|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. January 2005 10:46
Natural Selection never did anything except to maintain the status quo and that usually only for limited times. As such it was anti-evolutionary.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis page 406
IP: Logged
|
|
Jim Skipper
Member
Member # 1510
|
posted 14. January 2005 22:47
When I said "selection effect," I meant a different kind. "Selection effect" is a a factor in flawed arguments when the conclusion presented is drawn from a selection of data that supports the conclusion. The selection is often made unintentionally.
For example, watching the evening news, one might believe that nothing good ever happens. Most of it is crime, disasters and generally bad behavior. However, we know that does not reflect the real world, it is just what gets reported.
In the case of my data on genomes, I based it on sequenced species. Most sequenced species have fewer base pairs than humans. That does not mean that most organisms have shorter DNA. Shorter DNA is easier and cheaper to sequence, so more short genomes have been sequenced than long genomes. Looking at sequenced genomes gives a possibly false impression of the full range of genomes, because shorter genomes tend to be selected.
You will find the selection effect in a lot of arguments, where people present a subset of data that proves their point, and ignores a larger set of data that disproves their point.
IP: Logged
|
|
G Lyn
Member
Member # 1705
|
posted 29. July 2005 14:34
"There is absolutely no evidence that the environment can in any way be implicated as influencing any evolving genome."
What about the effects of radiation ?
Any evolutionary role for chance is mythological and unconfirmed for any higher organism.
Please explain ?
Prokaryotes are not models for diploid evolution and, as near as I can establish, evolution beyond the production of varieties or subspecies is no longer in progress.
What evidence do you have for this ?
To maintain otherwise is without foundation.
What would constitute foundation ?
Both assume predetermined information and its release by derepression, a feature which also characterizes ontogeny.
What evidence do you have for this assumption ?
I would like to be more able to understand your comments.
IP: Logged
|
|
G Lyn
Member
Member # 1705
|
posted 29. July 2005 14:36
" Natural Selection never did anything except to maintain the status quo and that usually only for limited times. As such it was anti-evolutionary.£
What do you mean by this ?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. September 2005 16:17
I like the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis (PEH). That doesn´t sound scientific - what I mean is that based on the scientific evidences and my reading over the last few years I have come to accept Davison´s PEH, which as he says is not new, but is there in the literature if one looks carefully - i.e the work of Grasse and others. It was reading Fred Hoyle´s "Mathematics of Evolution" that made me think of this type of theory - because Hoyle shows rather clearly that the neo-Darwinian theory could never bring about new genes in the geological time available - the reason why he believed in panspermia - the introduction of novel genetic material from space. I am not happy with the panspermia hypothesis but genetic information input -yes - and I am encouraged by the way this is supported by the 4th law of thermodynamics (as recently formulated by Bill Dembski) that says that CSI (Complex Specified Information - i.e. biotic information) can only decrease with time.
quote:
"There is absolutely no evidence that the environment can in any way be implicated as influencing any evolving genome."
I guess this was an overstatement. I guess John was not talking about micro-evolution not macro. Even so I am not fully convinced he is right. I heard a biologist last year saying that the pathway taken in early development by the fertilized zygote could be influenced by environmental chemistry - drugs. This opens up the possibility that a new environment of an organism could trigger across the whole species a pre-programmed change in the genome and phenotype.
quote:
What about the effects of radiation
Radiation can only destroy genomic information - not produce anything that is functionally new.
quote:
Any evolutionary role for chance is mythological and unconfirmed for any higher organism
Once again I believe this refers to macro-evolutionary change and not change within a species. Change within a species can be effected by chance - i.e. the neo-Darwinian mechanism, both in random mating, cross-over and mutation. All this amounts, however to an information loss not gain.
quote:
Prokaryotes are not models for diploid evolution and, as near as I can establish, evolution beyond the production of varieties or subspecies is no longer in progress
This shows the need for further research work on the PEH. Prokaryotes are a very different type of organism to eukaryotes. Fred Hoyle especially mentions this in his book. In particular he points to the Histone 4 protein that is vital to have in exact form (only 4-8 or so amino acids vary across the whole spectrum of eurkaryotic life) for the meiotic devision. The shape of Histone-4 is vital for the correct wrapping of the DNA onto the nucleosomes - and any error would mean the end of reproduction. Did this protein come out of the prokaryotes via the neo-Darwinian mechanism? Hoyle says "no way". This together with many other evidences suggest multiple stages ofinformation input into phylogenetic development of living organisms. This is true unless, perhaps, the histone-4 gene was indeed there - embedded in some complex way - within the prokaryote genome, and it was triggered into its functional form (perhaps by some DNA shuffling) by some external (perhaps chemical) stimulus. I find this rather unbeliebable, but find no way to strictly rule it out. How can science address these issues? First maybe it is necessary for science to "come clean" about the failure of the neo-Darwinian hypothesis (as regards macro-evolution)?
Related question to Prof Davison - to what extent have you been successful in publishing your version of the PEH in the scientific literature?
-Christopher
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. October 2005 15:11
Christopher D. Beling
Thank you for the kind words concerning the PEH. The reason I have not responded is because I thought I was banned. I must have confused this forum with ARN, Panda's Thumb, CreationEvolution Design, Pharyngula, EvC, The Austringer, Uncommon Descent, FringeSciences and a number of other forums too numerous to recall or itemize.
I was little taken aback by your comment that the PEH might not sound very scientific, although I understand why many might think so. Actually the PEH is the only scientific hypothesis currently on the horizon dealing with the mechanism of organic evolution. Neither the Lamarckian nor the Darwinian hypothesis has survived either the experimental laboratory, centuries of human experience or, most importantly, the incontravertible testimony of the fossil record. I arrived at the PEH through the time honored method of eliminating all alternative hypotheses. That elimination has included Fundamentalist Christian, Genesis based, young earth Creationism. Nevertheless, one or more Creators are mandatory in order to provide the prescribed information which lies at the heart of the hypothesis. I see no way that conclusion can be avoided nor should it be. There is also no compelling reason to postulate a single creation of life and several reasons not to. We should be reminded of how little is really known about the great mystery of evolution and keep an open mind, not an easy task these days I might add.
The origin of the PEH can be traced back to St George Jackson Mivart who a mere 12 years after Darwin's "Origin of Species" pointed out the fatal flaw in that proposal by reminding us that Natural Selection can hardly influence a structure that has not yet appeared. Next came Henry Fairfield Osborn (1909) who maintained that there was no evidence for chance having played a role in the evolution of any vertebrate or invertebrate line. Next there was William Bateson, the father of modern genetics, who finally abandoned even Mendelism as having any significance to the evolutionary scenario. Leo Berg,s "Nomogenesis" (1922), in my opinion the most important evolutionary text ever published, also denied any role for chance and properly identified Natural Selection as a conservative rather than a creative force, a conclusion which had independently been presented by Reginald C. Punnett in "Mimicry in Butterflies" (1915).
We also should not neglect Alfred Russel Wallace you completely abadoned the notion he cofounded in his 1911 book "The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose."
Richard B. Goldschmidt also abandoned the Mendelian basis for evolution in his 1940 book "The Material Basis of Evolution" in which he properly identified the chromosome, not the gene, as the unit of evolutionary change. Otto Schindewolf's "Basic Questions in Paleontology" (1950, translated 1993)also contrubuted substantially to the PEH by pointing out again the absence of any role for chance in the orthoevolution of so many lines.
You mention Pierre Grasse who also exposed Darwinism in so many respects and reminded us that it prevails only because of what he called the "Olympian assurance'" with which its supporters continue to proclaim it.
So you see the PEH has a long and distinguished history. My role has been primarily to integrate the contributions of some of the finest minds of two centuries and formalize their conclusions as a new hypothesis for organic change - A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I should remind everyone that there is as yet no theory sensu strictu of evolution. Theories are verified hypotheses. Neither Lamarckism or Darwinism qualify. The PEH remains in complete accord with evrything we really know about the origin and subsequent evolution of life on this planet.
You ask how my several papers have ben recived by the scientific community. I can answer that by replying - the very same way that the ideas and conclusions of my noted predecessors have been received. We critics of the Darwinian model simply do not and have not existed. If you don't believe me consult the indexes of Mayr's "The History of Biological Thought" or Gould's "The Structure of Evolutionay Theory." We cannot and accordingly must not exist because if we did it would mean that everything the evolutionary establishment hold dear would be exposed as a myth that, in my carefully considered opinion, it actually is.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. October 2005 17:00
"A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" appeared in Rivista di Biologia 98; 155-166, 2005. The version here lacks only the single figure. Otherwise not a word was changed.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 07. October 2005 21:32
Hi John, so nice to hear from you - had almost given up hope!
quote:
I was little taken aback by your comment that the PEH might not sound very scientific, although I understand why many might think so.
So sorry for the confusion. Here you definitely misunderstood my sentence. When I said "unscientific" I was refering only to my use of the word "like" in my statement "I like the PEH". Objective-rational science is meant to be independent of "likes" and "dislikes" (i.e subjective-emotional elements!).
I fully agree with you that the PEH is the best - and only hypothesis that presently is out there that concurs with what we know about the way biological systems behave. That is my perspective based on the mathematics of evolution that I have so far studied. Even so - to be totally honest on this matter - there is also one other competing hypothesis that some folk seem to be proposing that comes under the general heading of "Self-Organizational Models" and/or "Structuralism" [nice review is given by Stephen Meyer in his paper "The origin of biological information" - Proc. Biol. Soc of Washington 117 (2004) 213]. In both cases physical principals are invoked within a self contained universe to explain the onset of new biological information. The thread by Christopher Humphreys on the Vesica Attractor falls into this category. I would like to make some comment to Christopher but presently don't know how. It is my belief though - and I would like to show this mathematically - that physical principals cannot generate the quantity of specified information we see in biotic systems. Not knowing enough about chaos theory and non-equilibrium thermodynamics at present I find this a challenge. Do you have any comments regarding this type of hypothesis?
The PEH resonates very nicely with the developing 4th law of thermodynamics - I don't know if you have any comments about this?
I very much appreciate your comments on the history of the PEH. I would like to read more of these historical works and your work too. I have many more ideas and questions to communicate regarding the PEH and hope we could keep this thread going, and get more input from others.
- Chris
[ 08. October 2005, 03:30: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. October 2005 07:08
Chris
I have had more than one person tell me that they don't like the PEH without ever explaining why. I'm afraid that what we like and dislike in this world is also prescribed. It certainly has been proved to be so for beer, politics, toothpaste, wives and just about every other factor that has been carefully examined. I am very impressed with William Wright's book "Born That Way" and recommend it for all especially since it seems to be in accord with the PEH.
I do not believe that there exists a self-generating source of evolutionary information nor do I believe there ever was such an endogenous source. That is only a belief however. If that could be demonstrated it would be fatal to the PEH and I would be the first to admit it.
Pierre Grasse put it this way:
"But according to Darwinian doctrine and Crick's central dogma, DNA is not only the depository and distributor of information but its SOLE CREATOR. I do not believe this to be true."
"Evolution of Living Organisms" page 224 (his emphasis)
I agree. Incidentally I disagree with the implication of the title of Grasse's very important book as I do not believe evolution is any longer in progress beyond the formation of varieties and in some instances subspecies. In all fairness neither does Grasse:
"Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanims which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
ibid page 71
I have proposed such a mechanism in the form of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735, 1984). It has yet to be tested with suitable material. I was unable to do it and I can understand why the Darwinians might be hesitant to test it since it could prove to be fatal to their own hypothesis which they no longer test either. The last serious attempt to transform species under controlled conditions was by Dobzhansky with Drosophila and much to his credit he admitted failure.
It is possible that macroevolution might still be going on but I am confident that it cannot be done through the agency of sexual reproduction. Sexual reporduction is much to conservative a device to allow major changes to be produced. I agree entirely with Robert Broom and Julian Huxley that a new Genus has not appeared in more than 2 million years and I further maintain that a new species can not be demonstrated to have appeared from a known ancestor in historical times. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has proven to be a self-regulating and self-terminating phenomenon with the death of the individual corresponding with the cessation of evolutionary change and, for the vast majority of all species, their ultimate extinction.
I realize these are contentious matters and I too welcome their further discussion.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. October 2005 10:48
Just to make things interesting I ask anyone to name any two living diploid species and provide the evidence that one is ancestral to the other. I am convinced that what we see today is not evolution in action as the Darwinians continue to maintain. What we observe are the terminal products of an evolution no longer in progress.
There is one exception that I am aware of. It has been demonstrated experimentally that yeast (Sacharomyces) can undergo a kind of reverse evolution, but that was done experimentally. Also the nature of yeast species is not well defined, so I would modify my challenge by limiting it to diploid plants and animals whose taxonomic identity is unambiguous.
