|
Author
|
Topic: can some aspect of Darwinism be falsified?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 19. June 2006 18:55
Bruce
I presented to the ID crowd an hypothesis that oozes Intelligent Design and my reward has been to be banned from all their proceeedings. Dembski is still trying to dominate the scene by trying to prove mathematically that which has always been obvious both to all my sources and myself. The truth of the matter is that we are dealing with two major cults, the Christian Fundamentalists and the Atheist Darwinians, each with their self-appointed leaders and each bent on destroying the other when in fact neither faction has a ever offered anything toward understanding the great mystery of organic evolution exactly as you have just indicated.
Well I have with the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis which remains in complete accord with all that we now know, none of which can ever be accomodated by either of the ideologies of the two opposing sects which still dominate the debate, a debate that never should have begun. Truth does need to be debated, only revealed.
It should surprise no one that I have rejected both camps. There is not a shred of evidence for either chance or a personal God and I claim there is no role or need for either in the PEH.
I have recently offered four challenges over at the "showcase" forum at EvC. I encourage all to note the lack of response there so I won't have to repeat those challenges here. I think I already have anyway. Silence is golden.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 19. June 2006 21:55
Dr. Davison,
quote:
There is not a shred of evidence for either chance or a personal God
What do you think of the following?
"The original life plasm of an evolutionary world must contain the full potential for all future developmental variations and for all subsequent evolutionary changes and modifications. The provision for such far-reaching projects of life metamorphosis may require the appearance of many apparently useless forms of animal and vegetable life. Such by-products of planetary evolution, foreseen or unforeseen, appear upon the stage of action only to disappear, but in and through all this long process there runs the thread of the wise and intelligent formulations of the original designers of the planetary life plan and species scheme." (p.388)
"The personality circuit of the universe of universes is centered in the person of the Universal Father, and the Paradise Father is personally conscious of, and in personal touch with, all personalities of all levels of self-conscious existence." (p.70)
Both quotes are from The URANTIA Book.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. June 2006 01:11
Sandor
It bears a remarkable resemblance to what William Bateson had to say, a view endorsed by Leo Berg as well as the following verifies.
"Finally, Bateson likewise (1914, p.640) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as 'an unpackaging of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present'."
Nomogenesis, page 359
It also agrees with my own synthesis as presented in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Thank you for calling it to my attention. My only reservation is with the notion of a living intervening God which I do not feel is essential to the PEH. But that such a God or Gods had to once exist cannot be denied by any objective mind.
So much for the objectivity of the Darwinian mind!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. June 2006 03:06
quote:
A replacement theory of NDE must be expressible by numbers. Until human can do that, his understanding of evolution will remain meager and unsatisfactory. God, ID, PEH, GUToB, whatever.
The problem with life is that you cannot simply express it in numbers. The matter that life is built of cannot simply be added or subtracted. That is because for living systems 1+1 is not 2. It is like adding two hydrogen atoms. From the individual characteristic of hydrogen you cannot predicts the characterisrtics of helium. The sum of the parts is different from the (mathematical) addition of individual parts. In additon, in the ordering of parts there is hidden information that is released due to rearangements. How are you going to express this in model?
Example: the quick black fox jumped over the lazy dog
Shuffle: quick the lazy fox jumped over the black dog
How are you going to catch this information chnage in a model?
What the evolutionary theoritician do is relate it all to reproduction rates. Rates can easily be measured and put in mathematical models. An increased rate is now thought of as equivalent to increased fitness. Untrue, of course. It is math, not biology.
peebee
[ 20. June 2006, 10:56: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. June 2006 03:43
quote:
If a mechanism were clearly found which the designer uses to inject "saltations" into organisms, ID would be a lot more convincing.
Apparently, you want to stick to Darwin's common descent, but as a proponenet of ID you also want a mechanism for saltational evolution. Why would a creator use saltanional evolution in the first place? A creator that is able to make the universe, surely is able to instantly create life.
Anyway, mechanisms have been found to explain saltational evolution and they are still active in many genomes. They are called translocations and are fascilitated by repetitive genetic elements.
The evolutionists --the Darwinians in particular-- have messed up biology. Every single observation is immediately interpreted as selection and common descent. Every aberrant observation is reconciled with this view. No wonder you are confused. If you want to have your saltanional model you must address the chromosomes: can be be done--> Davison.
But it is not only the chromosomal rearrangement you have to explain. You must also address fixed amino acid substitutions in, for instance, the FOXP2 gene. Cannot be done by Davison's proposal. Now you have to fall back to Darwin's gradualism and selection mechanims. And, importantly how were the changes fixed? The human population all have the same two substitutions in the FOXP2 gene.
As you see, you must rely on ID and Darwin. I am not going to do that. It is either... or, you cannot have it both sides. Darwin was plain wrong when he invoked selection to explain the existence of man and the observations we do on the genomes must have a different explanation. That is what I try to set up and it is what ID proponents should spend time on.
We do not need a theory for unobserved phenomena.
peebee
[ 20. June 2006, 06:34: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. June 2006 12:17
One of the most successful and devastating animals to the African ecosystem is the African Elephant opne of the slowest reproducing of all land mammals. So much for reproductive rates. Even Darwin knew better than to pull that old chestnut out of that old fire!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. June 2006 12:22
Sorry Peter but is absolutely mandatory to have a theory for unobserved phenomena. That is exactly what the PEH provides.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. June 2006 15:10
Are viruses in phylogeny like morphogens in ontogeny?
I wrote entry to "Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE" but except professor responded no one. Yet I would like to know your opinion (I have read this thread and I find it very interesting - I have read almost all 32 pages yesterday). Like Bruce Fast, I would like to use some computer terminology - what is my job. Sorry for english - enough for me to read books as well as scientific articles, but I hope you will underestand me
well. On the other hand I can read articles in Russian, Czech and German language - the last one is sometimes helpful with so to say antidarwian information.
First of all - another example of mimicry. Hornet moth, which mimics hornet:
http://bugguide.net/node/view/16081
Unlike the example of butterfly mimicry from my previous post here it is not clear, if in this case we are facing Batesian or Mullerian mimicry.
Most interesting is the explanation of these phenomenon. As professor Davison cited in his Manifesto, Punnett did not believe in selection as reason of this, but he proposed internal factors. It is very strong argument, because Punnett as well as Heikertinger devoted so to say their lives to insect and mimcry research - no contemporary scientist has enough enthusiasm and time and money to study this phenomenon for 30 years in depth. Yet at the beginning of the 20 century this research was very extensive and most cases in mimicry are now sinking into forgetting and really there are only few information on this on internet. I suppose, that this is due the fact, that this phenomenon are rather neglected by darwinists.
Yet ISCID phorums admin recommended not only to cite another views but also propose some new.
I would like put here following hypothesis. Just a play.
Schwidelwolf as well as professor Davison alleged weak point is, that when new species (hopeful moster) is born via saltationism, there are no mates, no sex partners. Yet professor Davison rejected sex as evolutionary factor and speciation is running along, outside of sex reproduction.
Anyway I suppose, that when new species arises via saltationism, there should be more individuals not only one (and professor Davison, if I am right do not also believe in one predecessor of genera). These postulate that saltationism require synchronisation - in one short period there should arise more individuals of new species.
Timing of this process may be done by viruses, which trigger for instance semimeiosis division with chromosone reconfiguration. This can be done in course of one year or less for all genera susceptible to given virus. Viruses may also transfer necessary preformed genes form some gene pool to desired genera - it is not necessary, that species contained all necessary genes for evolution itself. We see horizontal gene transfer at least in bacteria:
"Gene flux between bacterial replicons and their hosts is likely rule rather than the exception
and appears to respond quickly to environment changes (Davies 1994)."
In computer jargon we use word trigger for a program, that at given impuls (message in message queue) trigger processes, in many cases a chain of them. In this case the message is virus. Yet in previous time before saltation, there may have been other viruses, that in given genera accumulate, synchronise and put in harmony genetic information for new species which is to be established by one big step.
Horizontal gene transfer and viruses as supporters of saltationism. Maybe sci-fi, maybe modified old thought, I have no idea. Yet another
explanation also for mimicry.
[ 20. June 2006, 15:25: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. June 2006 15:27
John, we have never observed transformation of a species into another species. Biology as we know it prohibits it.
All there is left is a fossil record that needs interpretation.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 20. June 2006 15:32
Martin, most viruses arise through non-random mutations as by-products of the MPG in action. It is not a single event, but rather a continuous. That explains the paradox of RNA viruses (NB: the paradox is that all RNA viruses have a common ancestor around 24'000 years BP). Others can be shown to be degenerate microorganism (for instance mimivirus).
peebee
[ 20. June 2006, 15:35: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 20. June 2006 18:48
Peter
Every species on this planet resulted from the transformation of a parent which was a discretely other species. To assume otherwise is to deny not only the fossil record but reproductive continuity itself. Are you prepared to make such an assumption? I am not. It is at moments like this when I think I may be losing my mind!
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. June 2006 03:08
Martin,
quote:
Timing of this process may be done by viruses, which trigger for instance semimeiosis division with chromosone reconfiguration.
Assuming a saltational evolution, the timing may have been done by the virus-like sequences abundantly present in the genome. They may have been specifically designed for the job of speciation. Later the evolutionists came and coined them viruses, because the have a few virus-like characteristics. The truth is, it is the other way around (as argued): what we call viruses have developed from these speciation and variation-inducing genetic elements (SIGEs and VIGEs). To become fullblown infectious particles they have acquired genes to escape and reenter the genome. If you have a careful look at viruses (RNA viruses in particular) you will find that their genes can be traced back in the genomes of organisms. That proofs viruses simply recombined in genomes. They recombined a few genetic elements handy for selfish replication et voila: a virus is born. What is more, the genetic elements I am talking about (known as retroviruses) are indeed known to pick up genes sometimes, but they also still have the ability to swap chromosomes.
In contrast, evolutionists would like you to believe viruses are the remnants of the RNA world or intruders from space, or propose other farfetched non-scientific explanations! Anything goes as long as they can keep up their appearance. Obviously, they do not know where Occam keeps his razor. GUToB explains their origin in the genome through (probably non-random) recombination.
peebee
[ 21. June 2006, 07:18: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. June 2006 07:18
Peter
You are right when you say that biology prohibits speciation but you forgot to add the key word - NOW. Evolution is impossible through sexual means. The correct conclusion is that it never took place through such means, not that it never took place at all! I can't believe some of the things you say and I guess you have no intention of explaining why you keep saying them.
The failure of the sexual mode is what led me to the Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH),which I published way back in 1984 and more recently the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH).
While I am very definitely a nonsectarian creationist of sorts, I sure am not going to subscribe to some form of young earth special creationism. Evolution went on in fits and starts for many many millions of years. The fact that it can no longer be demonstrated means only one thing. It means that exactly as ontogeny ends with the death of the individual, so phylogeny has ended too. Both have always been prescribed, front-loaded phenomena in which the only role for the environment was, and still is, to release those latent potentials. Only ontogeny still persists. That is my firm position, one shared by Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse, not one of us either a chance-worshipping Darwinian mystic or a religious fanatic.
Speaking of the year 1984, here is an appropriate comment from the book with that title by George Orwell:
"Orthodoxy means not thinking, not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness."
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 21. June 2006 07:35
John,
I know your position, and I believe that your argument for instant evolution is a strong one. However, I fail to see why an instant saltational evolution requires millions of years. I also believe, however, that your saltational model does not explain the details of molecular biology. I have already mentioned the FOXP2 gene; the speech gene. The human gene only differs by two aminoacids from that of primates (and even mice). A fine scale saltational mechanism is also required for these observations. Darwinians know it cannot be gradual and they also need to postulate two consequetive selective sweeps early during evolution of man. I would rather argue for NRM, or even for instant creation. As you may know, I believe we are unable to discriminate between a creational process and saltational fasttrack evolution.
peebee
[ 21. June 2006, 08:21: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. June 2006 21:18
Of course saltational evolution doesn't require long periods of time but the fossil record speaks otherwise and for you or anyone else to ignore that reality is inexcusable. Why don't you come out and tell us just how long you think life has existed on this planet. I for one would really like to know your thoughts on this most fundamental matter. If you aren't going to do this please explain why you must refuse. I don't think that is too much to ask. Does anyone?
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
