|
Author
|
Topic: John A. Davison: Correspondence - Do We Have an Evolutionary Theory?
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. September 2007 16:21
I challenge anyone anywhere to produce a single example of any species gradually being transformed into a new species. All speciation was instantaneus, unambiguous and without gradations. So were every other taxonmic categories produced the same way. None of this is any longer in progress.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 20. September 2007 16:34
quote:
I challenge anyone anywhere to produce a single example of any species gradually being transformed into a new species.
But this depends on what you decide as a definition of species, thus rendering attempts futile. Incidentally, the Baiji, or Yangtze River dolphin has recently gone extinct. How could I demonstrate it was a separate species, using your definition?
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 20. September 2007 19:51
What part of "I have no intention of engaging Alan Fcx ever again" does Alan Fox/arjun not understand? I refused to recognize him the last time he invaded my thread and that will continue now. I am surprised that the management here allows his presence as he has never contributed a positive idea in his life. He is nothing more than Wesley Elsberry's myrmidon. All cowardly "blogheads" have their faithful servants and we all know who they are.
I love that new word "bloghead." It is so very appropriate.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 20. September 2007, 19:53: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 21. September 2007 05:23
quote:
I challenge anyone anywhere
Does your definition of "anyone anywhere" have the same sort of relationship as your definition of "species" does to that of the majority of living biologists?
[ 21. September 2007, 08:52: Message edited by: Arjun ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. September 2007 09:51
Majority rules. It always has. Everyone knows that.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 21. September 2007 13:02
The Oudemanse effect?
Please elaborate.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 21. September 2007 13:40
Here is an idea. Since the management here is allowing oldmanintheskydidn'tdoit and AlanFox/arjun to thoroughly contaminate threads once dedicated to my papers, why doesn't it invite Glen Davidson over to "brainstorms" to do the same? You will notice that Davidson is enjoying great success, producing rave reviews from his fellow inmates below -
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46f404b20a5b97bb;act=ST;f=14;t=5152;st=60
Let him come and join his cronies here so I can ignore him as well as I will any other denizen of either Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula. The important thing as far as I am concerned is to establish a permanent record of just how far any and all blogs are willing to descend in promoting decay in real productive intellectual exchange. That unfortunately now seems to include "brainstorms." That was the purpose of my own blogs in the past and that remains my purpose now - wherever I am allowed to post. The more trash, the merrier I always say. Whatever transpires, let not a word of it ever be deleted!
"Will you walk into my parlour? said the spider to the fly;
Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy."
Mary Howitt, The Spider and the Fly.
War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 21. September 2007, 19:21: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Arjun
Member
Member # 6108
|
posted 22. September 2007 02:31
quote:
Let him come and join his cronies here so I can ignore him as well as I will any other denizen of either Panda's Thumb or Pharyngula.
What is the difference if they post here or not? You can ignore anyone you want.
quote:
The important thing as far as I am concerned is to establish a permanent record of just how far any and all blogs are willing to descend in promoting decay in real productive intellectual exchange.
I sense a contradiction here. How can "real productive exchange" take place if you ignore anyone you perceive is sceptical, for example, of your PEH? Are you in favour or against the free exchange of ideas, or does that depend on who is commenting and whether you agree with them or not?
quote:
Whatever transpires, let not a word of it ever be deleted!
That would be "in favour" then, I take it.
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 22. September 2007 12:39
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46f54ab372636a62;act=SA;f=14;t=5199
I thank Daniel Smith for his kind words above. Hang in there Daniel. You already have them on the run just as Martin did before you. You have even managed to get Wesley Elsberry to surface. That is a sure sign of panic!
I also note that C.J O'Brien has called me a "crackpot." It is very important to me that these derogatory comments be collected and itemized. We can now add O'Brien's comment to DaveScot's claim that "Dembski thinks you are nuts." and P.Z. Myers' "Your stench has preceded you." I already have from Richard Dawkins -
"John Davison has been identified as a time-waster and his emails will automatically be deleted."
I will make it a practice from now on to document these denigrations as to source so that I can properly identify the low life that found it necessary to implement such tactics. Now who else wants to join in the "Dump on Davison Bandwagon? Don't be shy. Step right up unless you are afraid to of course. Remember -
"What happens in cyberspace stays in cyberspace."
SOCKITTOME!
and as I used to say on my blogs -
Who is next?
I love it so.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 22. September 2007, 12:42: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. September 2007 03:15
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46f60ebc22001085;act=ST;f=14;t=5199;st=30
Meanwhile, over at Elsberry's zoo, Daniel Smith continues to expose the atheist Darwinians in grand fashion. Elsberry is now mumbling something about "genetic drift" which never had anything whatsoever to do with evolution. Of course neither did "Natural Selection," the cornerstone of the Darwinian myth.
All they know how to do over there is to change the subject constantly in a frantic attempt to preserve the Darwinian hoax. I am surprised Elsberry even allowed Smith to mention my name, because he knows darn well that it is linked to the names of Schindewolf, Berg, Broom, Goldschmidt, Grasse and Bateson, some of the finest biologists of all time.
Smith has them on the run just as Martin has. In other words, two amateur biologists have exposed After The Bar Closes for what it has always been, nothing but a collection of unfulfilled blowhards not one of whom has ever published a word dealing with the only issue which has ever been at stake, the mechanism of a long past evolution. They blindly support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science for one reason only. It is because it denies a purposeful universe. It is as simple as that!
The bankruptcy of Darwinism is even more revealing at Pharyngula. Myers doesn't even try to defend the Darwinian fairy tale any more because he knows it is indefensible. Now his entire blog is dedicated to attacking anyone who is not a declared atheist like himself. That includes his president whom he calls "asshole-in-chief." He desperately calls for the impeachment of both Bush and Cheney. The idea that this man is teaching biology in an arm of the University of Minnesota is unthinkable. In my opinion he is no better than Ward Churchill, of University of Colorado fame, anti-American to the core. He is also a primary voice at Panda's Thumb which is little more than a left wing hate tank just like Pharyngula as anyone can clearly see.
Neither blog even addresses current evolutionary science any more because they realize that nothing in it will ever support their congenital conviction that life is an accident. All their energies are now directed at their adversaries - anyone anywhere who might believe in a purposeful world.
It doesn't get any better than this.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 23. September 2007 06:37
It gets better and better at my last link. These clowns are actually still promoting gradualism, when not a single fossil series indicates it. What every fossil series indicates are goal directed, saltational, "seemingly unconnected" stepping stones which of course they most certainly are not. It is just that all real evolutionary change involved cytogenetic mechanisms no longer in practice.
Pierre Grasse put it in the form of the last of the three cogent questions he posed on page 71.
"Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?
Evolution of Living Organisms.
They sure are Pierre.
Isn't it curious that Grasse's book title suggests that which his own words question - namely that organic evolution may not even be going on any more? Wouldn't it have been a better title if he had simply added a question mark?
"Evolution of Living Organisms?"
I think so.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 23. September 2007, 11:49: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
nosivad
Member
Member # 767
|
posted 24. September 2007 06:11
I add here Glen Davidson to my long list of denigrators. I refer to his comment 1122 at Ben Stein's blog where he dedicated his mindless assault on me in one of his longest messages yet. Here is a sample from early on in his tirade -
"...a crank, a peddler of unsupportable ideas and a genuine pain in the butt..."
It goes on and on, much to my delight.
Very few of my "unsupportable ideas" are even mine. Most are direct quotations from the works of my predecessors and invaluable sources, among the most distinguished scientists of the post-Darwinian era, not one of whom was a Darwinist, a Baptist, an atheist or any other sort of religious zealot. And yes, atheists are religious zealots. They too, like all Darwinians, worship in the Church of Chance, oblivious to the order and purpose that surrounds them.
Here are some of my sources in no particular order.
William Bateson, the father of modern genetics who finally realized that Mendelism had nothing to do with evolution.
Leo Berg, the greatest Russian biologist if his era, who properly identified natural selection as conservative and anti-evolutionary, serving only to maintain the status quo.
Pierre Grasse, Berg's French counterpart, who also rejected the Darwinian model as I have verified many times.
Richard B. Goldschmidt, who with Bateson also realized that natural selection was impotent as a creative evolutionary device.
Robert Broom, who had the temerity to suggest that there had been an evolutionary Plan, a word he capitalized, a proposal that remains compatible with everything revealed by the fossil record and the experimental laboratory.
Otto Schindewolf, undoubtedly the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier, who was such a danger to Darwinian mysticism that Stephen Jay Gould found it necessary to dismiss Schindewolf's views as "spectacularly flawed," a characterization for which this investigator will never forgive him.
By way of contrast, Glen Davidson doesn't even identify his sources. He is probably ashamed to divulge their names. Like Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and P.Z. Myers he speaks only for himself and spews venom on those like myself who have built their science on the foundations provided by his distinguished predecessors, not a Darwinian mystic or a religious zealot in the lot.
Thank you Glen for being so stupid as to earn and require this response from me.
"No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men."
Thomas Carlyle
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
[ 24. September 2007, 06:22: Message edited by: nosivad ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 24. September 2007 13:32
I would say Gould&Eldredge conception of punctuated equilibria supports Schindewolf view about fossil records. I wrote it at AtBC, where they are refuting Adam Smith arguments as "outdated". But for them all facts are "outdated" which do not support their neodarwinian fantasies. Some of those facts (especially about mimicry) are so unpleasant for them that they pretend those facts do not exist. After many years they can dismiss them as "outdated". It is their common technique how to deal with contradicting facts.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=46f7ebc3b2846a95;act=ST;f=14;t=5199;st=60
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic