|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 26. February 2006 19:12
John, regretfully I had no time to study your works, but now I have some of them on my desk for reading. I based my opinions only on the letter you wrote to the editors.
Incidentally, I agree with you, it is not necessary to invoke religious beliefs in order to demonstrate that the entire Darwinian paradigm is a gigantic illusion. Here an illustration may help.
In California’s King’s Canyon National Park there is a giant Sequoia, namely the General Sherman Tree. From the standpoint of volume or bulk it is the world’s largest tree. Its age, based on growth ring studies of similarly large trees that have been cut down, is calculated to be between 3,500 and 4,000 years. So there is no doubt that no one alive today could have observed the formation of the General Sherman Tree from a tiny winged sequoia seed.
Now, if we would tell a hopeless skeptic -- who has never seen a seed develop into a tree -- that a single winged seed, smaller than the head of a match, is the formative and controlling agent of the General Sherman Tree, our skeptic could argue: "No one has seen the creation of that tree from a seed."
Because it is impossible for us to put a finger on that tree’s parent seed, there would be no way to demonstrate that indeed a seed played an intimate role in the birth and formation of the General Sherman Tree.
Our skeptic could point out that more than 97 per cent of that tree is dead, and largely only the seeds, the flowers, and the leaves are alive. For him it would be proof positive that the complexity and diversity of life on that tree arose from simpler forms of life, and eventually from the tree’s non-living materials. He would be convinced that the seeds evolved from the flowers, the flowers evolved from the leaves, and the leaves evolved from the twigs as a result of natural selection acting upon random variation for absolutely no purpose. Even if he would be able to take the entire tree apart, he could not find its parent seed. So if we would keep insisting that it was indeed a seed which generated the General Sherman Tree, probably he would call us names like bigots, fundies, or deluded creationists. He could demand: “Show me that seed which created this tree, or shut up!” Naturally, even armed with all the tools of science, we would not be able to come up with the requested evidence. The reason is that when a seed interacts with matter to generate a tree, it transforms itself from a potential state into a wave form or state of expression. Thus the parent seed no longer exists in its potential state, but in the form of a life field, until it assumes a seed state again in the form of its own reproductions. In quantum mechanics this phenomenon is referred to as wave-particle duality.
But to get back to our skeptic, all we could tell him is that now the seed is a life field, and that the evidence for that life field is the tree. Moreover we could point out that the tree’s parameters or determining characteristics are fine-tuned for the production of seeds because a seed akin to them generated the tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. Finally we could tell him that although we do not have the parent seed in its potential state for his examination, plenty of its reproductions exist in the form of seeds. But being a hopeless skeptic probably he would respond: “Where is the evidence that these tiny Sequoia seeds are the reproductions of your supernatural seed? These Sequoia seeds are the product of evolution. Isn’t it obvious to you that life has evolved on this tree from simpler to more and more complex forms? Fossils provide clear documentary evidence that on this tree the simpler lived before the more complex. The consistency of the sequence of fossils from early to recent is most persuasive. Ergo, evolution is demonstrated! On top of that, don’t you know that there is evidence for genetic affinity between this tree’s seeds, flowers and leaves, that these groups of organisms are related by descent from simpler common ancestors?"
This illustration intends to demonstrate that in a skeptic’s mind no seed or "designer" exists if he can’t put his finger on the tree's parent seed. But in the mind of a rational person design or structure formation in nature constitutes evidence that a seed is the designer.
Now let’s study incomparably larger and older systems.
When we are faced with our planet or with the universe itself, it is not easy to determine the cause of their generation. Such large-scale systems lie beyond our direct observation. By the time we were born, they existed. So what options are available to us for their study? We may try to examine them in detail as much as possible and based on our findings provide plausible explanations for their birth and formation. Also we may employ the method of extrapolation that involves the inference of an unknown from something that is known. For instance if we know that the end product or output of a tree provides the key to the input or origin of that system -- i.e., if we know that the winged seeds of a giant Sequoia constitute evidence that a Sequoia seed akin to them created the largest tree on Earth for the production of seeds in its own image --, then based on that fact of nature we may postulate that if we can identify the end product or output of the world system, then we have the key to the world’s input or origin.
Thus, if our observations indicate that we human beings constitute the end product or "seeds" of the world system, then based on that finding it is a rational postulate that human life or intelligence akin to us generated the world for the production of human life in its own image.
As Manly P. Hall noted in his monumental work, THE SECRET TEACHINGS OF ALL AGES:
A philosopher might declare that a universe could be made out of a man, but the foolish would regard this as an impossibility, not realizing that a man is a seed from which a universe may be brought forth. (Philosophical Research Society, Los Angeles, 1973, p. CLIV.)
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 27. February 2006 07:02
Kazmer
You don't have to convince me. I believe the whole business was planned from the very beginning or beginnings and that man is the terminal product of a planned and now terminally executed scenario. The best evidence for this resides in the silence with which my following challenge has been met, the several times I have presented it.
Name a single mammalian genus younger than the genus Homo and a single member of that genus more recent than ourselves.
A second challenge has also not been met.
Pick any two species, living or dead, and provide the proof that one is ancestral to the other.
We do not see "evolution in action" as the Darwinians continue blindly to maintain. We see only the immutable products of a long past evolution, just as Linnaeus and Cuvier both understood long before Darwin. That evolution had nothing to do with chance, nothing to do with allelic mutation, nothing to do with sexual reproduction and nothing to do with the environment generally. It unfolded from within those relatively few organisms which linked one step in the ascending scenario to the next. There is no evidence that such organisms are still extant.
Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 28. February 2006 00:52
John,
We do not see "evolution in action," and I’m absolutely confident that evolution is delusion, because emergence from a simple beginning would constitute gross causality violation. What we see, and what makes sense, is development from the existing most complex beginning.
The proof that the universe and human life come from the existing most complex beginning or universal common ancestor is provided by the principle of causality. This unfalsified and unfalsifiable principle stipulates that cause must always precede effect, and that the effect cannot be greater than the initial cause which is required to produce it. Put simply, no initial cause can give more than what it has. Or, whatever is in the effect must be in the initial cause. If an initial cause could produce anything greater than itself, the extra part of the effect would be without a cause, and that is contrary to reason; and, by extension, to science. After all it has never been demonstrated that we can get anything from nothing.
In light of this solid scientific foundation it becomes clear that we are violating the principle of causality if we argue that nonlife generated life, or that primitive life evolved into the complexity and diversity of life on its own strength. This irrational reasoning by evolutionists is exalting the effect over the cause, nonlife over life, the clay over the potter, the tree over its initial seed, and the created over its creator.
That’s not how the world actually works. In nature invariably we find that no initial cause ever gives rise to an effect greater than itself. Nature does not violate the principle of causality, but the evolutionist delusion does, to no small degree.
In short, there is hardly anything more evident than the fact that the paradigm of evolution from a simple beginning to life’s complexity is in violation of the principle of causality, of the cause-and-effect relationship, which is supposedly the cornerstone of science.
Because complexity's evolution from any kind of inferior cause is irrational, we have no choice but to postulate that the initial cause of the universe can be no lesser in qualities than what we find in the universe. Thus this logical inference from a highly complex effect to a cause no lesser than the effect itself points in the direction of an agent that we may call the parent seed, universal common ancestor, or cosmic genotype of the phenotype universe.
In the final analysis the principle of causality tells us that when we try to derive the richness of life from a simple beginning, as Darwin did, we are deluding ourselves. We try to get from a simple cause what it clearly does not have, namely greater complexity.
The U.S. novelist, Margaret Deland (1857-1945), pertinently remarked: “A pint can’t hold a quart - if it holds a pint it is doing all that can be expected of it.” I suggest that evolutionist cosmologists and biologists should keep this fact in mind, as well as science teachers, unless they want to teach hocus-pocus.
To conclude, whereas the alleged “theory” of evolution posits common descent from a simple beginning, the scientific theory of creation posits common descent from the highest form of life that we know exists. As we have no confirmable evidence that a life form superior to human life exists, we are constrained to propose that human life constitutes the cosmic system’s seed or universal common ancestor, pending the discovery of a superior non-human form of life.
Of course it is not mandatory to take it for granted that human life constitutes the cosmic system’s universal common ancestor. This theory of creation is testable and can be falsified. After all the proposed sole actor, namely human life, most definitely exists, and is available for observations and experiments.
This brings us to your challenge. You’re asking me to pick two species and provide proof that one is ancestral to the other. As hopefully by now I made it clear in my postings, the species Homo sapiens is the only existing common ancestor, and is ancestral not only to all of the species, but to the entire universe as well.
As I see it, in essence science is knowledge of the effect, and what is labeled “religion” is knowledge of the cause. Modern science needs to learn the identity of the superior cause of the universe, and religion needs to learn how that cause generates the effect in the form of the universe.
Now, is evolution's concept of common descent false? Yes and no. If common descent is from a simple beginning, the answer is yes. But if common descent is from a most complex beginning, the answer is no.
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 28. February 2006 01:03
John,
I finished reading three of your papers. In my opinion what you write in “Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information” (2000) is of great significance in casting light on the absurdity of the Darwinian paradigm.
You and others find that “there is an intimate relationship between ontogeny and evolution (phylogeny),” note the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species, and posit that evolution, so far as macroevolution is concerned, is over. Also you and others propose that both evolution and development was the result of laws, as opposed to chance. Moreover you agree with R. C. Punnett (1915) that natural selection’s “function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existing likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.” Finally you propose that “the information for virtually all of evolution may have been present from very early in the onset of the process.” What you fail to provide is the origin of the inferred information itself. In this regard you are under the same umbrella with physicists who refer to the laws of nature, but fail to identify the source of the inferred laws, or with the proponents of intelligent design who infer the existence of a designer, but fail to identify that creative agent. If we fail to identify the source of information, the source of nature’s laws, and the designer of intelligent design, how is it possible to verify such hypotheses experimentally? In order to demonstrate that indeed a tiny winged seed generated the largest tree on earth I have to identify and make available for experiments a giant Sequoia’s seed. Similarly, in order to demonstrate that information or intelligence does not arise de novo, but has a source, we must identify the source and make it available for our examination.
Remarkably, Christ’s apostles refused to believe in God, and demanded the presentation of empirical evidence. In John 14:8-9 we find Philip saying to Jesus, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
Now, Christ not only speculated about the source of the entire universe, but demonstrated its existence by identifying himself as the creator or seed of the universe. So if it is not Christ who constitutes the ultimate source of information, intelligence, or nature’s laws, I am asking, as Philip did, to show me the alternative source of the above qualities, and I shall be satisfied.
Let me conclude by noting that in your opinion macroevolution is finished because sexual reproduction is incapable of supporting macroevolutionary change. In my opinion macroevolution is a myth, it never existed, and what does not exist is not supportable either by sexual reproduction or by processes involving the first meiotic division. Just as no macroevolution takes place in the development of a tree system from its parent seed, no macroevolution takes place in the development of our universe from its parent seed, which seed Christ identified as his own being.
Second, the unfolding of the universe from Christ’s body provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates in fossil species. Just as the leaves of a plant do not have intermediates, no species have intermediates. All creatures unfold from information already present in the genotype of the phenotype universe – i.e., they are preformed.
Third, it seems to you that there is an intimate relationship between ontogeny and evolution (phylogeny) because Darwin and his disciples failed to realize that what they believe to be phylogeny is in fact ontogeny. Again, just as macroevolution, phylogeny exists only in the minds of evolutionists.
Fourth, you are absolutely correct; there is no room for chance, because chance plays no role in the development of the universe. As it is well known, the doctrine of chance is the bible of the fool. Henry Fergus put it this way: “By the word chance we merely express our ignorance of the cause of any fact or effect – not that we think that chance was itself the cause.”
Fifth, when it is so obvious, as Leo Berg (1969) observed, that “Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of preexistent rudiments,” then why are you still searching for “a clue to the nature of the evolutionary process?” Isn’t it evident to you by now that what is believed to be “evolutionary process” is in fact developmental process? That what is believed to be purposeless “natural selection” is in fact sequential unfoldment of the universe from its parent seed for the purpose of self-reproduction?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. February 2006 10:16
Thank you for the kind words about my work and that of my many predecessors. Neverthelss, I must insist that macroevolution most certainly did exist in the past. There actually is no such thing as microevolution because it leads nowhere. It can do nothing more than generate intraspecific variation. That can hardly be considered evolution.
As I have repeatedly claimed:
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
I will stand by that until it is proven to be in error.
Thanks for posting.
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 28. February 2006 19:04
John, if you're convinced that a past evolution is undeniable, in spite of the fact that a present evolution is undemonstrable, then I assume the reasoning is equally valid that the creation of the world in six days is undeniable, in spite of the fact that at present it is undemonstrable. If that reasoning is valid for evolution, it must be valid for creation, too. Sorry, I find that reasoning irrational.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. February 2006 19:15
My friend Kaz.
Let us abanandon further communication since being told that ones reasoning is irrational does not lead do to productive dialogue. OK?
Thanks for postimg.
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 28. February 2006 23:46
John, if you feel offended and terminate this discussion because I pointed out what in my opinion is inconsistency in your reasoning, it's fine with me. It seems to me evolutionists who similarly feel offended because you point out errors in their reasonings react the same way. I guess that's one of the reasons why they prefer not to have a dialogue with you.
In any case I have to thank you for being what I would call a dissident intellectual who is committed to promote the truth about the Darwinian paradigm to the best of his ability.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 01. March 2006 06:42
The only reason I choose not to continue with you is because you claim I am irrational. I cannot imagine a greater intellectual insult. can you?
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 04. March 2006 02:59
Big deal. We all make irrational assumptions. I just booked an airline ticket to Europe from September 3 to October 15. I have the irrational assumption that I'll be still alive to make that trip. Where is the guarantee? I have none.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. March 2006 10:40
Kaz
I am like a dog with a bone with my PEH. Dawkins is Darwin's Rottweiler and I am Leo Berg's Russian Wolfhound (I thought you might like that). How anyone can take Dawkins seriously is utterly beyond me, yet there are thousands for whom he is their hero. You don't have tb be a religious fanatic to reject all of Darwinian materialism. There is a middle road and I think I have found it. If I am intolerant and difficult it is because I have been treated with contempt by both ends of the spectrum. If my distinguished sources, not one of whom was a Darwinian, had not been such perfect gentlemen, we would be talking today of Bergian not Darwinian evolution. Of that I am certain and I have every intention of seeing to it that day will come. I hope this will clarify my position.
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 11. March 2006 03:18
John, just in case you're interested, see the article I wrote, "The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth."
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewArticle.asp?articleID=6623
The Evolutionist Campaign to Suppress the Truth
Kazmer Ujvarosy
March 7, 2006
The truth is that the evolutionist explanations for cosmic and biological development from a simple beginning do not square with the facts. Only development from a most complex universal common ancestor agrees with the data we have.
Eugenie C. Scott, executive director of the National Center for Science Education, is dedicated to keep the Darwinian doctrine’s judicially imposed monopoly in our public schools alive, to the best of her abilities, and at the expense of generations of students. According to Ken Miller, professor of biology at Brown University, what evolution really means is summed up in the conclusion of Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species: “There is grandeur in this view of life … from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.”
What we are not being told by either Scott or Miller, and what is being criminally dismissed or suppressed by the entrenched Darwinian establishment, is the fact that experts in the field failed to find evidence that the mechanisms proposed by Darwin can produce new kinds of living organisms. For example as early as 1922 the Russian ichthyologist and zoogeographer Leo S. Berg made public his finding that what is believed to be evolution is indistinguishable from the process of development from a fertilized ovum, in which zygote or genotype the phenotype organism has its origin.
In discussing the remarkable relationship between development and what evolutionists assume to be evolution, Berg wrote: “The laws of the organic world are the same whether we are dealing with the development of an individual (ontogeny) or that of a paleontological series (phylogeny). Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.” (Berg, L. Nomogenesis; or, Evolution Determined by Law. M. I. T. Press, Cambridge, 1969, p. 134.)
Thus, rejecting the Darwinian doctrine of evolution from a simple beginning, Berg argued that an organism’s qualities are determined entirely by the orderly unfolding of sequences that characterizes embryonic development. In other words in Berg’s judgment development and what is believed to be evolution are, strictly speaking, one thing.
His finding is most significant because if what is believed to be evolution is in fact development, then the “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful” are not unfolding from a simple beginning, as Darwin proposed, but rather from a most complex genome, zygote, genotype, or universal common ancestor.
Building on the findings of Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, William Bateson, Robert Broom, and Pierre Grassé, in 1984 John A. Davison from the Department of Biology at the University of Vermont presented the semi-meiotic hypothesis of organic evolution. (Davison, J. A. Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. J. Theor. Biol., 111: 725-735.) His papers, in his own words, “expose the complete failure of virtually every aspect of the Darwinian model.”
The essence of Davison’s hypothesis is that the formation of new species (speciation) results not from new genetic information generated by evolutionary mechanisms, but rather from an enormous potential supply of information already present in the genome or preexisting information. “Thus,” he writes, “what has been described as convergent evolution is not that at all but the expression from preformed sources of virtually identical morphologies.”
Although Davison is still asking, “What is the origin of the preexisting information?”, he’s convinced his “model provides a rational explanation for the absence of intermediates both in contemporary and in fossil species.” On top of that Davison argues that if laws govern both evolution and development, and not chance, then “The existence of laws presumes a law maker or makers. That in turn suggests purpose.”
Needless to say, Davison had to pay a price for his dissent from the Darwinian doctrine. He was subjected to harassments by various members of the faculty, and his salary remained frozen at the 1995 level. Eventually he retaliated by publishing “What It Means to Be an AntiDarwinian at the University of Vermont.”
This brings us back to Eugenie Scott, who in her presentations and debates keeps referring to Charles Darwin’s brainchild as the “theory of evolution.” Without her blinder she could see what Davison wrote in his “Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?”
Davison points out that a theory “is an hypothesis which, having been tested, has achieved a degree of support, thereby enabling it to make certain predictions.” However in Darwin’s model allegedly nature selects random changes in genetic composition resulting from assumed undirected mutations. So Darwin’s brainchild clearly cannot be tested because if the evolutionary mechanism he proposed is without purpose, its result cannot be predicted.
To illustrate, if we travel without a goal in mind, the prediction of our destination is impossible. The only prediction a person can make is that our wanderings are unpredictable, or that we can’t get lost because we have no destination in mind. Similarly, if the evolutionary mechanism is without purpose, no prediction can be made, except that the result of evolution is unpredictable. But to remain rational, a process without purpose is necessarily endless and can have no result. By definition result means a desired consequence or outcome. So if indeed Darwin is correct that from a simple beginning “endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved,” for no purpose whatsoever, then his model can yield no result or outcome, and therefore cannot be predictive.
Also let me note that in the absence of purpose no action of any kind makes sense. If the process Darwin labeled “natural selection” is indeed purposeless, how can selection take place in the absence of a goal? Selection implies choosing in preference to another or others for some purpose. If there is no purpose, there is no need for selection, be it natural or human. Thus the very act of selection implies a purpose, but Darwin and his disciples irrationally insist that the process of evolution is purposeless.
In light of the fact that it is impossible to make predictions based on the evolutionary mechanism proposed by Darwin, Davison correctly concludes that “the Darwinian model does not qualify even as an hypothesis, a curious status for a view still widely accepted by the evolutionary establishment.”
But to give credit to where it belongs, Eugenie Scott is correct in insisting that explanations which are not predictive, and cannot be tested scientifically, have no place in science. For these very reasons the Darwinian model has no place in science.
As by now it should be evident, the Darwinian model is not predictive, because the result of any purposeless process is unpredictable. Moreover it is not testable scientifically because Darwin’s claim that natural selection managed to yield human life automatically disqualifies human involvement in the testing of that absurdity.
Incidentally, the celebrated Big Bang model of the universe suffers of the same predictive impotence. As Stephen Hawking noted in his lecture, “The Future of Theoretical Physics and Cosmology” (Cambridge, UK, 11 January 2002), if all equations break down at a singularity, the Big Bang cosmology does not have any predictive power because if no one can predict what comes out of the initial singularity in which the universe has its source, it is impossible to calculate how the universe would evolve.
Just as in cosmic evolution, we are faced with the same problem in biological evolution. If no one can tell what comes out from a simple beginning or common ancestor, it is impossible to predict the evolution of life.
Characteristically, Eugenie Scott likes to assure her listeners that evolution isn’t a belief, because “Scientists can test it and test it and test it over again.” She fails to realize that when scientists are testing a particular process which they think is natural selection’s purposeless process, in reality they are not evaluating natural selection’s abilities, but their own abilities. Put simply, they fool themselves repeatedly into believing that what they do is what natural selection does, and in turn fool their students and the public as well.
In any case it is obvious that if natural selection is the cause of human life, then natural selection is above and beyond human life – i.e., natural selection is supernatural. But if natural selection is not a supernatural agent of creation, why is that entity not available for observations and experiments? Why can’t we see and touch natural selection?
If it is true indeed that only one thing in science is not open to change, namely its demand that every explanation be based on observation or experiment, where is for natural selection the observable evidence capable of being touched or tested? Also, if indeed from a simple beginning or universal common ancestor evolves the richness and complexity of life, who was there to observe, touch or test that postulated common ancestor?
This basic and rational demand by science brings to mind the incident reported in connection with Jesus Christ. In John 14 we find that when Jesus was teaching his disciples about the nature of the Creator, Philip demanded that his explanation be based on observable evidence:
Philip said to him, “Lord, show us the Father, and we shall be satisfied.” Jesus said to him, “Have I been with you so long, and yet you do not know me, Philip? He who has seen me has seen the Father; how can you say, ‘Show us the Father’?”
Also note Paul’s letter to the Colossians where he identifies Christ as our Creator:
By Him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible …; all things were created by Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Is there need to make it more evident that the theory of creation meets the demand of science? We are being told that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed creates a tree for the purpose of self-reproduction. In other words Christ identifies himself as the cosmic system’s common ancestor, seed, genome, genotype, or input and output. As he put it in Revelation 22:13, “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”
To come to the point, whereas the evolutionist speculation fails to meet the basic demand of science that an explanation must be based on observable evidence capable of being touched or tested, the theory of creation from Christ’s body satisfies that rational requirement. After all neither Darwin’s natural selection nor his imaginary simple beginning or common ancestor is observable and capable of being touched or tested. In contrast Christ, the actual Creator of the universe, made himself available for observation, and was being touched and tested. What is more, he made the prediction that in due time he’s going to live with us again.
Now, if evolutionists keep insisting that Christ is not the Creator or universal common ancestor of the cosmic system, we should demand from them to make available their natural selection and common ancestor for observation, touching, and experiments.
To conclude, when next time Eugenie Scott and similarly deluded evolutionists parrot the bold-faced lie that we have no scientific theory of creation, remember to remind them that it is in the Bible. In reality the theory that Christ constitutes the seed of the universe, or the genotype of the phenotype universe, is incomparably more scientific and fact-based than the alternative explanations invented by evolutionist biologists and cosmologists. It identifies Christ as the seed of the universe, and human beings as Christ’s reproductions. Because Christ is our universal common ancestor, and because he got in touch with us, and promised to live with us in the future, Darwin’s imaginary common ancestor is a parody of Christ.
In the final analysis whereas Darwin posits common descent from a simple beginning, the theory of creation posits common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence. As we have no confirmable evidence that intelligence superior to Christ’s intelligence exists, we are constrained by the available evidence to accept that Christ created the universe for the production of human life in his own image, similarly as a seed generates a mighty tree for the purpose of self-reproduction.
Contrary to what we are being told repeatedly, it is not science that faces a new offensive, and it is not the theory of common descent what we are challenging, but the irrational elements of the evolutionist doctrine. Because descent from one universal common ancestor is the essence of Darwin's model, the theory that Christ is the common ancestor of the entire universe actually reinforces Darwin's main contribution to science. But whereas Darwin proposed descent from a simple common ancestor, the scientific theory of creation proposes descent from the existing highest form of intelligence.
Unless the defenders of the Darwinian model acknowledge the fact that common descent makes scientific sense only from the existing highest form of intelligence, Darwin's idea will not sell well on the marketplace of ideas. As Alan I. Leshner, the chief executive officer of the American Association for the Advancement of Science realized, "Scientists can't sell it alone." Therefore he would like to see religious leaders get more involved in the promotion of evolution. However that cooperation will remain a dream unless the realization sinks in that indeed Jesus Christ constitutes the cosmic system's input and output.
So as our Creator personally testifies, and as nature itself testifies, and as I and other rational thinkers see it, common descent from the existing highest form of intelligence makes a lot more sense then descent from Darwin's imaginary simple common ancestor by the help of an equally imaginary natural selection.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. March 2006 03:35
Dear Kaz
You must understand that I am an evolutionist and I am not in any sense interested in "supressing the truth." Quite the contrary. I am interested in furthering it. I am convinced that the first forms of life on the planet were simpler than the later forms which is what evolution is all about. It is only the mechanism that remains undisclosed but not for very much longer. One thing is now certain. Chance played no role whatsoever in either phylogeny or ontogeny.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A, Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Kazmer Ujvarosy
Member
Member # 941
|
posted 11. March 2006 03:56
See below what Alfred N. Jackson wrote regarding the role of meiosis.
The chromosome numbers of species are FIXED by the mechanisms of meiosis which govern this aspect of sexual reproduction.This is deduced from the observed phenomena in the process of meiosis.If the chromosomes of a 'supposed-to-match' pair do not match(?inversions/reciprocal translocations/deletions/etc.)such that synapsis is prevented,meiosis is obstructed/prevented.The result is infertility(if the chromosomal aberration is present in the germ line).In other words,meiosis does not allow for inheritable changes in chromosome number.The evolutionist must therefore provide a feasible theory to account for inheritable changes in chromosome numbers,if the theory is to be redeemed.
The theory of evolution cannot,therefore,account for the chromosome numbers at www.kean.edu/~breid/chrom2.htm
The other"evidence for evolution" such as all the similarities between the genomes of animals (animals with substantial chromosomal dissimilarities)could just as easily be cited as being evidence of creation-i.e.evidence of a preferred design,programmed in such a way as to produce similarities as well as distinctions between species,and protected from "corruption"(I employ the word here as a technical term,such as in computer lingo)by the mechanisms of meiosis,and by the 'fixing'of the programme into inheritable patterns controlled by the vehicles(chromosomes)which serve to prevent evolution.
All the so-called evidence for evolution is not true evidence for evolution,since it could just as plausibly be cited as evidence for a common design.
The crunch comes from the chromosomes which will not be bullied into evolving.
Another somewhat amusing observation is that the cited similarities between genomes of different animals appear in the context of enormous differences in phenotype.This would hardly serve to reinforce the theory of evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 11. March 2006 06:36
Kaz
Sorry, but chromosome numbers and structure have not been fixed at all. It is the structure of the chromosomes that determined evolutionary direction. It had nothing to do with allelic mutation or the selection, either artificial or natural, for those mutations. Evolution, a phenomenon no longer in progress, proceeded entirely from within the genomes of those relatively few organisms capable of producing offspring discretely different from themselves. The numbers of such creatures, both plant and animal, have steadily decreased over geological time until it is expremely improbable that there is a living creature today that can ever produce offspring basically different from itself.
Just as ontogeny ends with the death of the individual, so phylogeny has ended with the extinction of the species which is all that is occurring at present. The era of creativity is over and ended long ago, man being the very last mammalian product. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. The environment has played at best only a trivial role in each. That is the thrust of the PEH.
I realize this is not a very optimistic scenario but it the only one we have in my opinion.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic