|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 08. January 2006 16:53
Davison has noted evidence for rapid changes, discontinuities or jumps in evidence of macroevolution (saltations) and has proposed his PEH theory for that. In particular, I understand him to propose a reduction / recombination of chromosomes with the development of new species. That is a significant method of addressing the available genomic data.
Extrapolating, I understand the PEH theory predicts that there are other examples of apparent evolutionary descent that will show similar examples of reduction/rearrangement in chromosomes between species, similar to that between primates and humans.
This appears to be a testable prediction. Numerous genomes are now being scanned, reported and compared. There should be further evidence that can be examined to test this prediction.
Does anyone know of further such evidence for/against PEH?
-------------
Fox alleges:
quote:
"... the principal objection to intelligent design from mainstream scientists is that there is no scientific method to detect design."
Considering that Fox read this thread on a designed monitor, wrote his response on a designed keyboard, transmitted his response over a designed communication system, and that we are reading and responding to it over a designed software bulletin board system, I seriously doubt he can find any "scientist" who would dispute that these are designed and claim that all this was initiated by random chance whatever the selection method.
As a design engineer and scientist, I find his claim appears vacuous as stated. I agree with Davison that Fox is becoming a nuisance.
Fox may have intended to state that he does not know how to detect design due to intelligent causes outside human activity.
Fox appears to be hiding an underlying agenda that he is unwilling to accept one or more of:
that such intelligent cause(s) might exist, that they might design, that such intelligent causes might be able to interact with earth, and that such designs might be detectable by intelligent beings, or that some intelligent beings might make such assumptions. e.g., he would have to deal with those consequences.
I propose a homework assignment for Fox:
To address and clearly acknowledge underlying assumptions of this forum of assuming intelligent causes exist and seeking to identify them, vs materialistic naturalism: e.g. See:
Reverse Engineering Assumptions
Then to read about the probability of life and probabilistic ways to detect design. e.g.:
William Dembski No Free Lunch
Fred Hoyle Mathematics of Evolution
Hubbert Yockey Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life
and the design detection basis for Search for Intelligent Life SETI e.g.,
StarChild Question of the Month for August 2000
SETI: The Search for ExtraTerrestrial Intelligence
Then if Fox can demonstrate that:
He understands these arguments and can provide constructive response regarding Dembski, Yockey, Hoyle and NASA on probabilities of life, specified complexity as a filter to detect design and SETI;
He can address genomic evidence for/against PEH;
He is willing to acknowledge the underlying assumptions of intelligent causes vs materialistic naturalism,
then he would be welcome to post further on probation.
[ 08. January 2006, 17:05: Message edited by: David L. Hagen ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 08. January 2006 17:27
I have just carried out a brief check into the various authorities that Professor Davison cites as sources af his ideas as follows:
George Mivart (English comparative anatomist) died 1 April 1900 was excommunicated by the Catholic church for suggesting separation of science from religion.
Alfred Russel Wallace (English naturalist) died 7 November 1913, suggested Herbert Spencer's phrase "survival of the fittest " to Darwin and remained a lifelong supporter of evolution.
William Bateson (English geneticist) died 8 February 1926, brought the work of Gregor Mendel to the attention of a wider audience. "Bateson had a combative, forceful personality, well suited to his self-appointed role of Mendel advocate. However, Bateson was reluctant to believe in the chromosomal theory of inheritance. He was vocally antagonistic to the idea and it wasn't until 1922 after a visit to Thomas Hunt Morgan's fly lab that he publicly accepted chromosomes and their role in heredity." From http://www.dnaftb.org/dnaftb/
Reginald Punnett (English geneticist) died 3 January 1967 (aged 92, retd. 1940) Co-discoverer with Bateson of genetic linkage.
Henry Fairfield Osborn (American paleontologist) died 6 November 1935. From 1891 was associated with the American Museum of Natural History and established one of the foremost collections of fossils. His name has been linked to the idea of "orthogenesis"
Robert Broom (Scottish paleontologist, but spent his working life in South Africa) died 6 April 1951. Had a distinguished career searching for and studying hominid fossils.
Richard B. Goldschschmidt. (German geneticist) died April 1958 (aged 80). Suggested the idea of macro-mutations sometimes referred to as "hopeful monsters".
Otto Schindewolf (German paleontologist) died 10 June 1971 (retd. 1964). Has been associated with Goldschmidt's idea of "hopeful monsters" and saltation.
Pierre Grassé (French zoologist) (1895-1985) Wrote "Evolution of Living Organisms" with many comments expressing scepticism with the theory of evolution. Seems to be not highly regarded in his native France, as little source material is available on French websites.
One similarity that strikes me is that all these distinguished scholars are dead. Indeed, all except Grassé seem to have finished their careers before the deciphering of the genetic code. I wonder how these scholars would have incorporated the huge amount of research, evidence and information that has since become available, had it been known to them while they were at the peak of their careers. One thing is certain; we are unable to ask them now.
I wonder if Professor Davison could cite any living scientist that takes his ideas seriously.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 08. January 2006 17:43
Mr Hagen wrote:
quote:
Fox may have intended to state that he does not know how to detect design due to intelligent causes outside human activity.
Indeed. I did not think it was necessary to state the obvious.
Thank you for the homework assignment. I have read Bill Dembski's papers, and confess I am not a mathematician. They do not seem intended to clarify his ideas to a layperson. Having read much criticism of Dembski's books, I don't think I can learn much more from them. The Explanatory Filter especially seems not to have merit.
I have much respect for Fred Hoyle, and I doubt, if he were alive today, that he would endorse some of what now is claimed as his beliefs.
Professor Yockey, again, I have a great deal of respect for, and agree with him (and Professor Robert Shapiro) that current origin of life theories are inadequate. I don't think Hubert Yockey, (and I'm sure Robert Shapiro doesn't) endorses "Intelligent Design".
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 08. January 2006 17:55
Please go back and read Dembski's book. To say it has no merit indicates you don't understand the argument.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2006 18:10
I see that Alan Fox is still resorting to innuendo and deprecation rather than addressing the substance of this thread. Mr. Fox is a regular at Panda's Thumb, which I have properly described as the Alamo of Darwinism. Let me assure you that whenever a regular from Panda's Thumb invades other forums it is for one purpose only. It is to disrupt, deprecate and defeat by whatever means are necessary any challenge to the biggest hoax in the history of science. If the management of this forum insists on allowing Mr. Fox to continue his shabby tactics, I will no longer participate at this forum and will make the reasons well known as to why that became necessary. He has invaded every forum at which I have posted including my own blog with only one purpose in mind which is to denounce a new hypothesis for organic evolution about which he is abysmally ignorant and toward which has absolutely nothing specific to contribute.
I explained why I will not engage this man. If others continue to allow him to practice here the tactics that have always characterized those from Panda's Thumb, they can be certain to hear nothing further from me at this forum. In fact unless I can be assured that he will no longer be allowed to practice his shabby tactics here, I will be happy to depart this forum right now. I have better things to do with my remaining days than to suffer ignorant, unpublished troublemakers and atheist ideologues, especially when they act in behalf of the most discredited hypothesis in the history of science.
Trust me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Fox
Member
Member # 1847
|
posted 08. January 2006 18:18
Mr Hagen
I said the explanatory filter seems to have no merit. I say this because there is no allowance for the unknown. I am relying on David Wolpert, Mark Perakh and Wesley Elsberry for critical analyses, as I am not a mathematician; my background is biochemistry.
Also I have asked Dr Dembski and other ID proponents, (for example on ARN S. Cordova argued with me on this) what would constitute an event as applied to a real biological example. Further, how could the explanatory filter be applied to a biological example to demonstrate Intelligent Design. No examples of a real biological application were forthcoming.
Intelligent Design is supposed to present a scientific challenge to current ideas of methodological naturalism as applied to the theory of evolution. Maybe the fault is mine, but the challenge seems to me to be philosophical rather than scientific.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. January 2006 19:00
I will return to this thread when it is no longer being denigrated by those who have nothing positive to offer. Adios.
IP: Logged
|
|
David L. Hagen
Member
Member # 323
|
posted 08. January 2006 20:33
Fox, you have exceeded the 3 posts/day limit and have not done your homework. Additional homework: read CS Lewis, The Horse & His Boy, Chapter 15.
It is Darwinianism that is unwilling to address the unknown, while ID is explicitly providing ways to detect it.
You have given little serious constructive input and thus little serious response. Let us know when you can can provide a step by step Darwinian explanation for the first self reproducing cell, including the source of cell energy conversion with photon conversion to ATP, cell information processing and the information in > 350 genes, and material processing including including cell wall specialized ports, within the Upper Complexity Bound of 10^120 of maximum possible random configurations over all time. E.g., see the essential genes identified in: Essential Genes of a Minimal Bacterium cf Dr. Fred Hoyle estimated probability of evolution at about 1 per 10^4000.
Since there are no credible detailed step by step Darwinian explanations for even this first cell, let alone macroevolution, Davison has proposed an alternative theory. Lets all get back to Davison's PEH theory. (ps its Dr. not Mr.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2006 01:49
Thank you very much David. I was beginning to think it would never happen.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2006 16:37
Thanks for the references.
As nearly as I can ascertain, and I am not an expert by any means, there is no reason to assume any genetic alterations at the DNA level to account for all of the differeces which distinguish us from our closest primate relatives, the chimpanzee, the gorilla and the orang utan. It may all be explained by gene silencing and gene activation (derepression) of a common genetic potential. There is also no reason to assume that the environment has in any way been involved in these restructurings beyond that of permitting them to take place. As I have said before and now repeat, the error that the Darwinians and Lamarckians both made at the outset is that there was an exogenous identifiable "cause" for evolution. Such a cause has yet to be identified and may never have existed. Just as the environment plays no role in the differentation of the egg into the adult, so, I propose, did it play no role in organic evolution. Both ontogeny and phylogeny have proceeded driven exclusively by endogenous, prescribed, auto regulated and auto terminated mechanisms. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny which is not surprising since they are part of the same reproductive continuum of which, in my opinion, only ontogeny still remains. Just as ontogeny terminates with death so phylogeny terminates with the extinction of its evolved products. I do not expect this superficially radical view to be accepted by the majority of evolutionists but it represents my current appraisal of the great mystery of organic evolution, a process I no longer see in progress. I see it as in complete accord with everything we really know from the testimony of the laboratory and the fossil record.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2006 16:44
I forgot to add:
If not chance then what? I propose the only remaining explanation is the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. January 2006 20:37
Thanks again for the links.
It is virtually impossible for me to keep up with the literature. However let me say a couple of things. There is no question whatsoever that we are intimately related to our living primate relatives. Furthermore, the dozen or so chromosome restructurings that separate us from our closest relative, the chinpanzee, indicate to me that exactly that same number of intermediate forms have existed during the course of our separation. I think this is fully compatible with what is known from the fossil record. It is based on the reasonable assumption that each of these chromosomal restructurings has resulted in a discrete intermediate species all of which have become extinct. Just as in the evolutionary series which culminated in the modern horse, so we have had our orthogenetic series which culminated in the final product, Homo sapiens. The origin of virtually all extant species can be traced to an inexorable orthogenetic series leading to the modern forms which represent the final products of prescribed scenarios. There was never a role for chance in any of these transformations. No further evolutionary products are to be either expected or for me even conceivable. Like ontogeny, phylogeny has terminated in the same way that an ecological sucession terminates with its final climax products. It is finished and from now on, I predict it will be entirely down hill and irreversible, exactly like the history of the individual. Everything we now know pleads in favor of this conclusion. I realize this is not an optimistic view but everything we know indicates just that.
I would be interested in any response this might evoke before I decide to commit it to hard copy.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. January 2006 10:05
Well surely this is worthy of some sort of commentary isn't it? Aren't there any Darwinians within cybershot?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
