris
[ 26. January 2006, 10:44: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 10:36
I patiently wait for evidence that the PEH is not compatible with EVERYTHING we really know at present about the greatest mystery in all of biological science - organic evolution. The second greatest, ontogeny is intimately related to the first and both were front loaded by the Big Front Loader in the Sky, BFL for short. Prove that is wrong and I will retire, whining and yelping from the contest with my tail between my legs in utter disgrace, never to be heard from again.
"Here I stand. I can do no otherwise."
Martin Luther
Does that qualify as an answer Chris?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 10:39
ATTENTION PLEASE ALL YOU DENIZENS OF PANDA'S THUMB AT WHAT IS TRANSPIRING HERE.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 11:42
Chris
Yes we can and we must ask for proofs. That is what science is all about.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2006 19:13
You won't find proofs in internet forums. They will be found as they appear in peer reviewed professional journals. That is where the support for the PRH may be found right now. I cited a few examples in the paper being discussed on this thread.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
