|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. January 2006 17:17
Chris
I am just trying to keep things as simple as possible. At this point it is all conjecture anyway so I don't get too concerned about the details. They will all come out in the wash I am sure. I do feel that there must have been more than one origin because of the enormous difficulties encountered when trying to convert basically very different body plans, especially in the beginning as in the Cambrian. I am not very inclined theoretically being a bench scientist by training and inclination and I am a lousy philosopher. There may have been even more that one BFL (Big Front Loader). What do I know anyway!
Thanks
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. January 2006 17:18
I am having a lot of fun over at Dembski's forum Uncommon Descent. Chime in.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 04. February 2006 10:17
John, I would tend to think you wise to say:
quote:
I am just trying to keep things as simple as possible. At this point it is all conjecture anyway so I don't get too concerned about the details.
However, I think it was Einstein (can't be sure) who said "keep things as simple as possible but not simpler than is necessary".
In your Evolutionary Manifesto you write
quote:
If, as is so obvious at the onset of ontogeny, the information were also present from the start of the evolutionary process, someone or something had to put it there. That same someone or something apparently produced the inanimate world with all its rules, laws and precise mathematical relationships. It is my understanding that information does not arise de novo , but must have a source
The total congruence of that last sentence with the 4th law of thermodynamics as propounded by William Demsbki - makes me excited that we are beginning to see a comprehensive evolutionary theory. My main point, however, is this - that if the BFL downloaded the information for the "inanimate world with all its rules, laws and mathematical relationship" - which most would agree occured at the Big Bang - then we are dealing with at least TWO information infusions. If TWO then why not more? Agree? Your statement:
quote:
I do feel that there must have been more than one origin because of the enormous difficulties encountered when trying to convert basically very different body plans, especially in the beginning as in the Cambrian.
leads me to believe that you might even concede there could have been THREE information infusions. Might not phylogenetic epigenesis be slightly different to epigenesis in ontology? Just conjecture - as you say it will probably all "come out in the wash" as more genomic data becomes available. Chris
[ 04. February 2006, 10:33: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. February 2006 18:25
Chris
Sure, I'll concede anything as long as it remains compatible with the facts. One thing I feel certain about and that is that chance had absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. I think you meant ontogeny when you used the term ontology didn't you?
There is so very little else that I feel certain about. Thanks for keeping the thread alive.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 17. February 2006 18:29
I have read your PEH hypothesis, and I find it compelling. What I find particularly intriguing is the thought that the "prescription" may be detectable. As we have detected the specific "prescription" that prescribes the development of an organism -- it's DNA, so we may be able to detect the "prescription" for all of life. Such would really settle the question of whether ID can produce valid research.
There are two other hypotheses floating around the brainstorm which I believe are pieces of the PEH. One, which I am sure you are well aware, is front-loading. Evidence for front-loading would certainly also be evidence for PEH.
I have also proposed that there is an easily detectable phenomenon in nature that I describe as 'patterning'. See my brainstorm "pentadactilism again challenges the modern synthesis." I believe that this easily detectable phenomenon of nature would offer solid support for your PEH hypothesis.
I notice that you, unlike myself, are a professional in an appropriate field (I don't think 'software developer' counts.) I would very much appreciate your opinion on my hypothesis. I challenge you to convince me that the modern synthesis should be happy to limit itself to pentadactile amphibia, reptiles, mammals and birds or recognize my concept of 'patterning' as a valid and recognizable piece of your PEH puzzle.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. February 2006 18:58
Bruce Fast
Excuse my absence. I have been busy getting banned from "Uncommon Descent" which is the story of my internet experience. Fortunately it all means very little as my several papers are all published just as are the books and papers of my distinguished prececessors on whose work my own directly depends.
I want to thank you for the positive feed back as I have seen very little of it over the years. My own papers like those of my sources continue to be ignored by the atheist Darwinian, chance happy, natural selection intoxicated establishment as it has always done with its many many critics. We simply do not and must not exist. It is the key to the survival of the biggest scandal in the history of science. Is your thesis presented here and has it been published?
I will be happy to look it over and get back to you. Thank you for keeping this thread alive.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. February 2006 19:05
I often refer to the Big Front Loader (BFL) or Loaders. After all we have no idea how many there were, when they did the loadings where they did them or of course how they did them. That they did them seems unavoidable at least to me. I regard that as a given. I also regard the many morphologocal parallels between marsupial and placental mammals as direct evidence for the PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 19. February 2006 19:28
It is one of the active threads in this forum ISCID's brainstorms. I have presented it nowhere else.
As I pointed out, I am not a scientists. However, as a software developer I do understand logic. Whether the neo-Darwinian synthesis is right or not is one question, but it is a simple logic, therefore I feel confident that I can easily understand its concepts.
My position, as you will read when you find my posting, is that I believe that I have found something simple and obvious, something that even us commoners understand, which blatantly does not fit the simple logic of the neo-Darwinian synthesis.
In all honesty, now that I have presented this concept to the world, I haven't a clue what to do with it. I feel no need to 'own' it, I would just like to have its validity, and therefore one more piece of evidence against neo-Darwinianism, recognized.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. February 2006 06:38
There s absolutely nothing in the Darwinian paradigm that ever had anything to do with evolution. It is what it has always been, a giant illusion based on the unwarranted and unsupported assumption that evolution had a detectable exogenous cause. Such a cause has never been identified because it never existed any more than such a cause ever existed for the development of an egg into the adult. Both of these obvuiosly linked phenomena proceeded driven from within with no refernce to envronmental influence. The thing to do with Darwinism is to laugh at it. They don't like it is the only problem. Darwinians are like a dog with a bone. So am I. Their bone is blind chance, mine is the PEH. These two views will never be reconciled. Even if the PEH proves inadequate, nothing will save the Darwinain fantasy from its certain demise.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 23. December 2006 20:13
There is also no compelling reason to postulate a single creation of life and several reasons not to quote:
I dont know if this has already been covered as I have not yet read the entire thread, but could you please explain why you say this? Could you explain why there is no compelling reason to postulate a single creation (or universal common ancestry of all life from one initial organism) and what are the reasons not to postulate this?
Ironic that you dismiss the fundamentalist biblical creation account yet you agree in part with certain aspects of it as it alludes to several different creation events.
IP: Logged
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 24. December 2006 00:10
Also you say that mutations never had anything to do with evolution. Do you deny that mutations have any role whatsoever in the evolutionary process? While I dont think its possible that mutation could be the driving force behind any evolutionary process responsible for the wide range of life, biological functions and mechanisms we see on earth today, I think its well known and has been documented that mutation can on some levels influence evolutionary change as we see with the flu virus and bacteria like the nylon bug.
Edit: I think Ive found the answer to this. Is it safe to say that your position is that mutation creates interspecies variety (beyond genetic recombination) but doesnt accumulate to produce a new species. If that isnt your position could you please clarify what your position on mutation is. Thanks.
[ 24. December 2006, 01:15: Message edited by: Mack G. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. December 2006 03:17
I did not claim that mutations had nothing to do with evolution. I said that "allelic" mutations didn't. You obviousy have read none of my papers or you would know why there are several reasons to consider independent origins of life. I cannot repeat everything I have written. Read the Manifesto, it is right here and other of my papers and discover my reasons.
"A past evolution in undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 25. December 2006 00:14
Im in the process of reading your work now professor. I posted your paper (linked) on another message board and one of the posters said this:
quote:
But more fatally important is simply that his entire idea is that every animal shares a common genetic code and during gestation or growth some traits become repressed or unrepressed. That is simply retarded. Humans and oysters have extremely different genetic codes and you can't find a gene for "hair color" in oysters" much like you can't find a gene for "shell structure" in humans. You can't repress something that does not exist.
I went through his references because they appeared fishy to me (he cites Breg, Schwolinger and himself predominantly for the idea that evolution acts predominantly on actual genetic material rather that completely deleting or adding genetic material) and EVERY one of them that refers to those ideas is pre-1950 (save his works). There's something pretty damn important that happened after 1950. Did you know what it is? It won a Nobel Prize. It's THE DISCOVERY OF DNA.
What do you say to this?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 26. December 2006 00:32
Why? In your second post in this thread you said that you are fully prepared to defend it. Am I too late to the party? Are you tired of defending your thesis; have you given up on it? I ask what you say about the comments for no other reason than because I dont know who's right and who's wrong. His argument against your idea seems valid (to a layman like myself) and I can only wonder if your silence is as you said earlier, either due to concession or agreement, or is it the strongest expression of scorn. Do you not have much to say because you agree with him or because his remarks are so ridiculous that you wont even dignify them with a response? If the reason is the latter could you please explain to me why his contention is fallacious, because again, I dont know.
I have serious misgivings about darwinian evolution. While I do believe that evolution occurs I highly doubt that 'fortunate mistakes' darwinian evolution is the mechanism by which it occurs so I found your paper very interesting. But how am I to take it seriously if you wont respond to critics, detractors, and questions asked? Its very disheartening when one is trying to learn and teachers dont want to teach.
[ 26. December 2006, 00:41: Message edited by: Mack G. ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
