|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. September 2007 17:46
I hate to interrupt this thread now that it has been hijacked by Alan Fox/arjun, apparently with the full approval of the management here, but I want to call your attention to my message #1325 at the folowing link -
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/08/21/bens-blog/
I hope everyone enjoys it half as much as much as I enjoyed presenting it.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 17. September 2007 17:53
My special thanks to Daniel Smith for promoting the hijacking of my thread by arjun/Alan Fox.
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 17. September 2007 21:55
Arjun:
quote:
It would appear that horse evolution is not the straight line from Eohippus to Equusas often depicted in popular texts.
That's very true. There are no "straight lines" in the fossil record.
From the article you linked to:
quote:
First, horse evolution didn't proceed in a straight line. We now know of many other branches of horse evolution. Our familiar Equus is merely one twig on a once-flourishing bush of equine species. We only have the illusion of straight-line evolution because Equus is the only twig that survived. (See Gould's essay "Life's Little Joke" in Bully for Brontosaurus for more on this topic.)
Second, horse evolution was not smooth and gradual. Different traits evolved at different rates, didn't always evolve together, and occasionally reversed "direction". Also, horse species did not always come into being by gradual transformation ("anagenesis") of their ancestors; instead, sometimes new species "split off" from ancestors ("cladogenesis") and then co-existed with those ancestors for some time. Some species arose gradually, others suddenly.
From Schindewolf's description of the fossil record, one gets the impression of something akin to a fireworks show on the fourth of July; with different sized "explosions" going on everywhere at different times. Each new type bursts upon the scene followed by a fury of differentiation, then a gradual period of over-specialization, then mass extinctions - with one or two under-specialized relics remaining. It's much more like a series of bushes than the tree so famously depicted.
This is the picture Schindewolf paints of the fossil record. I'm assuming you will now accept it as realistic?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. September 2007 01:56
Daniel Smith
That is a somewhat unfair interpretation of Schindewolf's evolution. While there have been experiments that have failed, the present biota, which I believe is now stable, has been arrived at through a highly directed series of saltational steps which have terminated without further change. There is not a shred of evidence that any current higher form will ever be further modified to produce an "improved" version. The horse, the elephant, the giraffe and man are all termini of a directed orthoevolution which ceased long ago. I am convinced with Robert Broom that there was a Plan. I am further convinced that the Plan has been realized and we are now in the final stage of the sequence, a stage which can only decline. After all that is exactly what happened with all the earlier stages isn't it? The difference is that there are now no longer any conceivable higher taxa. Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse all felt that evolution was a phenomenon of the past and was no longer going on. So do I for the simple reason that it cannot be demonstrated experimentally. It is for that reason that Schindewolf insisted that "evolution is not an experimental science and cannot be studied that way." Apparently he was correct. I have been slow to accept that view but it remains consistent with what we really know and that is all that matters.
I wish, if you insist on engaging Alan Fox/arjun here at "brainstorms," that you introduce a thread specifically for that purpose. I deeply resent his intrusion into threads representing my published papers. The man offers nothing but standard Darwinian pablum. Of course you will do whatever you choose but I feel compelled to let you know how I feel about it. To respond to Fox is to encourage him. If that is your purpose I am disappointed.
It might be different if I could comment on Darwinian turf but of course that is out of the question. Any forum which must ban its critics is not fit to be called by that name.
Incidentally, I never in the past called for Fox's bannishment. I only refused to engage him. I never will. I have no respect for any denizen of Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes, or Pharyngula, especially one like Fox who is an overt fan of Richard Dawkins. He has never offered a comment that was not designed to be derogatory toward any deviation from Darwinian atheist dogma. I believe that is his only purpose here or anywhere else he has pursued me, an activity for which he has a long history. It is my conviction that he, like oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit, is just another member of Elsberry's goon squad. Nearly all these blogheads have goon squads. They need them! Blogheads is not a misprint. It is a new word which I just coined. After all, since Thomas Huxley coined agnostic, surely I can coin bloghead. It is ripe with significance!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Daniel Smith
Member
Member # 3004
|
posted 18. September 2007 13:21
Dr. Davison,
Thank you for your clarifications. I am new to much of this and I respect your views immensely.
quote:
I wish, if you insist on engaging Alan Fox/arjun here at "brainstorms," that you introduce a thread specifically for that purpose. I deeply resent his intrusion into threads representing my published papers.
Unfortunately, I am not allowed the privilege of starting threads on this forum. I've asked numerous times but have received no response. Sorry.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. September 2007 14:56
Daniel Smith
I can't initiate threads either and neither can Martin. I have no idea who the priveleged few are. I think Bruce Fast may be one of them.
Here is another idea. Why don't you respond to Fox at After The Bar Closes, his home base and oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit's as well. It would be interesting to see how well you would fare there. Better yet, why doesn't Alan Fox/arjun invite you? I am willing to bet they would heap abuse on you in short order. Give it a whirl. I will watch, confident of the result. Nobody, and I mean nobody, challenges the biggest hoax in the history of science either at Panda's Thumb, After The Bar Closes or Pharyngula. Oh yes and EvC, ARN and RichardDawkins.net as well. I know from personal experience.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 18. September 2007 15:00
John:
You wrote:
quote:
Incidentally, I never in the past called for Fox's bannishment.
but on the thread in question you wrote:
quote:
If the management of this forum insists on allowing Mr. Fox to continue his shabby tactics, I will no longer participate at this forum and will make the reasons well known as to why that became necessary.
Which I parse as "Either he goes or I do".
Link
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 18. September 2007 15:07
John wrote:
quote:
Here is another idea. Why don't you respond to Fox at After The Bar Closes, his home base and oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit's as well. It would be interesting to see how well you would fare there. Better yet, why doesn't Alan Fox/arjun invite you?
I think that would be a great idea. Supersport is already enjoying himself there. So, Daniel, I hereby cordially invite you to participate at After the Bar Closes(although you don't really need my invitation, as the forum is open to all, with a few exceptions).
I am sure you will find someone there with more time than me to cross swords with you on horse evolution. I will start a thread for you, if you like.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 18. September 2007 19:32
Well it got rid of him in the past but it is pretty obvious that this forum has changed its policy toward those who contribute nothing to its stated objectives. Enjoy Alan Fox. His is a great mind as all can see.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 19. September 2007 09:56
Daniel Smith
Alan Fox has formally introduced a thread for you at After The Bar Close. Don't neglect this golden opportunity to expose the denizens of Elsberry's "inner sanctum," "our forum" as the intellectual vacuum pumps that they all continue to be. I envy you but of course only if you respond!
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 19. September 2007, 11:26: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. September 2007 06:15
Thank you Daniel Smith.
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 20. September 2007 11:24
quote:
...intellectual vacuum pumps...
This is a new one, John, but what does it mean? Google is no help.
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. September 2007 13:37
The beetle who concidentally hit on its predator and was eaten was selected against by "natural selection". He didn't survive "struggle for life". "Natural selection" destroyed it's selfish genes.
The brother of the mentioned beetle who didn't hit coincidentally to it's predator was selected for. The lucky guy is considered by a scientific darwinian eye as "more fit". He passed his genes to next generations. He won "stuggle for life".
This nonsense of "natural selection" is considered to be the main pillar of evolution.
IP: Logged
|
|
IF
Member
Member # 1904
|
posted 20. September 2007 14:55
Martin,
Read about statistics and the strange properties it exposes in any large set of data points. Using that mathematical discipline we can predict (within acceptable limits) how many strikeouts, homeruns, etc. there will be in a year by raising or lowering a pitchers mound an inch or two one way or the other. The Department of Transportation can tell how many deaths there will be on the nation’s roadways over the holidays. Insurance companies can determine how much to charge for life insurance premiums for the different age categories. Etcetera! The small advantages/disadvantages, statistically speaking, make all the difference in the long run not, as was believed for many years, the mysterious “invisible hand”.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic