|
Author
|
Topic: Support for PEH
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. May 2006 13:28
This is hilarious. If mules are so fertile why isn't there a mule species? Sure a very low level of fertility is to be expected in any system in which the chromosome number and configurations are reasonably the same. The major reason for the very low and very improbable fertility is due to the fact that the horse and the donkey differ in a large number of chromosome restructurings which makes the likelihood of producimg balanced gametes extremely improbable. The failures occur during meiosis. These are the reasons virtually all hybrids are sterile. Horticulturists take great advantage of this by deliberately producing sterile hybrids which bloom continuously because they cannot produce seeds.
The moment the karyotypes are known for two species it is quite unnecesaary to test them for hybrid sterility as it will immediately be obvious from the number of inversions, translocations and other chromosme changes by which they differ. Even if a chimp/human hybrid could be produced and I see no reason why this might not be possible, we can be certain it would be sterile.
You vastly underestimate the number of species, especially doemsticated ones that have been rigorously tested for fertility of their hybrids. In the first place members in separate genera are extremely unlikely even to be able to fertilize one another, let alone produce a hybrid. A great many hybrid plant varieties cannot be propagated sexually and can only be perpetuated by grafting or division.
The classic case of presumed evolution in action, Darwin's finches, are apparently all one species as studied by the Grants. Why the Darwinians for 150 years never tried to hybridize them experimentally is the best evidence imaginable that they are all one species. Darwinians don't test their hypothesis any more. They are afraid to.
Also the Linnaean binomial classification system has been remarkably accurate in distinguishing not only species, but genera, families and orders as well. Linnaeus, Cuvier, Owen and Agassiz all accurately considered contemporary species as immutable, something the Darwinians still don't accept. Their atheist ideology won't permit it.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 13. May 2006 05:30
The point is that hybrid sterility is a misnomer. Hybrids can have any degree of fecundity from zero to as much as their parents and the effort required to determine just how much is extraordinary. Mules aren't sterile, they have a very low fertility rate. Does this mean that horses and donkeys are almost the same species or almost different species?
Once again I point out that these and other difficulties are why the biological species concept is seldom used in practical application. Moreover this wikipedia section on species definitions agrees with everything I've said. I don't make this stuff up as I go along and can always provide links to corroborate anything I've said. It's a pity not everyone can do the same. I recommend that the whole article be read.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 07:40
David Springer
Wikipedia? You have got to be kidding. I recommend Richard B. Goldschmidt's "The Material Basis of Evolution," coupled with a modicum of common sense. Of course the horse and the donkey are separate species and they were from the moment of their instantaneous appearance. They most certainly never gradually got to be what they are now. That is pure Darwinian nonsense.
"We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed."
Otto Schindewolf, paraphrased.
"The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
ibid, verbatim
Wikipedia??
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 13. May 2006 13:32
Davison
You are recommending a dead tree book published 65 years ago that was widely rejected and ridiculed for its hopeful monsters. You have got to be kidding. That certainly explains a lot about what you write. Have you perhaps a recommendation more recent and something that wasn't the butt of biology jokes?
Wikipedia is a fine source of information. Don't mock what you don't know.
[ 13. May 2006, 13:41: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 14:21
I can't believe that David Springer, who was once my champion, is now rejecting one of my principle sources with such cavalier nonchalance. Richard B. Goldschmidt was the greatest geneticist of his generation, one who saw through the Darwinian fairy tale better than anyone else, and David Springer is going to dismiss one of the best allies that the Intelligent Design movement ever had with a wave of his pontificating uninformed hand. I cannot believe this but I sure am pleased. Thanks Dave.
Now please also dismiss Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse, Leo Berg, Alexander Petrunkevitch, Reginald C. Punnett, William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf and all the other great minds who set the stage for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which is firmly based on these sources. Surely you remember the PEH don't you? That is just one of every one of my evolutionary papers that you purged from Uncommon Descent not long after you had proudly placed them there. The PEH is pure Intelligent Design from beginning to end but it is being been trashed by the leadership of the Intelligent Design movement through one of their chief spokespersons, David Springer. It is absolutely mind boggling that this should occur here at "brainstorms" of all places. It should not surprise anyone that I say a pox on both the Idists and the Darwinians. They are both dead wrong.
