|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. December 2006 10:22
I have responded in several published papers and the Manifesto. If you had read my work and that of my predecessors you would not be asking these questions because you would already know the answers.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it." John A. Davison after John Heywood.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. December 2006, 17:02: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. December 2006 16:56
I see Alan Fox has once again lapsed into the blockage mode, making it impossible for me to respond to the animals that post at his blog which is little more than a subsidiary of Panda's Thumb.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 26. December 2006, 17:03: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Mack G.
Member
Member # 2034
|
posted 26. December 2006 23:17
Fair enough
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 27. December 2006 03:54
Mack G. cited some darwinist:
quote:
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.
I dont see how this argument should discredit Broom and Punnett observations mentioned in Manifesto at all. And how this argument in turn should support Darwins thoughts from midst 19 century.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. January 2007 12:43
One of the view I consider inspiring is that neo-darwinism somehow reflects our view of human society. If predominant conception see only competition everywhere no wonder that it implant such view into animal and plant kingdom too (and not vice versa as darwinists try to persuade us).
Nice example is mimicry - darwinists see it in every baffling color patterns and similarities or other adaptations. They do not bother support such claims by experiments at all. Sometimes such experiments refutes their theories (as Alan Fox mentioned it was experimentaly observed and proved that eye spots on butterflies wings are totally inefficient against predators.)
It is also interesting that according darwinism learning is not transmitted to offspring (comparing with lamarckism). I would compare darwinism to roulette where past does not influence present outcome at all. Lamarckism is like playing cards - chance plays also big role but neverthenless if you remeber cards already used you have advantage.
[ 09. January 2007, 12:48: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
kleinman
Member
Member # 3541
|
posted 09. January 2007 18:38
Professor Davison,
I have read your PEH paper and have to admit that I have some problems with the logic. This quote is from your paper:
quote:
I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Just as differentiation involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did evolution proceed by a similar means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression. For those who may be unfamiliar with the history of evolutionary thought, these notions may seem bizarre, but they are in no way original with me. I only propose to extend them somewhat further.
The notion that all the information necessary to produce all the life forms that we have today was somehow placed in some early life form presents some problems.
How do you explain the arrangement of all the genetic material necessary to contain all this information? Consider a single gene like that which would code for hemoglobin. The hemoglobin molecule has about 150 amino acids which would require at least 450 bases to code for this protein. How did this genetic material get organized to accomplish this task? Was this information arrived at by abiogenesis or was it derived somehow by early life forms?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. June 2007 20:15
I am sorry I failed to get to Kleinman's question, but I will answer it now. I cannot account for HOW phylogeny WAS prescribed and neither can I account for HOW onotogeny IS prescribed but there is no doubt in my mind that both WERE prescribed long ago by entities far beyond out capacity to understand. Both involved goal-seeking, predetermined objectives which in the case of phylogeny have now been reached. In ontogeny those goal-seeking mechanisms are repeated each generation as the egg develops into the next generation until such time as those species becomes extinct which would seem to be the ultimate fate for nearly all and possibly all higher organisms.
These unknown factors are what prompted me to introduce my only thread at Richard Dawkins' fan club -
"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed,"
a thread which, after 60,000 views, finally led to my bannishment and denial of my viewing that forum's proceedings, a condition which still prevails.
I want to explain my perspective on the matter of religion. It was a rhetorical trick on my part to claim that God or Gods are dead because that is impossible to ascertain with certainty as someone promptly reminded me. I agree.
My point WAS then, and still is NOW, that there is no need for a living God within the postulates of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. The scientist cannot assume the existence of that which cannot be demonstrated. However he can be convinced of such a prior existence which is exactly what the PEH maintains.
I agree with Grasse's position on the same issue -
"Let us not invoke God in matters in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis, original in italics.
I hope this clarifies my position. I do not and indeed cannot deny the existence of God. I have only suggested that his existence may no longer be necessary.
Some one once said that there are no atheists in foxholes. I agree and the internet is very definitely a foxhole!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. DFavison
[ 05. June 2007, 20:26: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 06. June 2007 05:54
John,
“...He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE” [Grasse]
Would you agree that in order to arrest the extinction of all life, He would have to INTERVENE?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 06. June 2007 06:38
Melvin
No I would not. I regard the whole scenario as a giant cosmic joke. I see no reason to demand a personal God at all. That does not mean one does not exist, but if one does exist why, oh why would He (I assume you are a Jew or a Christian) allow man to destroy his environment as man most certainly is doing?
"God is dead."
Frederich Nietzche
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Albert Einstein
I agree.
"A past evolution is undeniable,a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 07. June 2007 10:40
quote:
...why, oh why would He (I assume you are a Jew or a Christian) allow man to destroy his environment as man most certainly is doing? .
Why should God care? He caused so many distractions (we called natural) and directly commended or silently observed so many mass murders of innocent people, so I think that God care about us as much as we care about microbes.
[ 07. June 2007, 10:45: Message edited by: miosim ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 07. June 2007 11:39
miosim,
Your wrote:
quote:
…so I think that God care about us as much as we care about microbes.
If this be true, then we are without hope.
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 07. June 2007 13:30
quote:
why would He... allow man to destroy his environment as man most certainly is doing?
quote:
Why should God care? He caused so many distractions (we called natural) and directly commended or silently observed so many mass murders of innocent people, so I think that God care about us as much as we care about microbes.
This is the age old question: "Why does God allow evil?". I think that the answer, with respect to a just God, only makes sense in the light of eternity. If there is an eternal God, with eternal rewards awaiting those innocent victims and eternal punishments awaiting those that commit mass murder and destroy the earth, then the allowance of evil makes sense. As the bible says, this life is "just a vapor" (in the light of eternity) and then it's gone.
Either that or Dr. Davison is right and God is dead. In which case life is a hopeless mess and we're back to the survival of the fittest. A sad state of affairs, if you ask me.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 07. June 2007 13:45
Of course it is a sad state of affairs. We should each be grateful that we were permitted to witness the last stages of a "prescribed" evolutionary sequence. It is all over except the final extinction. It will not be pleasant.
I wish I could be kidding.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 07. June 2007, 13:46: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
