|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. October 2005 22:29
Chris
I don't agree. Not only are changes not only speeding up but they stopped in their tracks long ago. That is why the ontogey model is so significant. Phylogeny has always exhibited a progressive LOSS of potential as it proceeded inexorably to its final products which included ourselves. In the PEH I even hinted at the idea that evolution has largely been just that, a loss rather than a gain of information. I stand by that position as I can see nothing wrong with it and much in its favor.
I would also like to thank you for keeping this thread alive. It may well prove to be little more than a dialogue between very few of us. That is a welcome relief from the hostility with which my views have been received by the internet community generally.
I just put the ball in Carl Zimmer's court after he allowed an ad hominem attack against me to stand at his blog "The Loom." It will be interesting to see how he responds if indeed he even does.
Thank you Micah for allowing me to proclaim.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 26. October 2005 14:20
Hi John, here is some encouragement for you. A colleague of mine yesterday pointed me to this article in Annual Review of Genetics 36 (2002) 389-410 by Lonnig and Saedler. Chromosome Rearrangements
In it one reads from the abstract:
quote:
Recent wide-ranging investigations have confirmed and enlarged the number of earlier cases of TE (transposable elements) target site selection (hot spots for TE integration), implying preestablished rather than accidental chromosome rearrangements for nonhomologous recombination of host DNA. The possibility of a partly predetermined generation of biodiversity and new species is discussed. The views of several leading transposon experts on the rather abrupt origin of new species have not been synthesized into the macroevolutionary theory of the punctuated equilibrium shool of palaontology inferred from thorougly consistent features of the fossil record
Today I also received a copy of your 2000 paper. Reading this new paper by Lonnig and Saedler together with yours should stimulate some good questions and insight. Encouraging others out there to join us in these discussions. - Chris
[ 26. October 2005, 14:44: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. October 2005 15:20
Chris
Many thanks. I also mentioned the predisposition of chromosome rearrangements in the PEH paper. Things are looking up.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. October 2005 22:17
Chris
I would like to be able to share your optimism about stimulating discussion but my experience indicates that it won't. We critics of the Darwinian model do not, cannot and must not exist, especially on internet blogs which are so dominated by particular ideologies which tend to be on one side or the other of the two major camps, neither of which I find to be acceptable.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 27. October 2005 00:21
John,
I guess it is good to be an optimist. Even so I think your metaphysics is not too extreme. There must be many others out there with similar views. Surely we should concentrate primarily on the science - because by training we are scientists (rather than metaphysicians ![[Wink]](wink.gif) ) . The science we are talking about in the PEH seems to mesh with your beliefs but it also meshes with others (such as mine - I know we don't agree there on everything) so one cannot and should not be too restricted by ones beliefs in order that the science can be furthered. Now for sure if you have an uncompromising atheist (or naturalist) view of the universe then there will be absolutely no coherence with the PEH. This is basically why you have been rejected on Zimmer's blog. I think we sometimes have to let people go their own way if they want through prior metaphysical commitment to practice poor science. For me I would rather stay with the science and see where it leads - and hope that in doing so those with metaphysical neutrality would ultimately be led to the best inference. It is wrong for us to be intimidated by those who think creation is a non-scientific concept. This is simply not the case. Most of the really great pioneer scientists believed in Creation and history bears out that their derived metaphysics produced so much fruitful science. Lets honor those guys (that gave us our careers!) by giving their worldview some hearing and potential credence. Moreover there are sound philosophical arguments for making Creation a much more probable reality than those philosophies that envisage an eternal universe. So please be optimistic and lets try and accummulate more evidence for the PEH. There may well be some guys on the ISCID network that will join in further discussions. Please do if you are out there reading this - John needs some encouragement!
Incidentally did you know that sponges (one of the simplest animal forms) have some genes (CYP27 abd CYP9) that they were not expected to have based on Darwinian thinking - genes that were only expected to exist in bilaterians! You can read about this amazing surprise on: Sponge Genome
This is no surprise as regards the PEH.
-Chris
[ 27. October 2005, 00:30: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. October 2005 07:00
Chris
I HAVE honored six of the greatest minds of two centuries who provided the basis for the PEH. I am a Creationist with a capital C. I was ejected from The Loom, Pharyngula, EvC, Panda's Thumb, The Austringer, CreationEvolutionDesign, Uncommon Descent and God knows how many other forums all for the same reasons. I have rejected not only atheist Darwinism but a personal God as well. By so doing I have placed myself in a sort of no man's land. It is impossible for me to embrace a personal God just as it was for Einstein. It is only in this way that I am able to function. As far as I am able to determine, I am just a pawn of the PEH, whose Providence is to expose the bankruptcy of atheist Darwinism and to resurrect the great spirits of the past from the oblivion to which the evolutionary establishement has so effectively confined them.
"A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself."
Robert Burton
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."
Albert Einstein
I realize it seems corny for me to quote so much but it is only because others have expressed my own beliefs far better than I can manage. At least it places responsibility for what is said squarely with the original source, one of my ideosyncrasies.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 29. October 2005 21:20
We do not exist beacause we smply must does not exist as this thread continues to demonstrate. I, in the same sprit of so many of my intellectial predecessors, have now for more than twenty years consistantly exposed, in paper after paper, the total failure of the Darwinian invention, an idea conceived from nothing more than an uncritical analysis of the writings of two of their own predecessors, Charles Lyell and Thomas Malthus. The adherence to the atheist,aimless, random or more even more believable, a semi-random interpretation of the realities revealed by the fossil record is unthinkable, and so out of touch with everything we we are now learning from modern molecular biology that the time has come that the entire Darwinian myth must be abandned and relegated to thet same trash-heap now occuopied by the Pholgiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Phyics. I now challenge anyone to respond to my assertions. I have now take off my gloves. I doubt thht others will do the same. We will see.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. October 2005 07:09
Pardon my numerous typos. I had a couple of Cuba Libras.
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 31. October 2005 09:08
In Richard Coren's paper Empirical Evidence for a law of Information Growth the following major evolutionary events ("information onsets?"):
Natural Evolution :
Event 0 - The cosmological Big Bang – 20 – 10,000 Mya [13,500 Mya]
Event 1 The origin of prokaryotic life - 3,600-3,400 Mya [3,800 Mya]
Event 2a The origin of eukaryotic life 500-800 Mya [2,100-1,400 Mya]
Event 2b The origin of Metazoans [560-530 Mya]
Post – Organic Evolution
Event 3 The origin of Mammals 150-200 Mya [65 Mya]
Event 4 Superfamily – Hominoid ? 40-25 Mya [?]
Event 5 Family Hominid ? 4-10 Mya [?]
Event 6 Genus Homo 2 – 1.5Mya [1.5Mya]
Event 7 Species Homo.Sapiens 0.5-0.2 Mya [0.035Mya]
Event 8 Sub-species Homo S. Sapiens 0.1 – 0.07 Mya [0.035 Mya]
Post –Biological Evolution
Event 9 Civilization 20-10 kya
Event 10 Writing 5-3 kya
Event 11 Printing 0.54 kya
Event 12 Digital communication 0.055kya
The dates in brackets are my preferred dates which in some cases differ significantly from Coren's. Apart from the fact that I am not happy with Coren's event 2 (which I split in two), the homonoid/homonid classifications and the dating of Homo-Sapiens (which I place as Cro-Magnon - i.e. fully modern man) I am fairly happy that other events come under the category of "extraordinary" - I also find myself agreeing with Coren's general observation that major evolutionary onsets do seem to be speeding up.
John, I would like to question (and hopefully not harass ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) you on the following comment you made with regard to the above alleged "speed up",
quote:
I don't agree. Not only are changes not speeding up but they stopped in their tracks long ago. That is why the ontogeny model is so significant. Phylogeny has always exhibited a progressive LOSS of potential as it proceeded inexorably to its final products which included ourselves.
Firstly let me say that I do agree with you concerning the slowing down of evolution and the fact that since man came on the scene there have been no observations of new species etc- i.e. I agree with you that macroevolution is over and that Phylogeny exhibits a progressive LOSS of potential. HOWEVER I do not believe this precludes the possibility of faster and faster onsets of new information. It could well be in the Designer's Design to build new strata (systems) on older ones that have become substantiated and that this requires the INJECTION of new information at appropriate times. [For example the introduction of the first life would have to wait until the physical substrata of the universe had cooled sufficiently to allow life to exist]. In short the Creator could have acted more than once with regard to the introduction of new information into the evolving genome. Indeed I see this quite likely happening at events 1, 2, 3 (7/8) and with some scientific reasoning that I could give if anyone is interested?
I want to point out that the injection of new information at appropriate times does not necessarily negate your observation that "Phylogeny exhibits a progressive LOSS of potential". Yes, indeed, in such a case the progressive loss of potential would still always follow after the instantiation of any new genomic information. i.e. one could still have today the situation today where macroevolution has stopped - and the last information injection had occured say with the onset of the "homo genus".
I think the basic question we are looking at here is how many were the "information onsets" - that caused the pre-programing (or prescription) of evolution? I know by the principal of parsimony one might want to keep the number of "information onsets" to as close to unity as possible - but sometimes reality is more complex.
- Chris
[ 31. October 2005, 09:59: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. October 2005 12:22
Chris
The number of front loadings by the Big Front Loader (BFL, which is what I call IT, not him, not her) is a fascinating problem. If you look at man and his closest living relatives, chimp, gorilla and orang, there is no need to introduce any new information to account for our evolution as everything can be accounted for by the reorganization of the same basis chromosomal structures. In other words our evolution has been largely and possibly exclusively the result of "position effect." As one goes more afield taxonomically things become more difficult to account for, especially when one encounters large differences in DNA per cell. Chromosome number is not a reliable index of closeness as witnessed ny the Muntjak deer and many plant genera. For example in the plant genus Hedera (English Ivies), large differences in chromosome number exist but all with about the same amount of DNA per cell. Similarly the apes have one more pair than we do apparently due to the fusion of two in man. We all have very nearly exactly the amount of DNA per cell. Man should be expected to have very slightly less as we have one fewer pairs of centrioles. I know of evidence that man has more DNA per cell than have any of our closest relatives.
One of the most remarkable statements in all of the evolutionary literature was made by Leo Berg. Comparing his Nomogenesis with Darwinian mono-or-oligo-phyleticism, here is what he had to say:
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis, page 406
I am sure this is one of the reasons that the evolutionary establishment has ignored him as it flies in the face of everything the Natural Selectionist mutationists (Darwinians) hold so very dear. I am inclined to think he was very close to the truth. The problem is only how close. Oddly enough he never further explained this remarkable comment.
Organic evolution is largely the science of enormous gaps. Every true species is separated from every other by a huge gap, the gap of hybrid sterility, and as the taxonomic ranks ascend the gaps get larger and larger.
I would suggest a new definition for the genus as follows. If the members of a group can be accounted for by the restructuring of a shared chromosomal framework they should be placed in the same genus. This is exactly what seems to be the case in the genus Drosophila. As a matter of fact Michael J.D. White pointed out there have been around 50 restructurings involved in the evolution of the several Drosophila species. As I pointed out in my unpublished Manifesto, he also added that none of these were probably produced sexually. Indeed that observation by White is what prompted me to imtroduce, in 1984, the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) for evolutionary change.
I realize this new definition of members of a genus would place man, chimp, gorilla and orang all in the same genus as everything may be accounted for within the existing chromosmal configurations. I am certain others might not agree with that and I would be happy if they would provide reasons for their position.
At present I am inclined not to dismiss Berg's claim of "tens of thousands of primary forms." Actually, that number is not too terribly far from what might become a new criterion for what would constitute a genus, namely related forms that can be accounted for through the reorganization of a common chromosomal infrastructure. Maybe this suggestion will elicit a response from the mutation/selection Darwinian camp. In any event, no one has yet demonstrated experimentally the cytogenetic basis for the origin of any of the taxa at the level of the genus and above. Until they do I, for one, will take Berg's heresy seriously.
It is not enough to claim that new forms have arisen recently. What is required is the proof for the mechanism by which it has occurred. Biology is, after all, an experimental science, at least for this investigator.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. October 2005 19:22
At the end of my first paragraph it should read - I know of no evidence that ...
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. November 2005 05:05
Is it any wonder that I have this recurrent dream of lecturing in an enormous and utterly empty auditorium? Dreams are a very important experience. Kekule conceived of cyclic organic compounds after dreaming of a snake chasing its tail.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. November 2005 16:50
Feel free to post at my blog as I post here. Thanks.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 23. December 2005 03:33
Greetings Professor Davison
I note your remark in a post above (see quote below). I am very much a sceptic regarding your hypothesis, but have read your paper "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis". The nub of your hypothesis seems to be that genomic information was predetermined, pre-existed and was derepressed. Outside forces such as natural selection and mutation, HGT, symbiogenesis were not relevant. Elsewhere, I have seen references to the concept of front loading, and wonder if you are suggesting that the genomic information originated via an outside ( i.e. supernatural agent.
quote:
I would also like to thank you for keeping this thread alive. It may well prove to be little more than a dialogue between very few of us. That is a welcome relief from the hostility with which my views have been received by the internet community generally.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