You have become my greatest ally. Please do not stop.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 15:49
I recall you mocking Wikipedia yourself. Wikipedia, - what a joke - its sources are all devout Darwinians. Everybody knows that.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 13. May 2006 17:22
Gentlemen, the tone of this thread is downright sorrowful. DaveScot, you may be holding a somewhat professional tone, but your metamessages are insulting and cutting. Further, you started this tiff. You chose to challenge Dr. Davison's cridentials. Let me suggest, on the issue of cridentials, that whether you are in a way, "right", Dr. Davison is also in a way, "right". Further, dispite your patents and publications, he has earned a Ph.D. as you have not, if I understand correctly.
Dr. Davison, with the exception of B grade radio and television, I have not heard name-calling from anyone since I left grade-school. I am sure that you are mature enough to not lower yourself to such nonsense.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 13. May 2006 18:02
Bruce
I call them like I see them. As for you, you sat there and let this thing take place, just like everyone else did. You all allowed my character and integrity to be impugned. I abandonded my own thread to this man to do with what he will. Not satisfied with that, he now finds it necessaryfinds it necessary to denigrate Richard B. Goldschmidt, one of my primary references in that paper and the greatest experimental geneticist of his generation.
If you or anyone else thinks I am going to allow my sources also to be publicly denigrated without a response you are very sadly mistaken.
I recommend that the administration do something about this pathetic situation. So far they have only encouraged it to continue by remaining entirely silent. That reflects on ISCID and on the management of this forum, not on me.
I went as far as I intend to go when I abandoned my own thread in protest to the methods and tactics of David Springer. Not satisfied with that, he now goes after me and my sources on other threads as well. My God, he has even cited Wikipedia as a valid source. I have had enough of this kind of gutter tactics. Don't expect me to remain silent just because the management does. That is not my style and it shouldn't be theirs. I strongly recommend that everyone carefuly review the history of my interactions with this man over the past several months and draw your own conclusions as to his purposes. His methods are already apparent. They speak loud and clear. At least I identify him by his real name which is more than he is willing to do.
Whatever the management decides it will be properly aired on my blog, of that you all may be certain.
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 13. May 2006 21:59
Actually, John, I didn't. I posted another request to the moderator. He did not take my advice, but removed my post. The last post was my second attempt to return my favorite forum to sevility to this site.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 02:35
Bruce, if someone holds out their credentials to buttress their writing then the credentials become subject to criticism as well as the writing. I think I've been more than generous in avoiding doing that. Davison has been trashing me here with gay abandon as I restrain myself and I'm getting a little tired of it to be quite honest. Davison's PhD in biology earned 60 years ago is hardly impressive today and he cites references that were dated even 60 years ago. His publishing record in all that time is miserable. He has falsely called himself both emeritus and full professor. These are all easily verifiable facts. Is pointing out the facts a sin in this forum?
Moreover, I find it amazing that I can't get an answer for the question of what's involved with acquiring amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations.
Davison has stated these are needed to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis and that hypothesis published in 1984 is the basis of his PEH. This mechanism is being held out as the replacement for neo-Darwinian theory. As such it's a huge thing if true. I'd think testing it would thus be a high priority for anyone interested in overthrowing the reigning Darwinian dogma.
Yet I can't get a direct answer to a direct question about what's involved in acquiring the materials needed to test it. All I get are howls of indignation from Davison for having the temerity to ask and dead silence from the rest of you who should be asking the very same question!
Something is rotten in the State of Denmark and I'm going to find out what it is that's stinking up the joint.
[ 14. May 2006, 03:03: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 06:38
I have presented full instructions on how to test the Semi-meiotic hypothesis. Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of cytogenetics would know how to proceed not only with frogs but with mammals as well, including higher primates. If the semi-meiotic hypothesis remains untested, as apparently it still does, it is not my fault. I am without a laboratory at present and without an institution to grant me that facility.
Once again David Springer implements the methods of the Inquisition in an attempt to discredit me and my sources whatever the cost.
It is the scientific community, still dominated by Darwinian zealots, that has failed to test my hypothesis and it is they that Springer should be interrogating, not me.
