|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Julian Huxley’s Confession
|
BlastfromthePast
Member
Member # 1834
|
posted 07. December 2005 10:06
I still haven't found the quote I had in the back of my head. But this is an interesting one, taken from Darwinism: The Refutation of a Myth, by Soren Lovtrup.
On p. 197, he quotes Thomas Huxley from a long essay on the Ancon Sheep he wrote in 1860.(Found in Darwiniana Essays, T.H. Huxley, London, 1893):
"After much consdieration, and with assuredly no bias against Mr. Darwin's views, it is our clear conviction that, as the evidence stands, it is not absolutely proven that a group of animals, having all the characters exhibited b species in Nautre, has ever been originated by selection, whether artificial or natural."
Huxley, as Lovtrup argues, was basically a saltationist.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. December 2005 02:39
Excellent, Blastfromthepast and thank you very much. I will surely incorporate that somewhere. I am not at all sure that Huxley was really a saltationist. For example:
"Once more, an invariably-recurring lesson of geological history, at whatever point its study is taken up: the lesson of the almost infinite slowness of the mdification of living forms."
Huxley produced an enormous literature and so it is not ssurprising that he might occasionally contradict himself.
A useful source of his views is the small volume "Aphorisms and Reflections" produced after his death by his wife Henrietta. That was the source of the above quotation. Watts and Co. 1911. That particular quote is from his "Discourses, Biological and Geological." Both Thomas and Julian Huxley tread a careful middle road avoiding coming to firm conclusions even when certain conclusions seemed ievitable at least to this observer. By so doing they managed to remain relatively uncontraversial, something I find quite amazing. The Darwinians rarely refer to either Huxley. I can understand why.
Thanks again.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. December 2005 02:49
The Ancon sheep, which I believe is now extinct, is the result of the action of the same gene that produces the short legs of the Dachshund and the human achodroplastic dwarf, a nice demonstration of a universal genetic background which I feel supports the PEH. The idea with the Ancon sheep was to eliminate the high fences that were required for sheep with long legs. Apparently it never really took hold.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. December 2005 10:48
Please note that less than a year of Huxley's spirited defence of Darwinism he questioned the very core of Darwin's argument. Some Bulldog eh?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. January 2006 14:19
The September issue of Discover magazine features a piece on Richard Dawkins who is described as "Darwin's Rottweiler." Isn't it interesting that "Darwin's Rottweiler" has not questioned that which "Darwin's Bulldog" found reason to question less than a year after the publication of the Origin?
Dawkins now has adopted Einstein as his model apparently unaware of Einstein's attitude toward professed atheists of the genre so well represented by Richard Dawkins.
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 07. March 2006 12:40
I have heard discussion that your PEH suggested that evolution has come to a complete end. This necessity does not seem to be defined in your basic PEH. I had not understood where you were coming from on that until now.
I read Sermonti's "Why is a Fly not a Horse" recently. I got quite mad at him because some of his assertions didn't pass basic scrutiny. He says, "hey, stick-mimicking creatures were on the scene before flowering plants. That shouldn't be possible." Well, stick-mimicking creaters were not on the scene before sticks, so no big deal.
However, he also discussed how little the insects had evolved since the arrival of flowers. 'Seemed to me rather simple, the flowers evolved to adapt to the insects. But that's not right, what about co-evolution? Isn't co-evolution one of the keys to the case against irreduceable complexity. Doesn't the theory say that gene A mutated a bit, then gene B mutated a bit, then gene A could mutate some more -- allowing these two genes to become like a lock and key? Wouldn't the onset of flowers allow for all manner of co-evolution between flowers and insects? Why then is the evidence clear that very little evolution has happened to insects since the arrival of flowering plants? When I put my RM+NS hat on, this doesn't make any sense whatsoever. When I have my RM+NS hat on, I could see evolution 'stalling' because some sort of status has been reached. But when an organism's food supply is evolving like crazy, stasus has hardly been reached. Insects had to have ceased evolving for reasons other than stasus.
I must admit, I think I am becoming a fan of PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 08. March 2006 07:29
Bruce or anyone else for that matter.
Natural selection never had anything to do with emergent creative evolution. At present as in the past its sole purpose is to PREVENT change. It is entirely a conservative element. This was recognized independently by St George Jackson Mivart in 1871, by Reginald C. Punnett in 1915, by Leo Berg in 1922, by Otto Schindewolf by 1950 by Pierre Grasse in 1976 and certainly by myself. It is why one hardly ever sees variation among wild animals and plants.
The so called co-evolution between insects and the plants they pollinate probably resulted from both species reading the same prescribed information at the time of their evolutionary appearance. There is no evidence that any of these adaptations developed gradually. As a matter of fat there is no evidence that any evolutionary invention appeared gradually.
The entire Darwinian myth is without foundation. It is an invention of the human imagination. It is based on the assumption that everything one sees has resulted from an exogenous cause. Such a cause has never been identified for either ontogeny or phylogeny because such an external cause never existed. It is as simple as that.
One of these centuries this will have to be accepted.
Referring to both ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid, page 406
Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 08. March 2006 18:32
Dr. Davison,
I think that you are seeing more challenge to your position in my post than I am putting in there. For instance, you said:
quote:
The so called co-evolution between insects and the plants they pollinate probably resulted from both species reading the same prescribed information at the time of their evolutionary appearance.
I had just said that RM+NS theory would expect that co-evolution would significantly occur between plants and insects, but that the cases of co-evolution are, well, sparse.
I also suggested that RM+NS counts on co-evolution to solve the challenges raised by IC. Yet when co-evolution is basically absent in the plant-insect evolutionary picture, it brings doubt to the entire co-evolution solution. Ie, I agree with you.
By the way, I have added your "Evolutionary Manifesto" to the list of things I have read. Your PEH is becoming much more clear to me. It allows a whole lot to make sense. It also fully explains my six-toed cat mystery.
I will be reading Denton's "Nature's Destiny" soon. Based on reviews, I think that Denton is on a very similar track to what you are on. Have you read Denton? Are you and he thinking on similar tracks?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 10. March 2006 07:08
Bruce
Denton seems to think that evolution is intrinsic in the nature of matter. I do not. Also Denton, like everyone else in the published literature, has chosen to ignore all my papers which makes it very difficult for me to respond to his views. Just as none of my sources are allowed to exist so am I also not allowed to exist. That is just the way it is and always has been.
The fact remains that absolutely no one, including Michael Denton, responded to my request for a 500 word essay summarizing their views on the MECHANISM of organic evolution. I am content with the significance of that reaction.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. January 2007 17:39
Kazmer Ujvarosy has presented the subject of this thread, "Julian Huxley's Confession," as an article in the January 17, 2007 edition of The American Chronicle under his title - Is Evolution Finished?
Thank you very much Kazmer. Kazmer is truly unusual as he is quite willing to present the views of others even though he may not agree with all of them. Such individuals are rare these days. Nevertheless, we certainly share the realization that the Darwinian hypothesis is a total failure and never had anything whatsoever to do with a creative, progressive, irreversible and apparently goal-directed organic evolution, an evolution, as my signature claims, that is no longer in progress.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 17. January 2007, 20:24: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. January 2007 19:53
Martin
Since Alan Fox is stll blocking me from my own thread, would you please call his attention to that as well as to the message that I just presented here. Maybe he would like to present "Julian Huxley's Confession" at his blog also, knowing that I will be unable to defend it. This man is unbelievable.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. January 2007 14:45
Alan Fox is still blocking me from posting on the thread "Julian Huxley's Confession," which presents my paper in its entirety.
Imagine, if you can, Richard Dawkins not being allowed to post on a thread with the title. "The God Delusion."
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. January 2007 16:43
Bingo
Once he was exposed, I was once again able to post a comment at Alan Fox's thread which presented the "Darwinian Delusion" in its entirety.
But wait, it now reaches new lows even for Alan Fox. In the interim, Stephen Elliott had asked me a question to which I prepared a lengthy, civilized and detailed response which involved referring him to my earlier papers. Fox maliciously and deliberately blocked that response from appearing. I now warn Fox that if he still has that response available, he had better let it appear. If he does not I will do everything in my very limited power to expose his shabby tactics wherever I have that opportunity. I hope that both Stephen Elliott and Alan Fox read this message and recognize its significance to any further rational discussion of the great mystery of organic evolution at
alanfox.blogspot.com/
I hope that Fox's cronies at After The Bar Closes do the same.
If Fox cannot permit the author of a thread to respond to comments about that thread, the only honorable thing to do is to close his blog and retire in shame from any further internet communication.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 18. January 2007, 16:47: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 18. January 2007 18:06
John,
before sending something into threads controled by morons I always make a copy before. I have some experience with it. In one of our local forum admins deleted the same answer of me three times subsequently. Yet their patientce have limits - when I sent it for the fourth time after six hours they let it be.
I also sent my answers to participants by email (who published their email addresses).
And in the end admins banned me for good.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. January 2007 06:24
Martin
Thanks, but I do not suffer intellectual trash. Every time a blogczar bans, deletes or denies comment, he digs his own ethical grave a little deeper. That is the way it is supposed to be. David Springer does it, William Dembski does it, Alan Fox does it, Wesley Elsberry does it, P.Z. Meyers does it. Very few blogmasters don't do it. Incidentally, when I was blogging, I never did it and the only comments I ever deleted were those that had no significance to the subject.
That way a permanent record exists of the character of those that must resort to such tactics to preserve and protect their own personal biases. It is difficult to imagine a more telling demonstration of ones character than the features that presently dominate internet communication. Naturally -
I love it so!
In any event, I am not able to respond at Alan's "Neutral Venue," even on threads reprinting my own papers!
Incidentally, I just now received a notice from Norton that a recent attempt to attack my computer was blocked.
It is now 5:30 AM, January 20 and once again I cannot post at alanfox.blogspot.com/
It is now 6;00 P.M. January 21 and after allowing me to post a messasge Fox has again blocked me from posting.
It is now 230 P.M. January 22 and after getting one message through earlier, I am once again encountering the descending blocked sign.
6:00 A.M Jan 23. After being blocked I have once again been able to post a message.
7.00 P.M Jan24. this time I cannor post as the word verification box is empty. Following that the blocked sign descends when I make a second attempt. It doesn't get any better than this!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 24. January 2007, 18:50: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic