|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. July 2007 12:57
I have no idea what you mean Peter. Sorry about that.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
miosim
Member
Member # 4541
|
posted 13. July 2007 18:41
quote:
peter borger:
Does the universe have ancestors?
It may. At least we cannot rule out this possibility.
Many scientists belief that prior the Big Bang there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 15. July 2007 08:47
Peter
You base your belief that we are not related to other prmates on one criterion alone. You claim we have unique genes. It is true that we have unique genetic expressions. It may even be true that we have no ancestors. I don't think so.
Here is what I propose that you do. Please go to my Manifesto and section III-4 (page 24) where you will find the karyotypes of MAN, CHIMP, GORILLA AND ORANG. Having perused that material, are you still able to claim that we are not, all four of us, closely related?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 15. July 2007, 21:16: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. July 2007 06:30
"Here is what I propose that you do. Please go to my Manifesto and section III-4 (page 24) where you will find the karyotypes of MAN, CHIMP, GORILLA AND ORANG. Having perused that material, are you still able to claim that we are not, all four of us, closely related?"
I know your manifesto almost by heart. I am aware of the karyotypes of these organisms. Your hypothesis and proposed mechanisms may indeed explain the pattern of the chromosomes but not their contence.
If you look into the details of the chromosme 2 fusion in man, you miss an awful load of genetics in chimp. The evolutionist's model requires fine-tuned duplications and translocations in man. I am preparing a detailed analyses about the fusion region, which, I can tell you already, shows evolutionists, Darwinians in particular, ask an awful lot from their believers.
I am not that gullible. I am rather skeptic.
[ 16. July 2007, 06:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 16. July 2007 06:33
"Many scientists belief that prior the Big Bang there was a contracting universe with similar space-time geometry to our expanding universe. The universe collapsed and then "bounced" as the Big Bang."
And belief it is. Math models and belief in math models. Even the impossible can be cast into a math model.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. July 2007 15:14
Peter
Do you deny that we are related to the other living Primates? I believe this requires a yes or no answer.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 16. July 2007 15:52
Peter
No one has the vaguest idea how genetic information is stored or released. How can you on the one hand accept the karyotypes but deny we are related when virtually nothing is known of either the phylogenetic or the ontogenetic code? Your certainty that man has no ancestor is really scary, especially when so much speaks otherwise. Have you published your conclusion and if you haven't, please don't. Just because neoDarwinism is a lot of nonsense does not mean that de novo creation is the answer. That kind of polarization isn't doing us any favors. Let the Fundamentalists and the Darwimps slug it out. I wouldn't give you a nickel for either faction. That is why I am so popular!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. July 2007 04:51
No, John, I do not deny we are related to primates. All I say is we did not descend from primates. We do NOT have a common ancestor with primates. The huge genome projects prove it.
The match between the genomes of chimp and man is only 85%. In addition, man has 36 unique protein coding genes and many novel miRNA gene families that cannot be found in the genomes of the other primates. In my opinion, that is sufficient to disprove common ancestry.
[ 17. July 2007, 05:32: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 17. July 2007 04:59
John you say:
"How can you on the one hand accept the karyotypes but deny we are related when virtually nothing is known of either the phylogenetic or the ontogenetic code?"
That is your problem. The data you believe are not there have all been published over the past few years. Check the 2004 October 21 issue of Nature (the completion of the human genome sequence), and the 2005 sept 1 Nature issue (on the chimp sequence). The data I mentioned above are all from the sequence comparisons. If human code is NOT present in primates it is NOT present. Your PEH suffers from the same as Darwinian theorie: no explanation for the origin of novel code. PEH would have been nice, but we should find at least the remnants of human-specific code in chimp and/or other primates. For 36 protein coding genes and the miRNA genes it is not there.
[ 17. July 2007, 05:50: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. July 2007 09:46
Peter
Perhaps you are right. If you regard that as proven, you have a responsibility to publish your conclusions. Have you? I have a problem with your double standard on how we can be related to, but not descended from, a primate. That means that God injected man with the novel genes doesn't it? Maybe He did. Is an old earth wrong as well? You may be right about that too. I am not going to abandon the PEH without much better reasons than the ones you present. To do so would mean abandoning the six great scientists who provided the groundwork and strong direct evidence for a prescribed evolution. All of them, with the possible exception of Richard B. Goldschmidt, were strict determinists like Einstein and myself. Not one was a religious fanatic either.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 18. July 2007 02:50
John,
Your PEH could also still be right. It is much better than Darwinian theory. Currently I am looking into the mol biol of human chromosome 2 and it shows some of evidence for the fusion, but it also shows some interesting non-random mutational stuff (and something novel I was not aware of). I will try and get in line with my (or maybe your) thinking (as it can be taken as evidence for frontloading). Eventually, I am positive, I will come up with an alternative explanation that beats Darwinism.
[ 19. July 2007, 07:15: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2007 09:28
Peter
ANYTHING beats Darwinism, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. July 2007 14:04
Peter
Please also note the similarity of chromosome #12 between the orang and ourselves, which differ by an inversion from the situation in the chimp and the gorilla. This correlates with the relatively greater docility of man and orang when compared with chimp and gorilla. In that one sense we seem to be more closely related to orang than to chimp. Even behavioral features may be "position effects." That docile relative of chimp, the bonobo, shows the same inversion. It is things like this that cause me to believe that much of evolution has been due to chromosome restructuring rather than to mutation and selection. All the selection in the world is not by itself going to cause chromosomes to produce paired new rearrangements. It is also clear that there are preferred regions that tend to break and recombine or at least did in the past. If we can control these restructurimgs perhaps we can produce new species without mutation and selection. That is why I introduced the semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH) twenty-three years ago, an hypothesis yet to be tested with suitable material. Goldschmidt, sixty-seven years ago, realized that the key step was the formation of the new structural homozygote. The SMH provides the mechanism which, for some reason, sexual reproduction is incompetent to facilitate. For the details I refer to section V-2 in the Manifesto, especially the comments of Michael J.D. White. He clearly states that such restructurings did NOT arise through sexual means.
Of course Darwinians will never test the SMH, of that we can be certain. They stopped testing the selection hypothesis when Dobzhansky proved that selection was incompetent to cause speciation. Instead of drawing the proper conclusion, the Darwinians, INCLUDING DOBZHANSKY HIMSELF, refused to believe the testimony of the experimental laboratory! As far as can be experimentally verified, neither random mutation nor selection, artificial or natural, ever had anything to do with the creation of a new true species or of any of the higher taxonomic categories.
So much for the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. Those who refuse not only to accept the results of their own experiments but also refuse to test the hypothesis of an adversary are not fit to be called scientists!
The Darwinists have abandoned the experimental method and the Fundamentalists have never practiced it! Neither faction has contributed anything of substance to the great mystery of evolution. That is why I am so popular with both. I know this doesn't sound right but I thoroughly enjoy the way they butcher one another!
I love it so!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. July 2007 03:26
John you say:
"Please also note the similarity of chromosome #12 between the orang and ourselves, which differ by an inversion from the situation in the chimp and the gorilla. This correlates with the relatively greater docility of man and orang when compared with chimp and gorilla. In that one sense we seem to be more closely related to orang than to chimp. Even behavioral features may be "position effects." That docile relative of chimp, the bonobo, shows the same inversion."
This is what we discussed before. I was the one who send you the paper in Folia Primatologia Basel, remember? I think you and I are among a very few poeple who have this information. I mean that the chromsomes of primates show non-random shuffling patterns.
The issue is, looking at the molecular data of the fusion of chromosome 2, there must be another centromer as chimp chromosome 12 and 13 fused head to head. In 1982 there were signs of the centromere (Ynis & Prakash paper), in 1992 there were also signs of this centromere (Fan et al), and now in 2005 there are still signs of the centromere. The funny thing is it cannot be proved. That is what concerns me most. If signs of a centromere were already observed in 1982, why can it not be proved in the sequence comparison? Did it mutate with such high pace? It seems to be built from sequences present in 10 additional human chromosomes (Hillier 2005). As if it was put together deliberately. It really concerns me. I am preparing a paper on these and other very odd findings in this fusion region, because the published papers are darwinian biased and not interesting. The region could be interpreted as in accord with PEH, although I do not see an obvious mechasism. It may also be explained as de novo creation plus non-random mutations. I think the ID community, if they are really concerned about their origin, should appoint some poeple to find out.
For sure, there is no Darwinian explanation. The genome projects are the end of Darwinism. You prepared PEH, I prepared GUToB. We are both prepared for this new era.
Cheers, mate
Peter
[ 19. July 2007, 03:34: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. July 2007 05:54
Peter
It is nice to realize we have SOME agreement. The MECHANISM for a long past evolution has always been the only issue. I still see no important role for mutation or selection. As near as I can fathom, the whole darn thing was planned from beginning to end. In other words, ALL allelic mutations are either deleterious or neutral. All other mutations were part of the Plan. Most important, natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. How anyone can still believe in that nonsense is beyond me!
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
I wish he had said WAS instead of IS.
The scary part is that evolution is apparently finished and there is no reason to believe it will ever resume.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