That same community has steadfastly refused to test their own hypotheis time and time again so it should surprise no one that they will not test hypotheses offered by others. The Darwinians adandoned the scientific method years ago when they finally realized it could not be verified that way. Instead they pretend their critics do not exist and doggedly, literally like a dog with a bone, adhere to the most failed hypothesis in the history of science.
David Springer's motives here are as clear as day. They are to discredit me, my sources, my publications, my integrity and my honesty no matter what it takes. I will leave it to any objective observer of what is taking place here at "brainstorms" to draw their own conclusions. I have already drawn mine. On another thread he has even found it necessary, in order to discredit myself, Otto Schindewolf and Richard B. Goldschmidt, to claim that the horse and the donkey are the same species! What will he do next? While I shudder to think, I can't help being pleased. More, more, I say.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 09:12
Davison
I didn't say horses and donkeys were the same species.
No one posting here has been able to describe how to acquire amphibians known to be heterozygous for one or more chromosome reorganizations.
You either cannot or will not describe what it takes except that it takes a laboratory and you do not have access to one. You did have access to a laboratory for 16 years after publishing the semi-meiotic hypothesis. What stopped you then? Why won't you answer?
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. May 2006 11:56
I have answered and you of all people know it best. Your Spanish Inquisition approach I find quite unacceptable although the management here seems to feel it is just fine. So apparently do others posting here. That is perhaps the most revealing aspect of this whole disgusting display. Find someone else to interrogate as the Chief High Inquisitor or better yet do it at Uncommon Descent. Of course you would have readmit me there wouldn't you? You wouldn't dream of it and neither would your boss William Dembski.
I am proud to have been banned from that forum and if I must be banned from this one I will be just as proud and most probably for exactly the same reasons. There is no room for dissent in forums dominated by blind ideology. They are easy to spot. The internet is crawling with them. I have always felt that "brainstorms" was a cut above, but I am seriously beginning to wonder if it really is. Time will tell. It always does. What is allowed at forums is what the participants and and the management will tolerate and nothing more. That apparently remains to be seen.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 14. May 2006 16:39
Davison finally answers my question on his own blog at newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com
quote:
If I knew that don't you think I would have utilized that information and done the experiments myself?
Yet just a couple comments back in this thread he told me
quote:
Anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of cytogenetics would know how to proceed not only with frogs but with mammals as well, including higher primates.
The only way both statements could be true is if Davison doesn't have even rudimentary knowledge of cytogenetics.
It gave me no pleasure to expose Davison in this manner but his vendetta against myself and Professor Dembski, posting trash about us all over the internet, drove me to it. You messed with the wrong Marine, John. I don't get mad, I get even. Have a nice day. ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
IP: Logged
|
|
Bruce Fast
Member
Member # 924
|
posted 14. May 2006 20:11
Now back to the heart of the thread.
I have been pondering chromosome counts in different species. I would like to put my Darwinian hat on again for a minute, though I know it is uncomfortable for some here. (I am considering only sexually reproducing animal species in this analysis.)
We seem to have seen a phenominon where different chromosome counts are very effective at separating species. If the chromosome count is different, then, in all of the species so far discussed, fertile offspring is, at best, rare.
Now consider, a species A with 25 chromosomes, and a species B which at some point "broke off from" species A, which has 24 chromosomes. At some point a 24 chromosome "species B" animal must have been born to a 25 chromosome species A animal. At that point, the species B animal must have mated. The only option for it to mate to is a species A animal. The offspring must have been fertile. Therefore, for this sort of transition to take place, the the 25 and 24 chromosome variants must be able to regularly interbread producing fertile offspring. This would truly be an "intermediate form" between species A and species B. Either such intermediates have existed, or species breaks are instantanious, where at least two 24 chromosome animals appear on the scene at the same time, and they mate with each other.
Now for the simple question, are there any living animals that demonstrate this phenomenon of being an intermediate. Is there any species that has two different chromosome counts, but that mates anyway, regularly producing fertile offspring? Such a find would truly be an "intermediate form" and would validate the view of active speciation. If no such intermediates are currently known, this would, in my view, be support for the PEH.
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic