|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 21. March 2006 22:23
Professor Pierre Grasse (1895-1985) - Distinguished French Zoologist
Hi John, This is the only picture I could find of Pierre Grasse. The definition is not good -hope we can find a better one. I have not been able to locate one of Schindewolf, but I think it cannot be too hard as he was such an important figure in pre-war German science. I still hope you are going to write a book talking about the work of these great evolutionary scientists. If you don't do it who will?
Sincerely, Chris
[ 22. March 2006, 05:42: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. March 2006 07:33
Chris
Schindewolf, Grasse, Berg, Broom, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Osborn and Punnett each wrote their own books, books that will stand long after Darwinism has become a footnote right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics, long after Gould, Mayr and Dawkins will all have been forgotten as the poor congenitally misguided ideologues that they most definitely were. Of that I am both certain and content. Besides, no one reads books. They become "out of date" the day they are published or so it is assumed. If they had been read and comprehended, Darwinism would have disappeared long ago.
Thanks very much for your support. Such as yourself are few and far between.
"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison after John Heywood.
"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
ibid
"Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."
Albert Einstein
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 22. March 2006 19:38
quote:
Schindewolf, Grasse, Berg, Broom, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Osborn and Punnett each wrote their own books, books that will stand long after Darwinism has become a footnote right next to the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics
John, I think based on what I perceive of the current situation that I agree with you in this statement. However, I must take you to task a little - you say these distinguished scientists wrote books that will ultimately survive the test of time. Why is it that a book you wrote - that summarized their works and built on them (i.e. perhaps by the addition of the SMH) should not just as much survive the test of time. [Of course all books and knowledge will one day billions of years in the future cease to propogate - in the final cold death of the universe (when the utilizable energy - needed for the transmittance of information - will reduce to zero) - but here we are talking about enlightening NEAR future generations on the most important question of all - how did we come to be here? - thus irrespective of ultimate demise of all human information (hopefully very much in the future) humans would be blessed with a correct understanding (rather than a random Darwinian one) and with it gain new meaning and significance]
Hey - did you like the picture of Grasse? - wish the quality were better. Any one else out there know of a better picture?
I feel a bit sad for you and the fact that just you and me seem to be on this thread. You occupy perhaps an excluded middle. Politics and history have led to a polarization of views. If you talk about evolution - or just mention the "E" word in a discussion you offend the literal fundamentalists (either because they are young earthers or because they think that just talk of evolution is heretical(because of the associations with Darwinism) and if you mention the BFL and the downloading of information you offend the Theistic (or Deistic) evolutionists. I also get the distinct impression that IDers prefer not to look into the past (or even the ramifications of ID theory towards the science of the past) because they worry about their allignment. Is it a fear of using either the "E" word or the "C" word and offending some, or is it perhaps a desire to keep everyone happy and in the same boat. I do not know but whatever it is a sad circumstance. But with the passage of time we can hope for a better true scientific culture.
Chris
[ 22. March 2006, 19:53: Message edited by: Christopher D. Beling ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. March 2006 00:41
Chris
I think we can find a better picture of Grasse. It wouldn't be right to put that one up next to the great one you found of Berg.
Actually Schindewolf's greatest book was published after the war in 1950 under very difficult circumstances. The treatment by Gould of that great book when it was translated (forty-three years later) was a scandal, a disgrace and a perfect demonstration of ideological bias. Theodosius Dobzhansky and Darcy Wentworth Thompson had already done the same with Leo Berg when Nomogenesis appeared in paperback in 1969. I discussed both scandals in detail on my blog if you are willing to search and find it there.
I am very content with my position in evolutionary matters as I am neither a fundamentalist nor an atheist materialist. That is the only place to be when you are convinced both extremes are wrong. I hate to admit this but I actually enjoy watching the two camps butchering one another.
I would be delighted to have my papers published as a chronologically arranged collection if there were a publisher who might be interested. I have made no attempt to find one. If there is an agent out there who might be interested that is fine with me. I think it would be more acceptable now than a decade ago.
The difficulty with books is that they have not been peer revued and so they they tend to lack the status that one gains from journal publication. It is bad enough that except for the first paper my subsequent ones have been published in Rivista di Biologia. My experience with the standard journals has been entirely negative for reasons which are clearly ideologoical. I owe a great debt to Giuseppe Serminti for his tolerance of my views. He is an unusually tolerant editor, scholar and a fine gentleman, a rare combination in the evolutionary world. Shortly after my 1984 paper was published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology, Louis Wolpert became the editor there. My subsequent submissions were ridiculed and dismissed out of hand evem though it was the logical journal for my papers. He is a rabid Darwinian by any standard and should not, in my opinion, be an editor anywhere. It is unfortunate. Editors wield enormous power and can control what appears in their journals by simply selecting the referees, thereby superficially escaping reponsibility for what appears in their journal. The reponsibility for what appears resides with them and them alone.
Mendel was acutely aware of this which is why he published in his own journal, "The Proceedings of The Natural History Society of Brun." In Mendel's day European botany was dominated by Carl Nageli with whom Mendel had corresponded. In a letter to Mendel, Nageli wrote:
"You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they cannot be proved rational."
Of course that which is empirical doesn't have to be rational! Evolutionary science today is still dominated by devout atheist rationalists in the persons of Dawkins, Mayr and Gould. Only Dawkins remains. What is really scary is the fact that he has been knighted! It is going to be very interesting to witness his response as his self-generated world crumbles about him. That is inevitable as everything we are now learning pleads for a highly determinant phylogeny and ontogeny as well. There is now and never was a role for chance in either. Of that I remain certain.
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 08. September 2007 07:06
quote:
Only Dawkins remains. What is really scary is the fact that he has been knighted!
Dawkins has not been knighted, and is not likely to be, as the sovereign is also head of the church, and would not be expected to reward services to atheism.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. September 2007 09:16
Of course Dawkins has not been knighted, only deified by the likes of Arjun/Alan Fox, oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, secondclass, P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry and every other Darwinian mystic still polluting cyberspace with atheist drivel. Knighthood is for ordinary men. Deification is reserved for Gods, especially atheist Gods like Richard (he is a good read) Dawkins.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
It doesn't get any better than this.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Supersport
Member
Member # 1989
|
posted 08. September 2007 21:13
From John's letter:
"The classic example of the
giraffe stretching its neck is an example and one considered by Lamarck. Of
course we know now from certain African tribes that engage in this practice
that the effects are not transmitted to the next generation. The failure of
mutilations to be transmitted has been known since antiquity."
John, I do not believe the giraffe thing represents Lamarckism as it should be. Sure enough, like you said, mutilations and bodily assaults cannot be inherited....but that does not rule out Lamarckism. I would suggest that traits that arise by way of an internal response to the environment could very well be heritable. And like you said in your paper, Lamarckism is very easily testable. There is no reason why science would avoid disproving the idea that environmentally-induced, adaptive traits can be inherited unless they are simply afraid of what they might find.
[ 08. September 2007, 21:15: Message edited by: Supersport ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 08. September 2007 21:53
Supersport, whoever that is.
Since progresive evolution is no longer occurring, we cannot rule out Lamarckian mechanisms when it was occurring. I prefer a prescribed, front loaded evolution myself because we have tangible evidence for it. I know of none that will support Lamarckian inheritance. Directed, orthogenetic, terminated evolution as exemplified by the horse, the giraffe, and the elephant provide convincing support for the PEH. Chance could not possibly have played any role in such transformations which apparently are no longer occurring.
"This leads to the conclusion that THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY TREND WERE LAID OUT RIGHT FROM THE START WITH THE ABRUPT, DISCONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF THE TYPE, AND WITH EVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL BEING RESTRICTED RIGHT FROM THE START TO CERTAIN PATHS.
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, his emphasis, original in italics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Supersport
Member
Member # 1989
|
posted 08. September 2007 22:13
"Since progresive evolution is no longer occurring, we cannot rule out Lamarckian mechanisms when it was occurring."
I think it's probably occuring all around us...right under our noses. It just happens so quickly nobody notices.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 09. September 2007 02:10
quote:
It just happens so quickly nobody notices.
A Soviet agronomist, Trofim Lysenko, had the Lamarkian idea that crops such as wheat could be improved by a process called "vernalisation".
Stalin gave him free rein to test his ideas in the Ukraine in the early '30s. The result was famine resulting in the deaths of many millions of Ukrainians.
This might have been prevented if Lysenko's theory had been objectively and scientifically tested before being inflicted on the unsuspecting Ukrainian population by the political elite. quote:
Lamarckism is very easily testable.
As you see. Not so easy for those Ukrainians, perhaps.
[ 09. September 2007, 02:13: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 09. September 2007 02:18
quote:
"This leads to the conclusion that THE MAIN FEATURES OF THE EVOLUTIONARY TREND WERE LAID OUT RIGHT FROM THE START WITH THE ABRUPT, DISCONTINUOUS PRODUCTION OF THE TYPE, AND WITH EVOLUTIONARY POTENTIAL BEING RESTRICTED RIGHT FROM THE START TO CERTAIN PATHS.
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, his emphasis, original in italics.
Additionally, if the environment had nothing to do with it, some mechanism must be present to ensure that the right organism unfolds at the appropriate moment. spacially and temporarily, in the niche for which it was designed. Do you have a hypothesis or a possible mechanism for this phenomenon?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. September 2007 09:09
Darwinism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. So perfectly has it failed that it is no longer tested.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. September 2007 10:02
Apparently Arjun is talking to Otto Schindewolf who has been dead for half a century!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
etc. ect. etc.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 09. September 2007 13:47
One of the most curious phenomenon of darwinian thinking is that whatever they proponents see they observe in it "adaptation" due natural selection. Is a polar bear white ? Adaptation. Is a maybeetle crypic? Natural selection. Is a honeybee cryptic? Natural selection did it. Oddly enough wasps living in the same areas as honeybees are aposematic - also due Natural selection. So Natural selection has driven honeybees with stings to look unconspicuos, cryptic and the same natural selection preffered in wasps (with stings ) aposematic coloration.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. September 2007 16:35
Natural selection has always been conservative, preventing, not promoting change. Don't take my word for it. Consider Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist of his generation -
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406
or St George Jackson Mivart in 1871, only twelve years after the publication of the Origin of Species -
"Of course, in this matter, as elsewhere throughout Nature, we have to do with the operation of fixed and constant natural laws, but there is, it is believed. already enough evidence to show that those as yet unknown natural laws or law will never be resolved into the action of 'Natural Selection.'"
The Genesis of Species, page 75.
or Henry Fairfield Osborn, the Curator of the American Museum of Natural History -
"In all the research since 1869 on the transformation of species observed in closely successive phyletic series, no evidence whatsoever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any paleontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit orginates by selection from the fortuitous."
Quoted by Berg, Nomogenesis, page 127.
I could go on and on, but why waste my cramping old fingers on deaf Darwinian ears, ears that can't hear what Einstein called the "music of the spheres." Congenital "prescribed" atheists all suffer from that malaise.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic