|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 15. October 2005 00:56
John: Quite relieved that you were not offended by any of my comments! After posting I felt it was not appropriate for me to suggest that you should not be offended by those who stubbornly stick to the NDH - who block guys like you from publishing - and who refuse to cite your work. I too have had my own suffering (and still do) with regard to the NDH and know how you feel - (particularly painful to me is the lack of academic freedom students have in my institution to even question the validity of the NDH). Actually, I was only trying (i) to point out that if things really are as "pre-determined" as you suppose then really such sentiments are of little substance - or just themselves a consequence of the pre-determination and (ii) to get you to question your own metaphysical assumptions so that you might be more metaphysically "free" in interpreting the PEH at the DEEPER level.
quote:
None of us ever found it necessary to invoke a personal God
This might be so - but
[1] many other equally great scientists (e.g. Newton, Faraday, Maxwell) have also held to a personal God so the inference here is not particularly strong
[2] even Einstein's view of God was severely challenged - and I believe changed - after the experimental discovery of the expansion of the universe (and implication for an origin event - the Big Bang). You are no doubt familiar with the way he "cooked" his general relativity equations in order to keep the universe static (with the cosmological constant). Latter he admitted that it was the biggest blunder of his life and realized that he had had a metaphysical bias that had effected his science. I am not sure but I think this in part may have led him to write his famous statement "Science without religion is lame"
[3] Even if invoking a personal God is not necessary for a full description of a natural system it does not negate the existence of a personal God. I think this is behind the dogmatism of Dawkins - His line of argument is: God is not necessary for the description --> God does not exist. It is poor logic equivalent to A is not proven so A is false. Surely we don't want to restrict our vision like Dawkin's does - it is this restricted vision that makes him insist the NDH works when it clearly doesnt
John, I am not trying to convince you of a personal God - all I am doing is to suggest that as an objective scientist one really ought not to restrict oneself to any metaphysical constraints - BECAUSE METAPHYSICS DOES MESH WITH THEORY (one only has to look at Dawkins to see this). Some theories are simply incompatible with some metaphysical systems.
Getting back to the PEH (the deeper side of understanding it - not the bench top side of testing it - which we must get back to) I am able to conceive of three possibilities:
[1] Real free will information infusion . I won't call this view belief in a personal God - because all that is necessary is "free will" - but I guess we are talking about a more theistic metaphysic. Here one accepts the ability to instantiate a particular "state of affairs A" or not to instantiate this particular "state of affairs A" is real at the ultimate level of reality [philosophers call this the principle of determination]. In this system the "free will" is able to "infuse" bio-information into the ontologically separate "Nature". The "infusion" is fast (perhaps the time it takes to add new information to the DNA at time of meiosis) but the expression of it takes place over geological timespans - Similar to the case in ontogeny where the expression of the information within the single fertilized cell expresses itself over the organism's lifetime. Another key point is that the state of affairs - "information has been infused" brings about a different ultimate state of the universe - a state different than if the free will act of infusion had not taken place. The infused information is not itself of material substance - but embeds iself onto the material - i.e. on the DNA host.
[2] Apparent Information Infusion Here it only looks as information is being introduced by a free will agent. In fact what is happening is that some rational principle is operating in the eternal substance that every now and then instantiates a state of affairs in the universe that to those immanent observers (us) that are part of the universe appears as an "information injection" - i.e. appears as a "miracle". A good example of this was given by the founder of the computer - Charles Babbage - who to an estounded crowd demonstrated how a computer could give in its output nothing but zeros - but occasionally after say 1000 cycles could give a non-zero. He was demonstrating that God could have programmed the universe at time zero with an operational program that might produce "apparent miracles" [deism]. On a pantheistic view one could also conceive of an eternal principle that operates - but being too complex (or obscure) for us humans to understand (or even conceive) illudes us - making us see some discontinuity in what we would consider as the normative course of nature.
[3] Self Organization This does not require a "religious" style metaphysic - although it would be consistent with either pantheism or deism. It could operate quite well if the universe was all that there was - i.e. if naturalism was true. It says that there is some natural law (presently going under the category heading of "self organization") that is sufficient on its own to produce bio-information. If you like this natural law (once found) would be an NDH substitute - a physical principle that actually worked.
I wonder if you or Phil could agree that this set represents a comprehensive view of possible DEEPER side explanations?
If you do agree with the above categories I wonder if you could say which you think is more likely and give reasons?
But I accept that you are a bench top scientist. (So am I infact - although I enjoy thinking about theory and the deeper side). Being a bench top guy I fully understand if you want to concentrate on just establishing the PEH - or I should say testing it against all known data because clearly no hypothesis can ever be "established". So even if we disagree on metaphysics we might be able to agree on this:
[METAPHYSICS?] <---> [PEH]<--->[DATA]
But what is the PEH in exact definition? - we must agree. Could it be:
"primary bio-information has originated in the past (either at a single onset or multiple ones) and this bio-information has prescribed the overal course of biotic evolution"
That is my attempt. I wonder how you would state the PEH in just one or two sentences? I think it might be helpful to agree on a statement so that we can be sure of the scientific hypothesis - even if we cannot (for the time being) agree on the metaphysics giving rise to it. - Chris
[ 15. October 2005, 02:48: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. October 2005 07:53
Chris
Thanks for your patience with me. I am just a hack physiologist who is temperamentally unsuited to discuss metaphysical matters.
I happen to agree with Dawkins that God does not exist. I see no evidence for it. That does not mean that a God or Gods did not exist in the past. I find that proposition unavoidable. Indeed I see no other explanation. Do you I might ask?
As for what the PEH is, I thought I made that clear in the paper. Let me quote myself from 2. THE PRESCRIBED EVOLUTIONARY HYPOTHESIS
"I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg."
You will note that I used the term "somehow." I have no idea how this was done but that it must have been done I am convinced and I have produced both direct and indirect evidence for that conclusion. My views like those of my sources derive from hard headed science and in no way involve the consideration of the nature of the sources of the information. We have no idea how, when, where or how many times life was created. That it was created is unavoidable and chance had absolutely nothing to do with it or its subsequent history. Of that I remain convinced.
The idea of panspermia is very old and can be traced back to the Swedish chemist Svante Arrhenius. There is no reason to postulate such a thing so I have chosen to ignore it. There is no reason to believe that life ever existed anywhere except on this planet. Until such evidence surfaces little is to be gained by considering it.
One of the things that hampers us is that evolution is not occurring any more or at least that is my conviction, a conviction shared by Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse. That is what led me to the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SH). The PEH and SH are two facets of exactly the same proposal, namely that the chromosome is the seat of the information and that restructuring of the chromosome served (past tense) to release (derepress) new patterns of genetic expression, expressions which have nothing to do with Mendelian genetics. There is a whole new genetics involved, a genetics of "position effect" which has operated in the past and may no longer be in progress.
There is nothing in the Darwinian hypothesis that ever had anything to do with progressive evolution, absolutely nothing. Phylogeny, like ontogeny still does, was driven entirely from within with no role for the environment beyond acting as a stimulus.
Once again I quote from the PEH paper:
"At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; IT CAN ONLY PROVOKE AND SET IN MOTION SOME POTENTIAL THAT IS ALREADY PRESENT." Schindewolf, page 313 (his emphasis)
That these ideas continue to be ignored or dismissed by the establishment constitutes a scandal unprecedented in the history of science. I really don't know what more I can say at the present state of our knowledge. I hope this helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. October 2005 19:21
Chris and Phil too:
It is preciesely since we cannot convince the Darwinians of the error of their faith that reinforces my belief in a predestined evolution. They cannot change any more than a leopard can change its spots.
Gilbert and Sullivan recognized this before the turn of the twentieth century.
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or a little conservative."
Iolanthe, 1873
The scientifically revealed role for nature versus nurture favors nature hands down. The question arises - is there anything in man's experience that does not have a firm genetic component? I know of nothing including how one feels about that conclusion, one which I regard as having been established. So much for free will.
I also can not accept self-organizing systems as having any real significance in biological systems. These are probably weaknesses in my perception but that too is part of the picture. We are all victims of our heritage. There is one great virtue in this view of the world. One should no longer hate one's adversary because he really can't help it. He was simply "born that way." Einstein said the same thing:
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 16. October 2005 07:49
John,
Your post to Chris starting with "Thanks for your patience with me" and ending with "I hope this helps" is the best 1-page summary of your views on the PEH and the SH that I've seen. I think I'll frame it! (And, of course, I agree with it 100%!)
Sorry to annoy you with my homegrown metaphysics in my prior post. That metaphysics is admittedly unusual: It's clear to me, but mud to everyone else. I share your frustration (and Einstein's frustration) with typical philosophical metaphysics, which is why I tried to "home-grow" a simpler one. Here's a very brief attempt at a further explanation:
The world is one, but it's inadequate to view it in a monolithic way. If we "bracket out the subject" (that is, consider the world from the point-of-view of a single, universal generic subject), we get a physical description of the universe (i.e., science). By contrast, if we "bracket out the object", we get a teleological description of the universe in terms of nested layers of consciousness and will (subjects, group subjects, animism, ethics, religion, etc.) Yet a third point of view arises when we do epistemology and information theory: these fields exist at the border between subject and object and necessarily refer to both. None of these three overall viewpoints negates the others, but important analogies can be found between them.
Rather than speaking of "self-organization" (which I regard to be a confusing, loaded term), I prefer to speak of tychistic systems (i.e., nonlinear physical systems in which order dominates over chance, such as Ilya Prigogine's "dissipative structures"). The evolution of such a tychistic system often contains internally conditioned moments of chance where the system could go one way or the other. These moments of chance are analogous to the "decisions" of a "free will" in the teleological view of things. Such moments of chance are "objective" only from the point of view of beings who can measure only out to a finite number of decimal places. Analogously, "free will" is only true from the point-of-view of beings who can measure only out to a finite number of decimal places. (From God's point-of-view, our will is NOT free.)
That the biosphere consists of tychistic nonlinear physical systems at all levels (as opposed to deterministic/stochastic physical systems or chaotic nonlinear physical systems, as is claimed by neo-Darwinism) suggests analogically that the biosphere is teleologically rich (i.e., that animism is true). This, in turn, suggests that we need a transcendent God to give ultimate meaning to all of this immanent teleological diversity.
Thus, I do not regard Chris's enumeration of three possible origins of biological information as being exclusive, but rather as being three possible points of view on the same phenomenon.
The ultimate goal of all of this "home-grown" metaphysics is to enable the affirmation of BOTH a confident theological worldview AND a fully methodologically natural, scientific worldview.
I know that this post is somewhat "off-topic", and it is not my intent to "hijack" this thread, nor to annoy John further! So its fine with me if we drop these metaphysical speculations. (For further info, see my books WORLDVIEWS and FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. October 2005 10:46
Phil
I can't find "tychistic" in my American Heritage Dictionary. Is it the opposite of stochastic?
IP: Logged
|
|
Phillip L. Engle
Member
Member # 447
|
posted 17. October 2005 10:44
"Tychistic" is a term invented by the philosopher Charles Sanders Pearce (Pierce?) which I've taken and adapted because I can't find any existing general term for nonlinear systems where order dominates over chance (e.g., Ilya Prigogine's "dissipative systems") as opposed to chance dominating over order ("chaotic systems"). FAR FROM EQUILIBRIUM proposes a "physical spectrum" of the orderliness of physical systems at a given level of organization. From the most-orderly to the least-orderly the classifications are: deterministic, tychistic, chaotic, and stochastic.
Deterministic systems and stochastic (random) systems are essentially linear systems that have long been studied by scientists. Nonlinear chaotic systems started to be intensely studied in the 1950's, as mini-computers and personal computers became more available. But (except for the work on thermodynamics by Ilya Prigogine & his followers, and possibly Einstein's general theory of relativity) nonlinear tychistic systems have been largely ignored by scientists.
For example, traditional neo-Darwinists like Mayr, Denkins, and Dawkins regard the evolution of the bioshpere to be essentially stochastic at the micro level due to random mutations and essentially deterministic at the macro level due to natural selection. "Maverick" paleontologists such as the late Stephen Jay Gould regard the bioshere to be chaotic at all levels. But NOBODY wants to study the biosphere and the organisms which comprise it as tychistic systems (which they obviously are).
I suspect that one important reason for this is that researching biological organisms as tychistic systems would strongly suggest specific analogs to a rich hierarchy of immanent teleological systems (group subjects, animism, world-soul, etc.), and this contradicts the requirement which the secular culture has given to scientists to continually provide evidence that the universe is truly teleologically "meaningless and senseless" (as opposed to what "primitive people" thought). In other words, I think that this is another case where the requirements of the "culture war" have put blinders on what scientists are allowed to see.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. October 2005 15:14
Thanks Phil.
I would love to get in on this "Tychistics" business but where does one start? If this is amenable to experimental inquiry I am all for it. My ideas have all come after eliminating all other hypotheses. That has forced me, without my consent, to adopt a position which superficially would seem quite impossible, namely that, like ontogeny so obviously is now, phylogeny WAS a planned, preprogrammed sequence in which the environment played no part beyond acting as a stimulus. As long as that perspective remains compatible with what we REALLY know, I am satisfied with it. When facts plead otherwise I will sadly abandon it. So far I see no reason to recant. In any event Darwinism should have been abandoned immediately after its inception when Mivart pointed out that selection can hardly influence a structure that has not yet appeared.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. October 2005 15:22
Incidentally, tychistic seems to be a rather unfortunate term for what it purports to mean as it derives from the Greek tyche meaning accident and good luck. That sounds frightfully Darwinian to me. Remember it was Gould that claimed that intelligence "was an evolutionary accident."
It's hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 17. October 2005 23:06
On the 20th of October Dr. Christoph Adami is giving an AAAS lecture to the on the measurement and increase of biological complexity via the Darwinian paradigm.
Increase of Biological Complexity
I wonder if anyone knows or understands Dr. Adami's line of reasoning and could give comment? It would seem this could be a fruitful line of discussion on this thread - as we also want to see why scientists of Dr. Adami's standing can still hold to the NDH.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. October 2005 03:13
Hi John:
I would like to quote again the PEH:
quote:
The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg
My version was:
quote:
Primary bio-information has originated in the past (either at a single onset or multiple ones) and this bio-information has prescribed the overal course of biotic evolution
Both statements convey essentially the same meaning - although perhaps mine is perhaps a little stronger in the sense it talks about "origination" - which might possibly cause problems. In both statements the word information is used twice (I used bio-information). Clearly information (or could we say complex specified information(CSI) is of fundamental importance here: namely in the sense that the "information" has "somehow been predetermined" in the past - and this information has directed the organic evolution. There seem to be two secondary questions relating to the PEH : These are HOW and WHEN? These are certainly scientific questions - although they border on the metaphysical ![[Smile]](smile.gif) . The HOW deals with the mechanism by which the primary information is expressed (or stimulated by the environment). Connected with the WHEN question is that of whether there was just a single input of information or whether infact there were multiple inputs? However before addressing this (and in view of our slightly different metaphysical positions) I wonder whether we are on the same ground in referring to -
(i) Information input(s)?
(ii) Information onset(s)?
(iii) Information infusion(s)? OR
(iv) None of these?
Of course (i)-(iii) all have the same meaning but there might be a preference in nomenclature.
To go a stage further I would perhaps choose wording (i) and present as a possible "single input" model something like this:
The diagram refers to the Cambrian explosion. It shows an arrow indicating some "information infusion" event in the Cambrian (could be pre-Cambrian). This CSI then expresses itself over time and the expression [which may be in the form of the number of Phyla for example] takes the form of the general logistic equation solution (i.e. exponential rise - followed by exponential saturation). Due to the general degradation of the CSI (4th law) over time some of the CSI information is however lost and an exponential decline takes place (i.e. Phyla and species etc become extinct). The diagram shows that the primary CSI gets expressed first, but once expressed (perhaps due to chromosome rearrangements or some other mechanism) new classes and orders of animal taxa are expressed - then after these have developed new families and genuses and species are expressed. In all cases one expects an approximate damped logistic equation dependence. The reason is that there is only so much primary CSI available for establishing new Phyla, Orders, Genus etc - but these have to be discovered with time (perhaps by stimulation from the environment ?) - BUT the primary CSI remains limited and as such cannot keep on expressing new animal forms in an ever increasing exponential manner. The normal logistic saturation, produced by the limited resources, kicks in after all the primary embedded information has been expressed.
I believe that the above rather rudimentary model does tie in with observed fossil data. For example if one takes the phyla of Mullusca - only a few varieties of small snails existed in the Cambrian, but early in the Ordovician they appeared in many more varieties and species. The same behavior of "peaking" in the Ordovician seems to apply to other phyla too.
I am interested to know what you think of this model?
Also are you happy with using the term CSI for bio-information?
- Chris
[ 18. October 2005, 05:54: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. October 2005 07:56
Chris
I am not very good at expressing theoretical ideas so don't be surprised if I fail to communicate effectively. I don't care for any model which presents the problem as a continuous phenomenon which your diagram would suggest. Every genetic change is an instantaneous, discontinuous event for which intermediate stages are inconceivable. As nearly as the facts permit, the Cambrian explosion was just that, the instantaneous production of virtually all the phyla including some that became extinct. Ontogeny has always proceeded the same way, by a series of instantaneous, irreversible transformations for which intermediate stages are inconceivable. There have been several times in evolutionary history when such instantaneous explosions took place. If you look at the origin of the Mammalian orders they seem all to have originated at once with the possible exception of the Cetacea. The evolution or more likely evolutions of the horse took place as a series of instantaneous transformations so profound that each form had to be put in a separate genus. Everywhere in phylogeny we see discontinuities. I believe that every new species represented a unique new combination of preexisting potentialities. Often these new combinations resulted in bizarre creatures like sharks with placentas. George Gaylord Simpson once tried to explain how many millions of years it took for a genus to evolve. That is wrong. A new genus, like every other taxonomic unit, was produced instantaneously just as every every other genetic change takes place.
Only if we completely abandon the gradualist perspective can we make progress. This is difficult to do because we tend to think in terms of continuities but absolutely nothing in the real world can be reconciled with that view.
There is a physiological rule called the "All-or-none Law." A cell when stimulated either responds or it does not and the nature of the response is completely independent of the nature of the stimulus. That is why if struck on the head one sees lightening and hears thunder. We should look at evolution the same way as a series of discontinuous instantaneous transformations for which intermediate states never existed. Schindewolf recognized this and said we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed. That is not to say that evolution has not necessarily involved transitional forms like whales with legs or snakes that still have rudiments of legs.
It is possible that there was a single "infusion" of information which was then sort of parcelled out during evolution. As you know the animal kingdom can be broken into two major subdivisions, the protostomes and the deuterostomes, depending on whether the blastopore develops into the mouth or the anus. That is about the most discontinuous sort of separation that could possibly be imagined, one for which there obviously can be no intermediate condition. The chordates to which we belong and echinoderms comprise the bulk of the deuterostomes with the blastopore corresponding with the future anus. Nearly all the other phyla can be relegated to the protostome subdivision. It is intersting that marine annelids which are protostomes have a kidney system consisting of protonephridia or flame cells, an entirely different system than the tubular system characteristic of higher chordates including mammals. Amphioxus, a primitive chordate having all threee chordate features, a tubular hollow dorsal nervous sytem, a notochord and gill slits, nevertheless has a protonephridial kidney like that of annelids. The earthworm, a terrestrial annelid has a tubular kidney system like ourselves. These simple examples demonstrate two things. First, profound discontinuity and second a common expression from a universal informational source. The more I think about it the more I am beginning to accept a single origin of life for the reasons I just presented.
There is no question evolution within the taxonominc level of family can be accounted for by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information and requires no alteration of that basic infomation to explain that process. We are after all virtually indentical at the DNA level with the chimp, gotilla and orang utan. Similarly, the evolution within the genus Drosophila has, according to M.J.D. White, involved sme 50 restructurings of the chromosomes, not one of which can be accounted for as having arisen through the agency of sexual reproduction at leaast according to White. That is what led me to postulate the asexual Semi-meiotic Hypothesis back in 1984.
At that level we have no problem reconciling evolution with known cytogenetic mechanisms. However, when we encounter organisms that differ drastically with respect to chromosome morphology and DNA content we encounter a blank wall. Where can be the intermediates in such a system? I do not believe they ever existed. Once again we see profound discontinuity, the hall mark of every evolutionary event. How this was effected remains a great mystery. I am convinced that chance had nothing to do with any of it.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 18. October 2005 09:43
quote:
I don't care for any model which presents the problem as a continuous phenomenon which your diagram would suggest.
Sorry about this John. The diagram was meant just to show a general trend - it should have been drawn as a histogram - with discontinuities. After all I was plotting the number of Phyla etc and this is integer.
The onset of the Cambrian explosion was fast on a geological timescale, but there were 3 Phlya present before it, and it quite likely was just very fast rather than instantaneous (it was complete within 5My). What I suspect is that as the genome expressed itself into new phyla - these then somehow stimulated the new phyla to be "de-repressed" - thus leading to an exponentially faster and faster finding of new phyla (until that is they were all found). What say you to this?
How do you understand the fast extinction of some of the new phyla after the explosion? Natural selection?
quote:
The information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome
I wonder what you mean by "the evolving genome"? Usually we think of a genome as belonging to a single species. Here you seem to be using it to cover the whole animal kingdom? (or do you include the plant kingdom too?)
I will think about all the interesting information you have provided. Many thanks for this and your patience. Chris
[ 18. October 2005, 12:34: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. October 2005 10:39
Chris
By "evolving genome" I meant the genetic constitution of those forms still capable of evolution. They have always been relatively few in number and I don't believe any of these "evolvers" ever produced a new life form through sexual reproduction. It is much too conservative a device to permit macroevolution. The best evidence for this is that sexual determining cytogenetic mechanisms have independently evolved many times. The primary role for sexual reproduction WAS and still IS to bring evolution to a screeching halt, thus stabilizing species for their subsequent evolutionary history which for the vast majority of all such forms resulted in extinction. That is all we see today without a single documentable species being replaced in historical times. At 20,000 species disappearing anually it doesn't take a rocket scientist to calculate how long it might take for 10 million species to disappear. I keep saying the same thing over and over. A past evolution is undeniable and a present evolution is undemonstrable. Nobody seems to even care let alone respond.
As for the rate of evolution, exactly as ontogenetic changes occur most rapidly at the onset of development and decline with rate and extent as development proceeds, so did phylogenetic changes show the same characteristic. Someone once observed that we age fastest when youngest. Ontogeny terminates with death. Evolution terminates with extinction. Development remains the best model for evolution. I published a paper about it. Davison, J.A. 1998, "Evolution as a self-limiting process." Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220. Of course this paper does not really exist nor did the sources on which it is based. The Darwinians won't permit it. They must not don't you know?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. October 2005 12:12
Chris
I have not been blocked from publishing except once by the same journal that permitted my original paper "Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism" J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735, 1984. That coincided with a change in the editor of that journal. I immediately turned to Rivista di Biologia as one of the few journals which will openly challenge Darwinian dogma and I have remained loyal to that journal and its editor Giuseppe Sermonti ever since. I am confident that Sermonti and I have many differences but he is that rare editor who is truly tolerant to views at odds with his own. They are scarce as hen's teeth and I am very grateful for his patience with me. I know that I have tried both him and his referees on more than one occasion but we have always been able to work things out.
I am confident that any of my papers would have been summarily rejected by the vast majority of the journals concerned with evolutionary matters. In fact I would have been shocked had they not been. I avoided that response by not submitting to them.
The important point is that my papers, like the contributions of my many predecessors, are now for eternity on the shelves of the world's libraries. What transpires on the ephemeral internet is of little consequence by comparison. The only reason I respond in forums is because I, like my predecessors, continue to be ignored by the professionals at least in hard copy which is all that really matters. Besides it hones my writing skills. All in all I am quite content with the way things are progressing.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 20. October 2005 19:52
Hi John - Thanks for putting me right about not being blocked, the exemplary Rivista di Biologia and that you feel ok about the present progress. These are all pleasant positives. I do look forward to reading your papers.
I have a technical query for you based on:
quote:
As for the rate of evolution, exactly as ontogenetic changes occur most rapidly at the onset of development and decline with rate and extent as development proceeds, so did phylogenetic changes show the same characteristic.
While I agree with you that all evidences point to phylogenetic evolution having essentially come to an end (with only minor variations now at the sub-species level) I do see a big contradiction with the empirical observation of Richard Coren Empirical Evidence for a Law of Information Growth. In Coren's work he shows quite reasonably that major evolutionary "onsets" are speeding up - For example the time between the mammalian radiation and first homonids is much less than say that between the Cambrian explosion and the first reptiles. Things on the overal evolutionary picture do seem to be speeding up rather than slowing down? How do you understand this?
[ 20. October 2005, 19:59: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
