|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. July 2007 15:34
Peter
Call my attention to your paper which PROVES that we do not share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee when that paper appears. Until then I will assume that we do!
Martin
Thanks for the link to Goethe. Goethe was first and foremost a philosopher and not a scientist.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a mirror. I can grasp only the inductive method...the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Albert Einstein
Plant evolution is even more discontinuous than animal evolution without a single obvious link between any of the plant divisions. The fossil record is the record of profound discontinuities which is what prompted Schindewolf to say -
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.... The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
A monophyletic evolution is far from established.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 25. July 2007 03:27
"Call my attention to your paper which PROVES that we do not share a common ancestor with the chimpanzee when that paper appears. Until then I will assume that we do!"
The papers have been published. The chimp and human genome comparisons showed humans have 36 protein coding genes not found in the genome of chimapnzees. In addition, unique novel miRNA genes were found in humans not present in primates. That is biological data qualifying as evidence that we do NOT have a common ancestor with chimps. Anyone who claims the opposite must show where the extra information in the human genome originated. The Darwians can't. If you can be my guest, and I will be a Davisonian saltationist.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 25. July 2007 05:51
Peter
We can ask the question about where the information came from for all of evolution, not just for humans. I am sure there are other organisms which have unique information not shared with others. Does that mean we must abandon reproductive continuity with change - evolution? Nobody knows where all the information came from. The Darwnians think it was all accidentally produced. Gould even said as much -
"Intelligence was an evolutionary accident."
I am not at all certain we will ever learn the source of the evolutionary information but is that even important at this stage? There is an enormous body of evidence that such information was once present and was tapped as the evolutionary scenario unfolded. Leo Berg recognized this -
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406
So did William Bateson -
"...an unpacking of an originl complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present."
Quoted by Berg in Nomogenesis, page 359
So did Reginald C. Punnett, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse as I have documented elsewhere.
Evolution may very well have involved the production of new genes along the way. Indeed that is very likely. Genes are nothing but carriers of specific information. Their scheduled production must also have been "prescribed." The important thing is that chance could never have played any role in a creative, ascending evolution, an evolution which I believe terminated with the appearance of Homo sapiens.
On the one hand we have Berg's Nomogenesis or "evolution according to law." On the other hand we have Darwinian Tychogenesis or "evolution according to chance." Darwinian evolution is Tychogenesis pure and simple, the most infantile, unrealistic, unsubstantiated concept ever generated by the human imagination. I am convinced that all of evolution was Bergian and one day will be so described.
It is hard to believe isn't it!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. July 2007 03:08
Peter
Our karyotype differs from that of the chimp by about a dozen restructurings of what appears otherwise to be the same basic chromosomal structure. I take that to mean that there have been twelve or so discrete intermediates that have come and gone during our long separation. I believe this is a reasonable number considering the incompleteness of the fossil record. Our chromosomal similarity to our living relatives places the chimp as our closest relative followed by the gorilla and then the orang. This is exactly the same order as what has long been accepted from anatomical and biochemical studies.
The difficulty I have with your claim that we do not share ancestry with ALL the other primates hinges on these undeniable facts. I admit that when we go beyond the level of the mammalian primate order that discontinuities appear that are still unexplained. Until those discontinuities are accounted for we must consider the possibility of polyphyletic origins, even separate creations. I am simply not able to accept your conviction that we do not share common ancestry with the chimp or, for that matter, with any other primate. Leo Berg claimed "tens of thousands of primary forms." Unfortunately, he never further explained what he meant by that. For all I know he may have been correct. However, to deny common ancestry with the chimpanzee as you have done, is to deny evolution, something I am not yet ready to do. Of course you may be correct. Only time will tell.
"A past evoltion is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 29. July 2007 09:19
Peter
There already exists a forum tailor made for your views. It is called Uncommon Descent. It would be interesting to see how you are received there. May I assume you also have not been banned?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 30. July 2007 08:46
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46ade407cd5759d1;act=ST;f=14;t=5096;st=150
Please note especially the moronic comment by Arden Chatfield in which he asks Martin WHY some swans are black, some white. You would think that having been repeatedly reminded, poor Arden would finally realize that scientists never ask WHY, only HOW. I am afraid not, not Arden Chatfield, not Alan Fox, not Wesley Elsberry, not P.Z. Myers, not any worshipper of the Great God Chance and most especially not Richard Dawkins, the most rabid, congenital atheist in the history of human communication and the contemporary role model for the thousands of other like-minded, "born that way," victims in a perfectly determined universe.
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
"Never in the history of human conflict have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston Churchill
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. July 2007, 13:36: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 03. August 2007 19:08
John, you wrote to Peter:
"We can ask the question about where the information came from for all of evolution, not just for humans. I am sure there are other organisms which have unique information not shared with others. Does that mean we must abandon reproductive continuity with change - evolution? Nobody knows where all the information came from. The Darwnians think it was all accidentally produced. Gould even said as much -
'Intelligence was an evolutionary accident.'
I am not at all certain we will ever learn the source of the evolutionary information but is that even important at this stage? There is an enormous body of evidence that such information was once present and was tapped as the evolutionary scenario unfolded."
As I pointed out in my article, "Life: The Cosmological Constant" (http://www.worldsentinel.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=5722) the source of information for the entire universe unfolds from the cosmic system's input and output, which input and output is human life or intelligence.
As Krishna explained it to Prince Arjuna in the Bhagavad-Gita:
“O Arjuna, I am the divine seed of all lives. In this world, nothing animate or inanimate exists without me.”
In harmony with Krishna’s teaching, in the Bible we find that by Christ “all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, all things have been created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together" Col. 1:15-17.
As Christ put it in Revelation 22:13, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
In a word, human life or intelligence constitutes the seed of the universe, or the cosmic system's input and output.
The theory that the information for the generation of the universe comes from human intelligence is falsifiable, provided you can demonstrate that at one time no human intelligence existed, or that human intelligence is not everlasting. So I'd like to see who made the observation that prior to the generation of the universe no human intelligence existed, and that the dissolution of the universe equals the end of human intelligence.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 04. August 2007 06:03
Dear Kazmer,
I will not attempt to respond directly to your sincere convictions for fear that I might offend someone for whom I have great respect. You have been one of my very few supporters by presenting my perspective as part of your own convictions at American Chronicle and elsewhere. For that I am very grateful.
Instead, I will quote another for whom I also have great respect -
"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, Ideas and Opinions, 1954.
That is even more true now than it was a half century ago. Witness the "hate speech" at Pharyngula where Myers and his followers find it necessary to depict the Holy Father as a moral degenerate. Larry Moran at Sandwalk, P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula and Wesley Elsberry at After The Bar Closes all now openly condone and thereby promote the use of obscenities, including the F word, by their loyal followers in dealing with anyone who does not share their congenital atheism. This is actually good news as it reveals more than anything else the pathetic weakness of the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, an evolution driven by chance. Those of us who know better should rejoice at the desperate lengths to which these poor souls are forced to go to defend the indefensible, Darwinian mysticism, an hypothesis without a shred of tangible support.
I love it so!
'A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. September 2007 00:01
The above mentioned article by John is unaccessible. I receive this message:
Sorry, some required files are missing, if you intended to view a topic, it's possible that it's been moved or deleted. Please go back and try again.
Anyway I recommend you checking the thread "Fronloading the dumbest idea ever" where "knowledgeable evolutionists" do not response any of the issue I adressed. They excuse themselves not to be scientists or they try to kill the discussion with stupid questions.
I got a feeling that more fit head for the thread should be instead: "Natural selection the dumbest idea ever".
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. September 2007 00:51
Martin
Of course it was deleted. So were the pornographic pictures some time ago. We will just have to keep exposing Wesley's shabby little inner sanctum as the intellectual cesspool it really is. Personally, I think the proprietors of both Pharyngula and Panda's Thumb should fold their tents and shuffle off to Buffalo with their cowardly tails between their legs. One thing is for sure. They won't show up here.
I hope you are listening Wesley; you too P.Z.
RSVP
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 05. September 2007, 01:13: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. September 2007 06:21
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
I refer you to the thread poisted this morning September 5, 6:00 AM, incidentally, already the third of the day! Beneath the picture, and completely unexplained, is one of the most arrogant statements I have ever encountered on the internet. It goes this way -
SOMEDAY,YOU WILL ALL BOW TO ME.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
I now predict that as soon as he finds out that I have exposed him, he will delete it! You will have to hurry!
"A past evolution is undeniable. a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 05. September 2007 06:55
quote:
They excuse themselves not to be scientists...
But many who dispute modern evolutionary theory such as intelligent design proponents are not scientists either. In fact, do I not recall you indicating you have no training or experience in science beyond school level? quote:
...or they try to kill the discussion with stupid questions.
People are just asking you to elaborate on one or other example that you have mentioned that you claim is not able to be accounted for by current evolutionary theory.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 05. September 2007 10:04
There is no current evolutionary "theory." There is little but Darwinian Mysticism and Christian Fundamentalism, neither of which has anything to do with the great mystery of organic evolution. As for Alan Fox's training in science, I understand he has a Bachelor's degree in Biochemistry. He has never published a paper or offered an original idea in his life that ever had anything to do with the purposes of this forum. I also suggest that Martin also ignore him as he has a long history of being an obstructionist to anything which departs from Darwinian atheist orthodoxy. He is nothing but Wesley Elsberry's roving one man goon squad. Even worse, he is a professed admirer of Richard Dawkins. In his own words Dawkins is a "good read." So is Ray Bradbury, and for the same reasons!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. September 2007 13:55
No one has responded at AtBC to my examples where Natural selection is plausible explanation only for hard-core darwinian fundamentalists.
Even Alan Fox didn't respond to my post that adressesd his latest response. But Alan like to pretend here that I didn't answer his question. He continues to repeat the same question like an automata - if DNA in dinos has been found and where. Like Arden who created a questionary for me how old the Earth is.
Whatever I write Arden ask me the same stupid question how old the Earth is. Sometimes also Alan enter the discussion with off-topic question of DNA of Dinos.
I would say doctor Meyers call such experts "knowledgeable evolutionists" who ripe you apart with their "arguments".
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
