|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. July 2007 15:17
I am not at all certain that a buried plastic cup will disintegrate if it is in a non oxidizing environment. What is the experimental evidence? I'll bet there isn't any. Plastic cups, frisbees and garden hose disintegrate very rapidly when exposed to UV. I had a frisbee disintegrate in mid air once.
I also see no conflict between the PEH and an old earth. A real problem resides in the fact that there is no evidence that any contemporary organisms are capable of creative evolution, a conclusion reached by others long before me. Today we witness only trivial intraspecific variations. I doubt very much if there is an "evolver" around any more. By that I mean a creature which can produce progeny drastically different from itself. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny has proven to be an internally regulated, self-limiting phenomenon. I do believe we may be able to produce new life forms experimentally, but not through Mendelian sexual means.
If the earth is really very young, there should be powerful evidence for it. What is that evidence?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. July 2007 04:43
Peter
Come on with the evidence. That is what science is all about.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. July 2007 04:53
Actually the frisbee split.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. July 2007 08:46
Peter
As for Hartnett, I agree with him on the big bang but I don't see how that supports a young earth which you seem to think is essential for the PEH. I will even buy the notion that we are the center of the universe, but that doesn't mean the earth is young either. The central issue remains the age of the evolutionary history which seems to be on the order of several million years.
John
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 10. July 2007 09:00
John,
Before the advent of DNA isolation from Dinosaur bones it was well established DNA molecules degrade over time relatively fast. One of the reviews addressing stability of DNA is here:
Lindahl, T. 1993, NATURE 362: 709-15.
The author states: "deprived of the repair mechanisms provided in living cells, fully hydrated DNA is spontaneously degraded to short fragments over a time period of several thousand years at moderate temperatures".
It was conventional wisdom. Everybody knew this.
Then, a few years later dinosaur DNA was retrieved from bones alleged to be extremely ancient (>65 million years BP) our scientific ideas on DNA stability should adjust to evolutionary (darwinian) belief.
Well, not for me. I am sick and tired of Darwinism and all the non-sense it has generated. I am a scientists, you know.
Regards,
peter
[ 10. July 2007, 09:04: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 10. July 2007 10:57
I don't see how the instability of isolated hydrated DNA has to do with the PEH either. After all, I believe in reproductive continuity with change which is evolution. I am not sure you do. You seem to exempt Homo sapiens from that definition which I find unacceptable. Apparently you do not believe we had organic ancestors. I am not ready for that and I don't think many others are either. Of course you may be right but you sure haven't proved it!
By the way, is Homo sapiens the only Primate without an ancestor?
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 10. July 2007, 11:00: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. July 2007 03:34
Peter
I suspect that DNA allegedly from dinosaur bones was actually a contaminant. DNA is very stable and special precautions have to be taken to avoid that. Is that a possibility or has that been ruled out?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. July 2007 05:57
Peter
How about a hoax? How many independent labs have verified Dinosaur DNA? The Darwinians don't have a corner on the hoax game don't you know.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 11. July 2007 06:12
john,
some sequences "isolated" from ceratops species for sure are contaminants, as they are identical to turkey.
nowadays scientists routinely isolate proteins and DNA from bones alleged to be millions of years. I don't believe a single word of it. The DNA used to be highly unstable, why would that change? Because the long-age thinkers need it to be endlessly stable.
Science apparently is subject to the long-agers. To the Darwinians. I am not gonna buy it.
Real science shows the long ages are the hoax.
[ 11. July 2007, 06:16: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 11. July 2007 06:24
"Apparently you do not believe we had organic ancestors. I am not ready for that and I don't think many others are either. Of course you may be right but you sure haven't proved it!"
The proof is in the genome: Unique novelties (=miRNA genes) not present in other primates.
That is compelling genetic evidence we did not descend from primates.
[ 11. July 2007, 06:25: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. July 2007 14:38
Peter
We are very far removed from our living Primate cousins. There have been about twelve ancestral serial species which have separated us from the chimp based on the number of chromosome reorganizations that separate us. Those have taken place, each instantaneously, over several millions of years. During those several millions of years plenty of unique features could be released from latency. I still subscribe to the opinion of Leo Berg -
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406
and William Bateson -
"The entire process of evolution may be regarded as 'an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'."
Nomogenesis, page 359 -
and Robert Broom -
"I believe there is a Plan and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
Finding The Missing Link, page 101
and Otto Schindewolf -
"...the main features of the evolutionary trend were laid out right from the start with the abrupt, discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted right from the start to certain paths."
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360
and Pierre Grasse -
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutaional and aleatory."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245,
in other words a "prescribed," "planned" evolution which terminated with the production of Homo sapiens, in my opinion the last mammalian species that will ever appear.
I realize I am at present in the minority with this position, but I am in the company of several great evolutionists of the past, each one a leader in his field, not one a Darwinian mystic, and not one of whom would even dream of postulating the special creation of that final product.
"A past evolution is undeniable, present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 12. July 2007, 16:58: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. July 2007 06:38
John,
I know your position. The problem is the PEH cannot account for the novelties observed in and unique to humans.
That is as big as a problem for PEH as it is for Darwinism.
Similarities? Okay. No problem for either theorie. Easily explained by common descent.
But unique differences? Wow. Where did they come from? Neither of the theories explain.
The "creation ex nihilo" scenario still is the best explanation.
[ 12. July 2007, 06:39: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. July 2007 11:20
Sorry Peter but, by definition, a "prescribed evolution" can account for EVERYTHING!
The very word "evolution" derives from the Latin evolvo meaning to unfold, as the pages of a book. The last time I checked, books had one or more authors. I can't believe you think we had no ancestors! It boggles my mind.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 12. July 2007 17:17
Also let's be clear that it is not just with John A. Davison that you and many others disagree. It is with the six scholars who provided the foundation for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, five of which I cited in my earlier post here. Every one of the five was an obvious determinist. So am I and so was Albert Einstein.
"EVERYTHING is determined...by forces over which we have no control." my emphasis.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 12. July 2007, 17:20: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 13. July 2007 05:47
"I can't believe you think we had no ancestors! It boggles my mind."
Does the universe have ancestors?
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
