|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. July 2007 06:00
P.S.
The ID crowd are still kicking the long dead Darwinian horse. They offer nothing as a substitute and they have banned me from all their proceedings.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 19. July 2007 06:57
John,
"the whole darn thing was planned from beginning to end."
Who planned it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 19. July 2007 12:41
Peter,
as far as I can judge the idea of directed evolution has had long tradition. Leo Berg quoted Dacque, German paleontologist I have never heard about yet. I hit on the interesting article
"Goethes langer Atem: »Methodologische Ideologien«
in der Deutschen Morphologie des 20. Jahrhunderts*". John Davison's prescribed hypothesis is fully in accordance with Dacque claim which I dare not to translate from German:
quote:
»Typen - soviel wenigstens läßt sich mit übertragener Ausdrucksweise sagen - sind den wirklichen Formen zugrunde liegende, in ihnen realisierte Artpotenzen. Es sind keineswegs nur Abstraktionen aus den konkreten Formen, sondern sind letzte genotypische Realitäten und Potenzen jenseits des Gegenständlich-Phänotypischen.«62
Dacque idea is that forms, ideal platonic "typen"
are driving force of evolution.
http://www.evolutionsbiologen.de/goethesatem.pdf
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. July 2007 13:27
Thank you Martin.
Peter
What makes you think it was a who?
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.... The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. July 2007 14:22
Here are a couple of examples of the achievement of ideal, predetermined "types"
The trunk of the elephant resulted from the saltational elongation and specializarion of the upper lip of that line's ancestors. Can one imagine any further refinement of that organ?
Similarly the evolution of the horse involved a series of reductions in the number of digits from the primitive number of five to one in the modern horse. The hoof of the horse is the homologue of the finger nail in man.
The contemporary flora and fauna represent the final achievement over millions of years of a finite number of discrete instantaneous transformations not one of which has ever been reversed. Evolution was never gradual but rather stepwise without any transforming states. That is why we know that Mendelian genetics could never have played a role in a directed evolution because all Mendelian alleles are reversible, something organic evolution has never been.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed... The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Otto Schindewolf
Furthermore, I am convinced that ALL the final ideal "types" have been realized and can now only become extinct without any further progressive change. According to both Robert Broom and Julian Huxley, a new genus has not appeared in two million years and I still maintain that a new physiologically confirmed species has not appeared in historical times. That most certainly was not true several millions of years ago. Just as ontogeny involves the progressive loss of the capacity to change and culminates in the death of the individual, so phylogeny has done exactly the same. It is my opinion that, just as many taxonomic categories already have become extinct, contemporary organisms are also doomed to extinction. It is now in progress and man is accelerating the process. He too will become extinct.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. July 2007, 16:57: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. July 2007 03:37
Martin and John,
The real problem I have with frontloading and PEH is that it cannot have taken eons of time. It cannot be possible to retain unused genetic material stable in the genome for billions, or even millions of years. Every geneticist wil point out this hurdle. You have to get rid of the millions of years, or propose a mechanisme how it was retained. Then you have a theory.
I believe the long ages can be explained away using Einstein's equations. Time is relative, genetics isn't.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. July 2007 05:22
Peter
I would love to be able to "propose a mechanism" for how information was retained. The facts indicate that the information WAS retained. I have presented those facts in my published papers. They include the remarkable parallels that exist in the marsupial and placental fauna including saber-toothed cats appearing and then disappearing at sites separated by millions of years temporally and thousands of miles spatially. I believe that, just as the information for ontogeny can be retained generation after generation for many millions of years as in the oyster, so the information for evolution must also have been retained. Apparently that information is no longer available for use since evolution is now finished. Maybe it is now "junk DNA" for all I know. Ontogeny involves the LOSS of options and phylogeny may have involved the same to a large extent. Once all options are gone the species becomes frozen and, with very few exceptions, is doomed to extinction. If you deny that such retention was once involved, you better be prepared to explain the fossil record which speaks otherwise. It is the final and indisputable judge of any hypothesis. Everything it has divulged supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and absolutely nothing indicates a phylogeny driven by chance.
"Any system which purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, page 245, the statement in italics for emphasis.
Twenty five years before Grasse -
"...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."
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, also in italics for emphasis.
The PEH provides just such a mechanism and I intend to stick with it until it has been proven to be wrong. Darwinism was long ago proven to be a complete disaster. I challenge others to do the same with the PEH. It sure hasn't happened yet. It has, as far as I know, yet to be cited in the professional literature or in any of the many publications of the IDists who, like the atheist Darwinians, continue to pretend that I and my sources do not exist.
Any hypothesis for evolution has to explain the fossil record because it must not be ignored. The Darwinians have always ignored it and still do. For example, they treat the marsupial/placental similarities as nothing more than environmentally driven "convergences," a mystical notion for which not a shred of evidence exists.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. July 2007 06:03
"The facts indicate that the information WAS retained."
John this is not the way we argue in science. You know that. This reminds me of how Darwinians argue to explain redundancies.
The fact is: there is delicate information in the chromosomes. We know this information is stable only when continuously subjected to natural selection (a conservative force), as it filters out debilitating mutations. So how could frontloaded information be retained for millions/billions of years? Even duplications or multiplications will disappear if unused. If this were such mechanisms we would have observed the remnants in the genomes.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. July 2007 14:58
Peter
You are now telling me I am not a scientist? At least I haven't succumbed to de novo creation and a young earth like you have. Publish your hypothesis if you have one and can find a journal that will accept it.
In future I recommend that you leave me and my sources alone. Very little of the PEH is even new with me. It is based on the shared conclusions of several first class scientsts not one of whom would even dream of special creation, a young earth or an evolution in which random mutation played any role whatsoever.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. July 2007 15:45
Incidentally, there is a perfectly sound reason why one might not find the remnants of a mechanism which no longer exists. As far as I know there is not a single creature alive today that can ever naturally produce a new "kind" of offspring. I am not alone.
"Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71
"For the arthropods, represented by their highest group, the insects, the FULL STOP seems to have come in the early Cenozoic: even the ants and bees have made NO ADVANCE since the Oligocene. For the birds, the Miocene MARKED THE END; for the mammals, the Pliocene."
Julian Huxley, Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, page 571, my emphasis.
Not surprisingly, the Darwinians have deliberately and cynically ignored the man who coined the term "The Modern Synthesis."
Well I haven't!
How Huxley and Dobzhansky managed to remain Darwinians remains a mystery as they were both instrumental in demonstrating its complete inadequacy.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 20. July 2007, 15:47: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. July 2007 16:36
Leo Berg's Nomogenesis is available on-line in Russian language. It is photo-copy of his book from 1922 in format djvu you can download free.
Л.С.Берг. Номогенез, или эволюция на основе закономерностей. 1922 (djvu, 5Mb)
His book and many others interesting materials -some of them in English - are at:
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/
[ 20. July 2007, 16:37: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. July 2007 23:22
Thank you Martin. I am proud to have you as my only visible ally. Thank you for doing what they are afraid to let me do at Panda's Thumb, EvC, ARN, Dawkins' fan club, Paryngula, Uncommon Descent and God only knows how many other venues from which I am no longer allowed to hold forth.
"The applause of a single human being is of great consequence,"
Samuel Johnson
I also remind our many adversaries, that Stephen J. Gould dispensed with Otto Schindewolf, probably the greatest paleontologist of all time, by describing his views as "spectacularly flawed," a comment for which this investigator will never forgive him. I am sick of the persistence of the biggest hoax that has ever disgraced real science in the history of human communication. Gould's mindless, knee jerk response, coming from another atheist homozygous pontificator just like Richard Dawkins and P.Z. Myers, represents the final death throes of an ideololgical nightmare which should have ended long ago. Not one of these three prolific recent exponents of the atheist mindset ever did an experiment or dirtied their hands in the field as objective students of nature. The are all nothing but hide bound, self absorbed blowhards, doomed to the oblivion they so richly deserve.
They have not only contributed absolutely nothing, but far worse, they have inhibited the search for the truth by attracting like minded "prescribed" creatures in enormous numbers to join them in their ideologicaly hamstrung view of a universe devoid of purpose and design.
There is absolutely NOTHING in the entire Darwinian fantasy that ever had anything to do with the formation of species or any other aspect of organic evolution. Those who somehow can still support this fantasy are deluded fools, destined to be just that for all time. I, with Martin, am delighted to be a part of their exposure and final demise!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 21. July 2007, 05:23: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 23. July 2007 03:19
"You are now telling me I am not a scientist?"
Do not jump to conclusions, John, but you presuppose long ages. I think the biological data cannot hold in the light of long ages. Certainly a frontloaded hypothesis suffers from long ages.
"At least I haven't succumbed to de novo creation and a young earth like you have. Publish your hypothesis if you have one and can find a journal that will accept it."
As soon as you argue that redundancy is not in accord with long ages you are labeled, John, and you know that, because you do it yourself.
"In future I recommend that you leave me and my sources alone. Very little of the PEH is even new with me."
I pointed out a theoretical problem, so you should address it.
"It is based on the shared conclusions of several first class scientsts not one of whom would even dream of special creation, a young earth or an evolution in which random mutation played any role whatsoever."
So? Darwinism is based on shared conclusions of thousands of outstanding scientists. It is not an argument.
In the meantime I checked the 2q13-2q14.1 region in human chromosome 2, and Im now convinced it is NOT evidence at all for a fusion of two ancestral primate chromosomes (chimp homologues 12 and 13). A close up scrutiny reveals some unpublished surprises in this region, which further convinced me we do not share a common ancestor with chimpanzees. I prepared a paper and will submit it, but not to the Darwinian community. For obvious reasons.
[ 23. July 2007, 03:19: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. July 2007 06:48
Nonsense!
We don't even know when the front-loading took place, how many times it took place, where it took place or what did the front-loading. THAT a front-loaded evolution once existed is obvious to me as it was to Bateson, Berg, Grasse and Schindewolf, not to mention Einstein. It is also obvious to me at least that it is finished! Grasse, Huxley and Broom felt the same way. I don't know who your sources are or even if you have any. Everyone knows who mine are, real scientists who independently reached the same conclusion that chance and mutation had virtually nothing to do with any aspect of organic evolution.
You are making a serious error if you publish in a creation journal. It was bad enough that I had to publish in Rivista! I am not welcome there any more either which suits me just fine.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. July 2007 13:45
John and Peter,
Have you ever read Goethe's "Metamorphosis of plants"? It as available in German and it's English translation (English is first) with pictures here:
http://www.aracaria.com.au/research/goethe/metamorphy_shtml/1.shtml
I mentioned it because German idealistic morphologists sought inspiration in it and considered it as the crucial work. Also Adolf Portmann continues in Goethes tradition of research. Intuition, "underestanding as resonance" is very important part of research according Troll . But German idealistic morphologists as Dacque, Naeff, Troll (and also Portmann sohehow) accepted evolution as a fact. They interpretation of it is a non-darwinian neverthenless. Their interpretation is more in accordance with John concept than with creationism.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