IP: Logged
|
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 09. October 2005 21:37
Greetings John,
Very nice to hear from you. Congratulations on getting your work published. I'm delighted share with others what I have learned from you writings.
Salvador
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. October 2005 23:03
Thank you Salvado and and I accept your judgement until I see that thus thread will go further and until we see this discussion does indeed proceed any further which in my experience says it will not. That indeed is the crux of the matter. It is up to the members of this intellectual community in which I am still able to communicate to make that decision. Is Darwinism in all its many cloaks a hoax or is it not? I really cannot transmit my feelings in any other rational way? That is the question. Where are the reponses?
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 10. October 2005 11:37
Good to see you back, John! I agree with everything you've said above, except that (in the interest of methodological naturalism) I would prefer to see the initial origin of the PEH in nonlinear self-organization rather than in a divine mind. Not that I'm not a theist, but I just see the teleological, religious view of the world as separate from, but parallel to, the physical, scientific view of the world. (And, of course, nonlinear self-organization is as much anathema to the Darwinists as is intelligent design.)
As a simple example of how extraordinarily complex events and structures can arise from "self-organizational" nonlinear processes, consider the well-known example of the R-Pentomino structure in Conway's Game of Life: From a structure composed of 5 dots, together with a few simple rules, the Life plane "evolves" extraordinarily complex structures and events over 1103 generations! Though some have tried to give this a reductionistic explanation, in fact the Life "gliders", "glider guns", "spaceships", etc. arise at higher levels of organization due to nonlinear interactions that cannot be directly deduced from the simple Life rules and the simple R-Pentamino structure.
Analogously, life on earth may have evolved from simple one-celled structures via similar, prescribed nonlinear self-organizational processes in accordance with the PEH. Thus I don't think that theism is strictly necessary for the PEH to be true, and a natural, purely physical demonstration of the PEH should be possible. (See also the papers of the late Robert F. DeHaan on macrodevelopment, and my own book FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM, both of which, I've come to agree, strongly support your Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. October 2005 15:07
Thanks Phil
I guess I am a theist, although of the Einstein, Spinoza variety. I just can't see a self organizing system in operation anywhere that could begin to accomplish what we know has happened. The very word evolution derives from the Latin evolvo meaning to unfold as the pages of a book. As I said, if such a bootstrap mechanism could be demonstrated, I would abandon the PEH instantly. Until that happens I will continuie postulating one or more intelligent designers of unfathomable intelligence. In any event, the facts which have led me to this conclusion in no way involve a personal God of any sort and I will reject and resent any suggestion that I am a mystic. Facts can be very stubborn things as someone once said.
I believe it was Bateson who first suggested a predetermined evolution as "an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present." Nature, Volume 93, 1914. I also join with Bateson in rejecting Mendelian (sexual) genetics as having any evolutionary significance beyond the establishment of varieties. Sexual reproduction does not support macroveolution as nearly as I have been able to ascertain.
I also tend to agree with Leo Berg that there may have been "tens of thousands of primary forms." Nomogenesis, page 406. There is no reason to insist on a single (monophyletic)origin of life. Miracles are not limited as to their frequency or at least I don't think so. Incidentally, Berg never mentioned a deity at any point and neither have I in hard copy. It is not necessary and contributes nothing to our understanding. Nevertheless, I find one or more pretty hard to eliminate.
There is nothing new under the sun.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 10. October 2005 21:22
quote:
Just to make things interesting I ask anyone to name any two living diploid species and provide the evidence that one is ancestral to the other
John, could you clarify this question a little further? Surely any "two living diploid species" would according to Darwinian theory have to originated from a single ancestral form which would not be alive today. Are you suggesting the particular case where the ancestral form has not mutated into something else - and that the speciation event which occured just produced a single new species - leaving us with both the ancestral form plus the new form (species)?
The second clarification I have in addressing your question rigorously is - what in fact consitutes "a species"? I am aware by the thread of Fernando -"ID to generate biodiversity" and other sources that many of the species within a genus are in fact the same species: I.E. their genetic structure - position of alleles - chromosomes etc are identical and that "in-vitro" fertilization would produce fertile offspring. Would you agree with Fernando that much of what has hitherto been classified as "species" are in fact sub-species? Can we agree on the definition of "fertile offspring under in-vitro fertilization"?
Thanks for the clarification - I think it is important because we want to know the nature of the hypothesis we are evidencing against: - Chris
[ 10. October 2005, 21:28: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic