|
Author
|
Topic: Prof. Davison's Challenge to NDE
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 04. June 2006 11:03
John A. Davison: "Lions and tigers are defintely separate species because the hybrid is sterile at aleast as far as I know."
That is incorrect. A male tiger and a female lion can create a fertile female tigon (e.g. Rudhrani in Calcutta). Various crosses have been made among great cats with varying fertility in offspring. However, they probably have reduced fertility overall and there is no evidence of significant gene flow in the wild. This gradient of interfertility is as expected if they were the result of diverging allopatric populations.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 04. June 2006 14:50
Everything that evolved resulted from divergence. If you are going to insist that the lion and ther tiger are the same species then you must also insist that the donkey and the horse are. Both have very reduced fertility, or if you prefer, a very high degree of sterility. True species are invariably fertile or they wouldn't exist as such. I am unimpressed with that example. The hybrid is obviously not going anywhere and must be considered as an evolutionary dead end.
I repeat my challenge to demonstrate any two species living or dead for which one can be shown to be the ancestor of the other. Are you prepared to indicate whether it was the tiger that was ancestral to the lion or the reverse? I'll bet you aren't and I don't think anyone else is either. As far as can be ascertained, creative evolution is finished. If it were not we would see it in action. The world would be crawling with examples. So far no one has produced a single example. I eagerly await the first. If there is such an example I can guarantee that it was not produced by the accumulation of Mendelian alleles through natural selection. That has been demonstrated experimentally to be quite impossible. When carried too far it results in sterility, loss of fecundity and extinction.
"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
Natural selection never had anything to do with evolution except to ultimately ensure extinction by preventing change. Without that extinction there could never have been evolution.
What I am quite unable to underetand is how any objective observer can still endorse the Darwinian scheme. It is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 04. June 2006 15:43
John Davison: "If you are going to insist that the lion and ther tiger are the same species then you must also insist that the donkey and the horse are."
That clearly wasn't my claim. I have no problem considering lions and tigers as separate species. There is no evidence of significant gene-flow between natural populations of lions and tigers.
John Davison: "I repeat my challenge to demonstrate any two species living or dead for which one can be shown to be the ancestor of the other."
As you are using a strained definition of species that requires proof of interfertility, and that is not possible for extinct common ancestors, you have posed a strawman challenge.
John Davison: "Are you prepared to indicate whether it was the tiger that was ancestral to the lion or the reverse?"
No. But they did have a common ancestor.
John Davison: "What I am quite unable to underetand is how any objective observer can still endorse the Darwinian scheme."
The vast majority of biologists, geologists, paleontologists, microbiologists, and geneticists accept the Theory of Evolution. It might behoove you to find out why.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. June 2006 07:42
Zachriel
There is as yet no theory of evolution. Theories are verified hypotheses. There are only utterly failed hypotheses like neoDarwinism and neoLamarckism and ones like the PEH which recognize that failure and have built upon it. To blindly equate evolution with Darwinism as you so obviously do is without a shred of justification. Every one of my sources was a convinced evolutionist and not one of them was a religious fanatic or a Darwinina chance worshipping atheist. It is you that ought to be reading the literature, not I. You seem to be totally oblivious to it. You are not alone. The evolutionary world is crawlng with like minded souls. That a Darwinian can still exist boggles my mind. I can only conclude that they were "born that way."
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 14. June 2006 13:49
Professors Davison Evolutionary Manifesto is the most interesting and concise critique of
darwinism that I have ever read. He cited prominent antidarwinian scientists and inspires
readers to look on evolution from completely new view.
I would like to add some notices on mimicry supporting view outlined in Manifesto.
There are 14 females distinct morphs of African Mocker Swallowtail, Papilio dardanus (males look
identical). Most of these female morphs represent Batesian mimicry of distasteful species of
Danidae and Acraeidae.
Some of them are here:
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/Mim2/dardanus.html
According to Nijhout (2003) these represents one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in
animal world.
What is most interesting is darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and
subsequent refinement of these mutations. "Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude". Does not sound this explanation like hidden saltationism?
http://www.nbb.cornell.edu/neurobio/BioNB420/Dardanus2003.pdf
Professor Davison cited Punnett (author of Punnett square), who came to conclusion, that mimetics forms of butterflies arouses via saltationism.
Punnett studied also Heliconius melpomene and Heliconius errato, another baffling and
unexplainable example of mimicry:
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=383505&pageindex=2#page
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/taxome/jim/pap/MalletCurrBiol96.pdf
Another influential scientist who did not believe in selection was Austrian entomologist Franz
Heikertinger. Even though not professional biologist, he showed all weak points of darwinian
theory of mimicry. His corresponding with Erich Wasmann on mimicry was once followed by all
biological community. Heikertingers influence and authority strangled mimicry research on the
European continent after his dead - he did not believe much in phenomenon of mimicry. Yet what he did believe was "internal factors" which are behind developmental dynamics - and not selection.
Selection just removes extremities.
According to professor Komárek from Charles Univeristy Prague (2000) is study of Heikertingers works prerequisite for serious understanding of phenomenon of mimicry.
And last but not least are the mushrooms. There is great diversity in colors and forms of mushrooms, but no darwinian explanation of this phenomenon - there are no with vision oriented mushroom eaters, except squirrels. It seems like nature in this case did something purposeless.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 15. June 2006 19:01
Martin
Thank you very much for the plug. I needed that!
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. July 2006 17:31
Since there is a definite lull here I invite all to visit EvC's "showcase" forum. EvC long ago banned me but invited me back on a limited basis to present and defend my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which I was happy to do. However they have not offered me anything for me to respond to. I finally presented them with an ultimatum which was to allow me full posting abilities or I would no longer participate in "showcase." They seem to have a reading compehension problem so I am using my continued presence there exclusively for the purpose of exposing the Darwinian paradigm as the hoax it has always been. Why they allow me this wonderful platform escapes me. Perhaps they have masochistic tendencies.
In any event I am having a great time and I invite all to observe and join in if you choose. I am sure that they will, as Panda's Thumb did, ban me once again. I couldn't care less of course. Being banned from ideologically dominated forums is one of my greatest pleasures. It is the best indication that I am on the right track!
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic