|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. September 2007 18:30
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 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
[ 09. September 2007, 23:14: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 09. September 2007 19:18
I think Berg said it best:
quote:
The struggle for existence not only fails to produce useful characters, but in itself undermines the foundation upon which they are raised. For it destroys innumerable quantities of individuals : it is estimated that in a beech plantation the number of ten-year-old trees is 800,000-1,000,000 per hectare, and of trees 120 years old only 500-750 (Morozov, 1912, pp. 18-19). Had there been no struggle for existence, and had all trees produced seeds, the probability of the accidental occurrence of a new useful variation in the beech would be many times greater than under the operation of the struggle for existence : in the latter case, the useful variations might perhaps have appeared, but the individuals endowed with them would have perished. (Nomogenesis, page 36, emphasis his)
IOW, selection significantly decreases the chances of potentially advantageous adaptations being passed on.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 09. September 2007 19:37
The most remarkable featue of the present evolutionary scene is how the johnny-come-latelys are now taking credit for what was known long ago by Mivart, Osborn, Berg, Goldschmidt. Grasse, Broom, Bateson and Schindewolf - namely that natural selection never had anything to do with creative evolution. Bateson also correctly realized that Mendelian genetics also had nothing to do with it and accordingly, in my opinion, neither then did sexual reproduction. In short, there is absolutely NOTHING in the Darwinian fantasy that ever had ANYTHING whatsoever to do with creative evolution beyond the trivial production of intraspecifiic varieties. Actually that was all that Darwin ever claimed or was able to demonstrate. It was his atheist followers and successive generations of their students that constructed a completely synthetic myth based on the phantom known as natural selection. This fairy tale continues in the hands of declared atheists like P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins, not one of whom ever did an experiment to test the Darwinian delusion or dirtied his hands in the field. Neither did Stephen Jay Gould or Ernst Mayr before them. The professionals and the public alike have been conned by a bunch of highly productive wordsmiths that have dominated the scene all too long with their arrogant pronouncements.
Pierre Grasse recognized this and responded -
"To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
It has literally been a giant left-wing atheist conspiracy, a conspiracy which has finally been thoroughly exposed. I am both delighted and proud to have played a role in that exposure by restoring the real pioneers of evolutionary science to their proper place, a place which was relegated to oblivion all too long by the atheist worshippers of the Great God Chance, not a true scientist in the lot.
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of is own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 09. September 2007, 19:43: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 10. September 2007 04:16
quote:
The struggle for existence not only fails to produce useful characters, but in itself undermines the foundation upon which they are raised. For it destroys innumerable quantities of individuals : it is estimated that in a beech plantation the number of ten-year-old trees is 800,000-1,000,000 per hectare, and of trees 120 years old only 500-750 (Morozov, 1912, pp. 18-19). Had there been no struggle for existence, and had all trees produced seeds, the probability of the accidental occurrence of a new useful variation in the beech would be many times greater than under the operation of the struggle for existence : in the latter case, the useful variations might perhaps have appeared, but the individuals endowed with them would have perished. (Nomogenesis, page 36, emphasis his)
Just a nit-pick:
In the wild, the beech tree will be struggling for existence against a variety of other species, not mainly against other beech trees, as in a plantation.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 10. September 2007 04:19
quote:
It has literally been a giant left-wing atheist conspiracy, a conspiracy which has finally been thoroughly exposed.
Literally?
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 10. September 2007 04:42
quote:
quote:The struggle for existence not only fails to produce useful characters, but in itself undermines the foundation upon which they are raised. For it destroys innumerable quantities of individuals : it is estimated that in a beech plantation the number of ten-year-old trees is 800,000-1,000,000 per hectare, and of trees 120 years old only 500-750 (Morozov, 1912, pp. 18-19). Had there been no struggle for existence, and had all trees produced seeds, the probability of the accidental occurrence of a new useful variation in the beech would be many times greater than under the operation of the struggle for existence : in the latter case, the useful variations might perhaps have appeared, but the individuals endowed with them would have perished. (Nomogenesis, page 36, emphasis his)
Another nitpick:
Would not biomass be a more accurate indication of reproductive success rather than number of individuals?
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 11. September 2007 06:17
Talking of Leo berg and Lysenko, there is some evidence that they may have met, or at least communicated. I wonder whether Berg may have sown the Lamarckian seed in Lysenko's mind, making Berg an unwitting accomplice in the 1935 famine.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 11. September 2007 06:19
You do not exist.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 11. September 2007 06:19
Nickolai Vavilov, who incidentally was a student of William Bateson, on the other hand ended up starving to death in a soviet labour camp for opposing Lysenko.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 12. September 2007 13:23
Arjun: quote:
In the wild, the beech tree will be struggling for existence against a variety of other species, not mainly against other beech trees, as in a plantation.
quote:
Would not biomass be a more accurate indication of reproductive success rather than number of individuals?
No matter what, it doesn't change Berg's basic premise: that natural selection inhibits evolution of new and useful variations.
Think about it: If everything survives, then every mutation gets a chance, and many, many more potentially useful variations will be passed on.
As it stands now (based on realistic selection), the struggle for existence knocks out variations and maintains the status quo.
One thing I'm finding extremely interesting: I've been reading some of the authors that Dr. Davison recommends (I finished Berg's Nomogenesis, am almost through with Schindewolf's Basic Questions of Paleontology and have also just started Bateson's Problems of Genetics), and I'm impressed by the number of real world examples these authors use to discredit Natural Selection. It seems that the other side of the argument relies much more on the theoretical.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 12. September 2007 13:35
Leo Berg's Nomogenesis is available on-line in Russian.
Л.С.Берг. Номогенез, или эволюция на основе закономерностей.
http://macroevolution.narod.ru/
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 13. September 2007 09:13
Daniel said: quote:
No matter what, it doesn't change Berg's basic premise: that natural selection inhibits evolution of new and useful variations.
There are three necessary and sufficient conditions for natural selection to occur. There must be variation in the population, this variation must be heritable and this variation has to affect fitness, the ability to survive and reproduce. When the environment changes (climate, a disappearing food source, a new predator, etc) a species may largely disappear, but a few individuals with serendipitously useful variations may survive and exploit the vacated niche.
This is a potted version of my understanding of natural selection as generally accepted.
Perhaps you or John would like to explain how natural selection inhibits the spreading of new beneficial alleles through a population.
quote:
Think about it: If everything survives, then every mutation gets a chance, and many, many more potentially useful variations will be passed on.
Well, the generally accepted view is that when niches are filled there is a struggle for scarce resources and the fittest (at exploiting that particular niche) will be more successful at reproducing.
quote:
As it stands now (based on realistic selection), the struggle for existence knocks out variations and maintains the status quo.
I don't follow your reasoning here. Perhaps you could elaborate.
quote:
I'm impressed by the number of real world examples these authors use to discredit Natural Selection.
Would you like to cite your best example?
[ 13. September 2007, 09:15: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. September 2007 10:12
Daniel Smith
It is a waste of time to attempt to reason with Arjun/Alan Fox. He has a long history as nothing but a trouble maker here and eslewhere. At one time he was banned here and I have no idea why he was readmitted. I recommend you ignore him as I do. I suggest the same for any other denizen of Panda's Thumb.
"Birds of feather flock together."
Cervantes
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 13. September 2007 11:03
Daniel Smith
Better yet, go over to Panda's Thumb and present your views there and see just how far you will get. Look at what is happening to Martin at After The Bar Closes. It is disgusting. I tried to deal with those animals and was banned for life. Like Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb is a closed union shop. Trust me or learn for yourself.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic