|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. January 2006 22:31
David Hagen
You ask what is the probability of further changes? I can only answer that I know of no evidence that chance ever played a part in any evolutionary change. It seems to me that is the crux of the problem. That is the presumption of the PEH isn't it, that the scenario was planned? This is the antithesis of the Darwinian model. The changes which we now observe are either degenerative or neutral. I see no further perfection in progress in any evolutionary lineage. I have repeatedly asked for evidence of speciation in progress today only to be greeted with either silence or examples of what can be at best described as "incipient speciation." Incipient speciation is not speciation. Goldschmidt was the first to recognize this and when he said as much he was vilified for it. It is interesting that it was Goldschmidt, a geneticist, who in 1940 exposed the failure of the Mendelian model, a conclusion which completely agreed with Bateson's similar conclusion presented in the 1920's. The most remarkable feture of the Darwinian paradigm is the fact that it has persisted for over 140 years without a scintilla of tangible experimental or descriptive support. It has been a gigantic illusion generated by an assumption for which there is no evidence.
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand Russell
Let me also add that it is unthinkable that we are not intimately related to chimpanzees. It is nor evolution that is subect to question. It is only the mechanism by which it took place.
I repeat that the fundamental error made by Lamarckians and Darwinians alike is that there was an exogenous demonstrable cause for organic evolution. Such a cause has never been identified and, I contend, never existed.
In any event, like Leo Berg, I remain convinced that chance has never played a role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. If not chance then what? I have answered with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. This unavoidable conclusion has great significance with respect to our understanding of man's place in the universe. I am convinced that we represnt the ultimate product of a planned scenario.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. January 2006 13:34
I have offered every opportunity for a rebuttal of my thesis at my own blog and not one, after nearly 400 messages, has been forthcoming. I gave the opportunity with personal invitations to the leading luminaries of today's evolutionary literature, Dembski, Dawkins, Ruse, Johnson, Behe, Wells and Denton, all to present their versions of the mechanism of organic evolution. Accordingly, it does not surprise me that none should appear here either. Frankly, while it seems impossible, I am nevertheless delighted. Wouldn't anyone be? I really don't know what more to say so I won't until there is a reason to do so.
"They also serve who only stand and wait."
Milton
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 12. January 2006 19:52
Hi John,
I guess one reason you don't get response from these folk is that in honesty they do not know the true mechanism driving evolution. [With the neo-Darwinists because deep down they know their mechanism is faulty and cannot be substantiated, and on the ID side because they are so busy just convincing folk of design that the mechanism of evolution is considered secondary - do you agree?]. From what I have read concerning macro-evolution (and its terminating) together with information on chromosomes (such as the papers referred by David) I have come to a fairly firm confidence in the PEH as a primary mechanism in macroevolution. It is certainly an excellent working hypothesis to be further tested - especially seeing that it seems to be the only substantive hypothesis on the market. However, I want to ask you about your ideas of what causes (or stimulates) the chromosomal rearrangements that occur at speciation? Presumably something happens (environmentally, or ecologically) that causes the switch to take place - or is it a kind of time fuse (in the same way that there is a time fuse in the human DNA that causes aging). I have thought that an ecological stimulation could have caused the super-fast derepression of bioinformation we see at the Cambrian explosion.
Does the idea that phylogeny and ontogeny are part of the same life system - help give some clue as to what causes the chromosomal switching? How, for example, does a cell in an animal know whether it is a bone or a liver cell? I guess it is via biochemical messages sent via receptors on its cell membrane. Could there be some bio-chemical "messengers" responsible for phylogenetic development?
Another possibility I have considered is that a point mutation occurs in one gene of the DNA of the parent population - this single mutation duds the gene and in someway this "unlocks" the key that is preventing the chromosomal rearrangement. Once unlocked the chromosomal rearrangement then occurs. The dud gene gets fixed in some of the population that then goes off and becomes a new species?
Interested to hear your views and those of others on this topic.
- Chris
[ 12. January 2006, 23:45: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Atom
Member
Member # 1840
|
posted 12. January 2006 20:23
From Cornelius G. Hunter's essay in 'Uncommon Dissent':
"For example, when bacteria in a population are subjected to harsh conditions, they tend to increase their mutation rate...Such hypermutators may be essential to the survival of the bacterial population in some cases. The mutations themselves do not appear randomly throughout the genome but are concentrated in certain areas that can produce helpful changes. In other words, pathways of adaptation are, to a certain extent, already laid out." (p. 204)
It would seem that genomes have built in "adaptation" spots in the genome and in the case of the bacteria mentioned, these adaptations are triggered by environmental stress. As Dr. Davidson is fond of quoting, there appears to be no room for chance in this sort of stress induced mutation, as it proceeds down an already "laid out" pathway, which bespeaks teleology. Mutation by Design.
Atom
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. January 2006 03:57
Let me thank both Chris and atom for their kind words.
One of my contentions is that macroveolution (speciation and the formation of all the higher categories) is no longer in progress, which is why I refuse to use the present tense when describing it. That places a severe restraint on our understanding.
I have based the PEH almost entirely on the model provided by ontogeny in which there is no question that ALL the necessary information for a complete unique individual is contained in a single cell, the fertilized egg. I have assumed that the same has held true during evolution. There are many other parallels that can be drawn.
1. Ontogeny proceeds by a progressive loss of potentiality and so has evolution.
2. Both have led from the more simple to the more complex.
3. Extinction is the evolutionary equivalent of the death of the individual.
4. Both have been irreversible.
5. Both are autoregulated and do not depend on the environment except as a condition for expression.
Why the IDists, who apparently want nothing to do with me, insisted on presenting Intelligent Design as a subject for debate is beyond me. We all know what happens when something is proposed for debate. Debate teams spring up all over the place and, like most debates, nothing is resolved.
I offered Dembski, Behe, Johnson and Wells all to present their version of the MECHANISM for evolution and they did not present one. Frankly I don't think they have one to present. I suspect a Fundamentalust Creationist agenda underlies their reluctance. The Darwinians on the other hand are apparently ashamed to recite the same old tired litany knowing full well that no one will buy it any longer. Neither faction has anything to offer.
I have not arrived at the PEH easily and I have done everything in my power to find weaknesses in it. It took me twenty one years before I was willing to present it as a formal hypothesis because it was implicit in my 1984 paper "Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism." The only reason I finally formalized it was that all my intervening papers had also been ignored.
As I have indicated before, my contributions like those of all my sources, some of the best minds of two centuries, have been ignored by both factions in this debate. We have not been allowed to exist because we do not subscribe to either ideology. I predict, on the basis of my experience, that the PEH will also not be referenced in the refereed literature. If it should be it would open up a can of worms that neither faction is prepared to deal with. I offered them every opportunity on my blog and all I got were two terse emails, one from Behe and one from Wells, each claiming they were too busy writing. Imagine if you can that none of the luminaries, Dawkins included, could take the time to prepare a 500 word synopsis of their evolutionary convictions and present it for public scrutiny. I think that requires no further analysis or explanation.
To paraphrase Shakespeare with but a single substitution:
"Conscience doth make cowards of them all."
Thanks for the responses.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. January 2006 05:41
I just noticed an interesting typo when I misspelled Fundamentalist as Fundamentalust. Perhaps it really is a lust, a lust to force a living personal God down out throats. Sometimes it really seems that way.
"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
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 14. January 2006 11:27
Hi John,
I can see from this and other posts you have a certain dislike for Biblical fundamentalists. Taking an over-literalist view of the Bible may indeed be incorrect - but does this negate the existence of a God having attributes of personality? Is this not to commit the genetic falacy - namely that is possible to arrive at the correct answer even though the wrong reasoning was used?
It is surely true that on an academic level Einstein's God was not personal, but even Einstein could make mistakes and Einstein did talk about God in a very friendly (personal) way sometimes. Anyway this statement of Einstein does not negate God's personality but only states that it is a potential source of conflict. Cannot something be distasteful or controversial but still be correct?
I suspect that your negativity towards fundamentalists derives more from the fact that many have polarized 20th century history and current debate on the evolution issue by insistence on special creation and a 6x24 hr scene? Indeed this has caused a simplistic labelling of folk into either "Creationist" or "Evolutionist" categories. I find this quite frustrating because if like you (and myself) one takes a stance that science points towards some mechanism such as the PEH then one believes in both evolution and creation simultaneously. I understand your frustration but don't feel it is any reason to negate the possible existence of a personal God.
It may also be true that some IDists are fearful of talking about the mechanism of evolution for fear of being classified in the evolution camp - or of causing schism in doing so. How sad if true - because surely to talk about the mechanism of evolution from an ID perspective is to put ID on more of a sound scientific footing.
From previous posts I gauge that you believe God is dead because you see no action of God in evolution - well at least for the last 20 Myr? If I am not wrong you believe that God designed and implemented the "genome of life" and then gave up the ghost (perhaps in fulfilment or exhaustion?). This would be perhaps true if there were not alternative compelling explanations. Many philosophers and theologians normally see this recent demise of God's creative activity as a result of the introduction of Man on the scene - namely that Man being made in the image of God demands that Man have moral freedom - the freedom to live not just for himself but for both God and fellow man. In this respect he differs from all other creatures. Thus it is that the termination of God's involvement in nature can be understood in that
(i) creation was largely made for Man's sustenance and benefit - now complete (and terminated) it is sufficient.
(ii) God's "interference" now would mean Man could not be a moral free agent.
(iii) God no longer needs to be creative - because he has placed something of His creativity into man - "passed on the baton" so as to speak!
Thus it is my great hope that you can agree that there may well be reasons why (in the present era) God's hands may "be tied" so as to speak.
If I could quote the famous theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer -
quote:
Man shall proceed from God as his ultimate, his new work, and as the image of God in his creation. There is no transition here from somewhere or other, there is new creation. This has nothing to do with Darwinism: quite independently of this man remains the new, free, undetermined work of God. We have no wish at all to deny man's connexion with the animal world: on the contrary. But we are very anxious not to allow the peculiar relationship of man and God in the process. .. In man God creates his image on earth. This means that man is like the Creator in that he is free... Being free means "being free for the other" .. only in relationship with the other am I free
From lectures "Creation and Fall" - Berlin University 1932
I feel it best not to be dogmatic about the nature of God in ID discourse. Although this is not the forum for religious or theological debate (apologese) it is necessary that openess to different views about God be maintained (just as we are open to different views in science as long as they are not inconsistent with facts). In the context of PEH discussions this may be important. For example what if there were more than one "information input" in the course of evolution - and our ability to "see" this (were it true) was restricted by rigid theological perspectives.
Hope I have not in anyway offended - that the very last thing I would want. I have just wanted to be honest about an alternative perspective and in doing so hope that important discussions on the PEH may be furthered.
- Chris
[ 14. January 2006, 12:11: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. January 2006 12:53
Chris
I have no objection to what anyone else thinks as it is the "American way." I will however not attempt to communicate with those who refuse to accept a reproductive organic continuum as so many Fundamentalists do. I just encountered that problem at Teleological Blog. I am convinced that just as we are born with strong preferences for toothpaste, clothing, jewelry, wives and beer we are also born with strong political predispositions. These are no longer speculations as they have been verified with studies on separated identical twins. The vast majority of evolutionists are political liberals and Darwinians. I believe the two conditions are pleiotropic expressions of the same genetic malaise. I happen to be a notable exception, being neither politically liberal nor a Darwinian. As a matter of fact I am hideously conservative and proud of it!
Einstein remained a convinced determinist to his dyimg day. He also rejected philosophy as something he simply couldn't comprehend. I'm afraid I suffer from the saame condition.
Actually, even before Einstein was born, Gilbert and Sullivan recognized a determined world in Iolanthe:
"Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or a little conservative."
We are all victims. I happen to feel, rightly or wrongly, that I, with Einstein, have been one of the lucky ones.
Thanks for the interesting comments. However I think you will find that I'm beyond redemption.
"You can't reach an old dogma new tricks."
Dorothy Parker
Actually I stole this quote from none other than Wesley Elsberry, the proprietor of Panda's Thumb, the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. His forum is living proof of Dorothy Parker's wisdom.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. January 2006 13:07
Chris
Thanks for the thoughts. I have never really denied the existence of a personal God. I don't think Einstein did either although he did say that he thought such a belief was "naive."
I think all you will find is that I said that I see no evidence for one and I don't believe I even said that in hard copy. None of my sources ever found it necessary to bring God into the picture either. The scientist does not proceed on the basis of what might be but on what cannot be denied. I think it would be just grand if there were a personal God looking after us here and after we leave here. I see absolutely no reason to presume such a thing and frankly I don't see how any one else can either. But that is just me. If there were such a God, and that is a very big if, I just hope He won't be too disappointed in me for not blindly believing in Him. You notice, just to be safe, I capitalized both He and Him. Of course it is also pure presumption to insist on God's gender and it makes no biological sense whatsoever. After all, it is Mother Nature. I hope we can agree on that.
I'm not even sure about how many Gods there were but that there were one or more is undeniable. I favor the idea of two, one malevolent, the other benevolent. It makes the behavior of their final product so much easier to understand.
I still feel that the most vocal of the IDists, Dembski, Behe and Wells have a veiled Christian agenda, although for the life of me I cannot understand Wells being a Moonie. That boggles my ancient mind.
Thanks for the exchange.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. January 2006 12:28
I too would be delighted to continue discussing the PEH. I have left unanswered terminal messages all of the internet as the PEH dies on the several vines. At many forums I have been summarily banned which effectively terminates any further discussion. Neither the Christian Fundamentalsts nor the Darwinian atheists are known for their tolerance, especially when they encounter someone who has rejected both ideologies and ideologies they both most certainly are.
It reminds me of the monk who, after hearing his brothers argue over how many teeth there were in the horse mouth, left the monastery, found a horse and counted them. When he announced his findings they through him out of the order!
So it has been for the PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 16. January 2006 17:21
Just for fun and to keep this thread alive let me repeat my offer for anyone to present his version of the MECHANISM by which evolution has taken place.
For myself it is only the MECHANISM that is in question because I regard it as unthinkable that any objective mind could summarily deny organic reproductive continuity because that is the very definition of evolution. Yet it seems that some still consider such a possibility. If they do then I say let them put it in print if not in hard copy at least here, hopefully with their real name attached. I guess the anticipated silence of the Darwinians will mean that they still adhere to the aimless, randomly driven mechanism which has characterized the Darwinian model from its inception.
But what of those who offer no explanation whatsoever like Dembski, Behe, Wells and the others identified with what has come to be known as the "ID movement," a movement with which I have chosen not to be associated? What do they really believe? I honestly can say that I do not know because they have refused to reveal their convictions. They have been much too busy defending themselves from the overt ridicule characteristic of their Darwinian ultra-materialistic opponents. The Darwinian camp has apparently assumed that the IDists have a Christian Fundamentalist agenda, an agenda which has to my knowledge never been denied. In a sense I can understand the Darwinian position even though I thoroughly reject their own model.
Perhaps what I was unable to evoke at my blog can be achieved here at the much better known forum of the ISCID. I doubt it but I would be delighted to be wrong.
As a general physiologist by training and inclination, it is only the MECHANISM by which phenomena are expressed that has ever been of interest to me. Having rejected the alternatives, I have been forced to the PEH. I will abandon it when it fails to remain in concert with what we really know. So far that has not occurred.
"Men are most apt to believe what they least understand."
Montaigne
"The main cause of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 16. January 2006 22:30
John,
If I could comment on:
quote:
But what of those who offer no explanation whatsoever like Dembski, Behe, Wells and the others
I don't know about Behe and Wells except that they seem to accept both evolution and ID. However I would like to comment on some of Bill Demsbki's work - particularly the 4th law of thermodynamics which so strongly supports the PEH that I have for some time been perplexed by your statement made 10.10.05 that:
quote:
I regard the 4th thermodynamic law as myth. Sorry but that is my position. I also see no need for intervention along the evolutionary pathway.
The 4th law (which is mathematically demonstrable) essentially states that bio-information (which is complex specified information CSI) can only remain constant or decrease with time. Is this not exactly what the PEH is saying? - that information for the "tree of life" has always been there (i.e. from the beginning of biogenesis - in ontogeny analogy as per the fertilized zygote) and has become more and more de-repressed with time? Chromosomal rearrangments at speciation just expose the existing bio-information. Bio-information has thus always either remained constant or has been on the decrease (e.g. extinctions). Linked with the 4th law is Dembski's demonstration that natural selection and chance are purely conservative and provide no way of producing new bio-information. I feel sure you must like this 4th law?
With regard to "no need for intervention along the evolutionary pathway" perhaps you are right, but how do you explain the prokaryote to eukaryote transition? Could this not be a case of additional (or at least a 2nd) "intervention" since the semi-meiotic mechanism could not be in action here and since there are some 347 novel genes found in Eukaryotes (ESPs -Eukaryotic Signalling Proteins) which are not found in prokaryotes - see this paper .
-Chris
[ 16. January 2006, 22:40: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. January 2006 08:18
Thank you Chris.
I guess I just don't understand the 4th Law. It sounds to me to be little more than the conservation of energy. As for the role of natural selection, my God, Punnett claimed it was strictly conservative back in 1915 and Berg again in 1922. The Darwinians go right on blithely assigning it omnipotence. I will never understand why Dembski and company insist on presenting arguments for Intelligent Design when it is now and always was the sine qua non for both ontogeny and phylogeny. Both camps in this silly debate have completely ignored the greatest minds of the past from Mivart and Adam Sedgwick in Darwin's own day right up to the present. It is as nearly as I can determine just a series of ego trips. All you have to do is examine the bibliographies and indices of the many books and look at who has been either ignored or worse, debased. There you will find none of my sources. This whole business is a tempest in a teapot. Meanwhile in the laboratories of the world more and more evidence builds up to favor the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Commenting on Darwin's Origin of Species:
"But I cannot conclude without expressing my detestation of the theory, because of its unflinching materialism; - because it has deserted the inductive track, the only track that leads to physical truth; - because it utterly repudiates final causes, and thereby indicates a demoralized understanding on the part of its advocates."
Adam Sedgwick, The Spectator, 1860, less than a year after the publication of the Origin of Species.
As for the ID camp, all I can say is that none of its advocates were willing to present their version of the mechanism of organic evolution either. I conclude that both perspectives lack the conviction that every hypothesis must have. Maybe they will do it here but I am willing to bet they won't. It is only the mechanism for an undeniable past evolution that remains in question but not for much longer. Of that I am confident. I still believe the IDists have a Christian mystical agenda which they are unwilling to admit or even discuss.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. January 2006 12:21
Chris
I don't propose to explain the prokaryote to eukaryote transition or any other transition for that matter except within the confines of the PEH. that is why I used the term "somehow" when describing how the information for evolution was stored. It remains a gigantic mystery but someday it will be solved I am sure. In the meantime everything seems to support the PEH or at least I think so. The bacterium is extremely similar to the mitochondrion but that does not necessarily support the notion that mitochondria were once bacteria. They simply both may be reading very similar if not identical blueprints. You are right though in that the transition from prokaryote to eukaryote WAS a huge jump, but so WAS every other evolutionary step from species to genus to family etc. etc. Every step was instantaneous with no intermediates. Evolution WAS saltational just as IS every other genetic change now. There is no such thing as a gradual genetic change. That is one of the reasons that Mendelism (sexual reproduction) is basically anti-Darwinian and anti-evolutionary as well. Bateson, genius that he was, knew this and said so as I have documented. When Mendel was discovered in 1900 the evolutionists thought they had found the answer to evolution. They still do. Nothing could be further from the truth.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
