|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 01. June 2006 21:21
Dr. Davison,
quote:
I could give you plenty more but what is the point
You bring the new truth and we need to hear it, those like myself who actively participate and the many lurkers. Zachriel and Peter will never let go of their opinion, but you can, as you have, disprove their claims and continue to put forth the new facts. I assure you the process has been a very stimulating and thought-provoking learning experience. I hunger for more.
Sandor
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 02. June 2006 03:44
quote:
You bring the new truth and we need to hear it, those like myself who actively participate and the many lurkers. Zachriel and Peter will never let go of their opinion, but you can, as you have, disprove their claims and continue to put forth the new facts. I assure you the process has been a very stimulating and thought-provoking learning experience. I hunger for more.
Sandor, now you really should clarify yourself. I belief that Davison could be right in many aspects. How can Davison's PEH disprove my claims? What claims do you mean, anyway?
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. June 2006 05:14
There is no place for statistics in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Population genetics had nothing to do with creative evolution in the past and nothing to do with it at present. Until that is recognized and accepted we will continue to be trapped in an atheist inspired Darwinian pseudoscience.
To introduce chance is to deny purpose. That I refuse to do. I am not alone.
"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
"Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse, The Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245 (The entire sentence is in italics).
That is exactly what the PEH does. I rest my case.
IP: Logged
|
|
Melvin H. Fox
Member
Member # 1684
|
posted 02. June 2006 13:31
Zachriel,
I must apologize to you on a on a couple levels. First, in my haste I neglected to revisit your detailed post of 27 May 10:05. I must take some time away from posting to analyze it further. Besides, John is correct when he suggests this is not the right thread for my questions. Second, I can’t seem to get away from this fixation on the definition. It all seems so whimsical. I mean six species of ground finch, come on. Are they any more different from one another than the Caucasian race and the Asian peoples? You would not call them different species, would you?
-Mel
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. June 2006 14:30
Melvin H. Fox: "You would not call them different species, would you?"
The taxonomical identification of Darwin's Finches was not made by Darwin, but by John Gould, a leading naturalist of the day, and the identification was made before the development of the Theory of Evolution. (You may safely ignore any 'evolutionist' taint.) That the Darwin finches were different from mainland versions, and different from one another is a fact. Don't worry about what they are called, or even if they are interfertile. They differ. They differ just as if they had descended from a common ancestor. That they tend to maintain distinct populations and that interfertility varies is also consistent with the Theory of Evolution.
Addendum:
Historican Janet Browne writes, in her biography Darwin Voyaging:
"When they met in March [1837], Gould reiterated this opinion [that the Galapagos finches were a new group strictly confined to the Galapagos, and that each bird represented a different species] and told him how the various species also seemed mutually exclusive of each other from island to island... Surprised, Darwin mulled this information over. If each island had its own birds, as Gould suggested, and the archipelago as a whole had its own roster of genera, his shipboard speculations about the instability of species were more accurate than he had thought" (p. 359).
"Instability of species"! Mull this key concept. Darwin understood that the entire idea of species as discrete biological entities was not tenable. And this was in 1837. Since then, every bit of biological evidence has lent support to this observation. Meanwhile, Intelligent Design has to resort to strawman arguments that because polar bears can hybridize with grizzly bears this means evolution isn't true, when in fact it is fundamental evidence in support of the theory as pointed out by Darwin himself with an entire chapter of Origins on hybridization.
[ 02. June 2006, 14:47: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 02. June 2006 21:35
Peter,
The GUToB claims that life is not millions of years old. What evidence do you have to support your claim? How can your "young life" theory be reconciled with the fossil record which shows that life began as phyla (about) 550 million years ago, a fact with which both the IDT and PEH are in agreement?
Sandor
[ 03. June 2006, 07:53: Message edited by: Sandor 606 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 06:52
Zachriel
As far as we know ALL of Darwin's finches are a single species. To claim otherwise is pure fantasy. I am flabbergasted at some of the unsupported claims that are being made here. I have tried to introduce a note of objectivity here and I have obviously failed. My challenges remain unanswered, even unacknowledged as they always have been. What is the purpose of such a forum I ask?
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 03. June 2006 10:40
Zachriel,
Prof. Davison wrote: quote:
My challenges remain unanswered, even unacknowledged as they always have been.
The title of this thread is "Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE." The challenge is in the form of three questions directed at all neodarwinists and this includes you. You have yet to answer them, so here they are again:
1. Name any two species fossil or extant and present any evidence from any source that one is ancestral to the other.
2. Name a mammalian species younger than Homo sapiens.
3. Present evidence that any new species has evolved in historical times.
There are other challenges to NDE besides the ones Prof. Davison has posed, such as the evolutionary tree and the fossil record, so I started a thread with the more general title "Challenges to NDE."
This is Prof. Davison's thread. May I respectfully suggest that either you or someone start a thread to discuss the Theory of Evolution.
Sandor
[ 03. June 2006, 11:58: Message edited by: Sandor 606 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 11:47
Peter and I are very close in our evaluations of the role of mutations. Our differences are trivial compared to our similarites. We both agree that there is not a shred of reality in the Darwinian model. Furthermore we respect one another and any attempt to disrupt that will be met with ridicule at least by me.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 11:56
Sandor
I have never claimed to know with any degree of certainty the age of the earth at least not in hard copy which is all that matters. I think the bulk of the evidence favors both an ancient earth and an ancient origin or origins of life. I do not believe there is any need to postulate Divine intervention but I cannot deny Divine origin or origins. I don't see how anyone can. The idea that life originated by accident is unacceptable and that it could then evolve is insane.
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 03. June 2006 12:48
Prof. Davison,
Thank you for informing that you and Peter see eye to eye on the role of mutations and that your differences are minor. Although what I wrote was of course not meant to imply that you did not have the highest regard for him, I apologize if the form gave that impression.
I read Peter's posts and he writes with the authority of someone who knows, but not being a biologist I couldn't be sure. With your clarification I can now view him as I view you: a professional investigator in the forefront of biological research from whom I can learn.
Sandor
[ 03. June 2006, 13:28: Message edited by: Sandor 606 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Sandor Szabados
Member
Member # 1969
|
posted 03. June 2006 13:14
Prof. Davison,
quote:
I have never claimed to know with any degree of certainty the age of the earth at least not in hard copy which is all that matters. I think the bulk of the evidence favors both an ancient earth and an ancient origin or origins of life.
I stand corrected. I should have just said millions.
I understand that Peter does not believe life to be millions of years old. Is this an important difference between the GUToB and the PEH? Are there implications?
Sandor
[ 03. June 2006, 13:26: Message edited by: Sandor 606 ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 03. June 2006 21:22
Sandor
I don't understand half of what is being presented here myself. There must be something the matter with me.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 03. June 2006 23:21
Sandor 606: "The title of this thread is "Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE." The challenge is in the form of three questions directed at all neodarwinists and this includes you. You have yet to answer them, so here they are again:"
The questions entail strawman definitions of "speciation"; in particular, as interfertility is a continuum among closely related organisms, there may be no exact point where two populations suddenly become permanently divergent. As such, there is no valid scientific answer. I responded to this in some detail already.
John A. Davison: "The Darwinians steadfastly refused to test Darwin's finches for hybrid fertility"
This is false.
Phenotypic and Genetic Effects of Hybridization in Darwin's Finches
High Survival of Darwin's Finch Hybrids: Effects of Beak Morphology and Diets
Hybridization was well-known to Darwin and the instability of species is a fundamental observation in Origin of Species.
John A. Davison: "As far as we know ALL of Darwin's finches are a single species."
Then so are lions and tigers.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. June 2006 10:28
Lions and tigers are defintely separate species because the hybrid is sterile at aleast as far as I know. So is the mule for the same reason. Contemporary species are not only stable, they are immutable just as Linnaeus and Cuvier firmly believed. Nothing more than the production of varieties has ever been demonstrated through the most intensive selection because that is all that can be achieved. To continue to insist on present day "evolution in action" is unacceptable and in direct conflict with laboratory science. In short, it is ideologically generated mysticism.
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic