|
Author
|
Topic: Semi-Meiosis as an Evolutionary Mechanism
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 16:02
quote:
No, it's incorrect to say that genomic information cannot be preserved for long periods of time.
Theoretically, yes, there is no doubt.
Theoretically there is also not doubt that Darwinian evolution works. Avida works isn't it. It is not biology.
I am not a mathematician or theoretician. I am talking real life biology. Biology is not math. Biology gives me the facts I have to work with, the rest is arbitrary.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 12. May 2006 16:09
ujala,
What I am talking about is that, if evolution is a fact (which is highly disputable), it must have been a predetermined, rapid process. The evidence for that can be found in the genome and the karyotypes of related organisms shows it happened non-randomly.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
Scott
Member
Member # 1222
|
posted 13. May 2006 09:35
quote:
What I am talking about is that, if evolution is a fact (which is highly disputable), it must have been a predetermined, rapid process. The evidence for that can be found in the genome and the karyotypes of related organisms shows it happened non-randomly.
Peter, are you arguing that evolution did not happen, or that evolution did happen, but that it happened rapidly and non-randomly (in a predetermined manner)? You seem to be arguing both, so I am confused about this.
[ 13. May 2006, 09:36: Message edited by: Scott ]
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 09:44
Doctor Davison
You have stated that in order to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis it requires amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations.
Could you please be so kind as to to describe for us what is involved in acquiring amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 11:22
David Springer apparently has a reading comprehension problem. If he would scan back a few posts he would realize that I have abandoned this thread to him and all those who choose to post here. I do not interact with those who have called me a liar and questioned either my integrity or that of my sources, both of which he has done. This latest query is just one more demonstration establishing that his sole goal is to embarrass me. Actually he is making a fool of himself in the process as some of his other posts will also testify. This the last post I will present on this thread which is to discuss my original evolutionary paper published twenty-two years ago. I abandoned it to those who choose to tolerate his brand of unprincipled behavior. Have a nice discussion.
I will, if allowed of course, continue to participate on other threads both here and at those other forums where I have not been banned. Among the latter is Uncommon Descent where David Springer serves as blogczar. I hope this serves to clarify my position.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. June 2006 11:00
Since this a thread concerning my PEH, I feel this is the proper place to introduce the following.
I have been invited to defend the PEH at EvC under the venue of "Showcase" forum. I have done so. I recommend all visit that site to see the lengths to which one person in particular is willimg to go in what has become a continuing attempt to discredit me. It is an education in what is wrong with internet comunication. So far none of the basic tenets of my hypothesis have been addressed.
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 07. June 2006 07:07
quote:
Peter, are you arguing that evolution did not happen, or that evolution did happen, but that it happened rapidly and non-randomly (in a predetermined manner)? You seem to be arguing both, so I am confused about this.
Personally I doubt evolution from microbe-to-man. I am absolutely positive Darwinian evolution NEVER happened. The whole NDE is a load of nonsense to explain biology as we know it. NDE is not much more than population genetics.
Alternatively, there could have been a fast-track evolutionary process involving chromosomal rearrangements in a process proposed by Davison. That makes sense. The issue is then: are we able to distinguish between fast-track evolution and creation pur. I think we can if we falsify common descent. As demonstrated falsification of common ancestry is easy, so for me there has been an act of creation, that is the constuction of multipurpose genomes with in built-in ability to change non-randomly via a predetermined mechanism. Semimeiotically, if you wish.
peebee
[ 07. June 2006, 07:08: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 07. June 2006 13:12
For those interested, click on the following to get to John Davison's showcase on EvC: www.evcforum.net
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 07. June 2006 14:08
Peter
At least there are two of us now that realize what a total disaster the Darwinian fairy tale really is and always has been.
Bruce
Those who are not interested don't need to look and I am sure there will be many of them. Devout Darwinians are like that. Thanks for posting the link.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic