|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. August 2006 07:17
Mark
I am suggesting that all of the necessary information has been locked up in the chromosome and is only released as new chromosome configurations are produced. Isn't that exactly how ontogeny proceeds by the controlled release of contained information?
I have rejected the notion that new genes must be formed until it can be demonstrated. I have also rejected any role for selection except in the formation of varieties or perhaps subspecies. It's primary effect was to ensure ultimate extinction if something else did not cause it first. Some extinctions may well have been preprogrammed as well.
I realize this may seem unreasonable, yet I know of no tangible evidnece that it is wrong.
"Hypotheses have to be reasonable - facts don't."
anonymous
I think the PEH is entirely reasonable as it conforms with what we REALLY know about both ontogeny and phylogeny. As near as I can ascertain, they both have proceeded driven entirely from within. Of course I could be dead wrong but that has not yet been established.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
I hope this helps.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 12. August 2006 07:22
I also see neither evidence for nor need for any intervention as I regard the entire scenario as internally regulated from beginning to end.
"Nether in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 16. August 2006 15:23
I wholeheartedly agree with Broom thesis, that evolution is finished as well as Grasse opinion, that forces driving evolution in past are not present any more. All these thesis are in Davison manifesto, yet I do not know, if all evolution is due only to chromosome rearrangements - I have read that a human gene on average codes for three different proteins by utilizing different combinations of exons.
http://www.wiley.com/college/pratt/0471393878/student/activities/human_genome/index.html
That means that not only chromosome rearrangements, but also exons rearangements during reading/transcription can produce different results. So it may be, that information is pre-loaded, but we should not forget, that also "reading" is important. The same PAX-6 regulatory gene is responsible for creating eye with inverted retina, as well as "normal" retina in very different species and phyla. So the gene is same, the outcome is totally different.
http://www.karger.com/gazette/64/fernald/art_1_5.htm
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. August 2006 12:38
Martin
Thanks for the response.
I don't believe all evolution WAS due to chromopsme rarrangements either since, if that were the case all organisms would have the same amount of DNA per cell. That is most definitely not the case. Big differences in DNA per cell seem to have occured between animal orders and plant families which leads me to seriously consider several independent front-loadngs or even separate creations. Evolution may also have involved a loss than rather than a gain of information. Mammals have far less DNA per cell than Amphibians for example. Mammals and birds have also lost the power of regeneration characteristic of amphibians and, to a lesser extent, reptiles as well. There is no proof for a single creation and plenty of reason to question it. Prokaryotes are very different from eukaryotes and there is no reason to believe they were ancestral to eukaryotes either. Life is miraculous and a thousand miracles are no more miraculous than one.
"A past evolution is undeniab;e, a present evolution udemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 17. August 2006 15:40
You are welcome John!
Can you please elucidate your remark on separate front-loadings and separate creations?
Do you mean, that mammalian orders might have arousen independently and do not have predecessors in amphibians and fishes (as darwinism claims)?
Because - I dare so to say - there can be some parallel with evolution of human languages
(btw. French academy of science forbade treatises on origin of languages in 1880.) According Schopenhauer when a language is "new", on its origin, language is perfect.
From that moment the language is degenerating (losing declination, suffixes, prefixes, grammar have more and more exceptions, irregularities and so on). It seems to me now, that languages might have undergone also evolution resembling evolution of mammalian families: great and relatively sudden diversification at the begging and than slow fading.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 18. August 2006 16:22
I DO NOT mean that mammals did not have reptilian ancestors or anything of the sort. like all my sources I am a convinced evolutionist who believes in reproductive continuity with change, in other words, evolution. Nevertheless, to be honest about it, no one has the foggiest idea about how many creations there were or how many times information was introduced into the products of those creations. I see no reason to even speculate on such matters except to say that I am absolutely convinced, with Robert Broom, that there was a Plan. I further believe the Plan has been executed and realized with the terminal mammal to appear on the planet - Homo sapiens.
I also agree with Leo Berg, referring to ontogeny and phylogeny:
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis , page 134
I do not choose to speculate on matters beyond my capacity to understand. Like Einstein I am a scientist not a philosopher.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 20. August 2006 15:52
Thank for your response John.
There are lot of supporting examples to Berg conception of evolution in Andreas Suchantke book "Metamorphosen im Insektenreich" (1994). For instance crab Conchostraca is enveloped in two shells which to the details resembles shells (scallops?). Picture on:
http://homepage.univie.ac.at/erich.eder/UZK/#conchostraca
Accordig author beetle Copris hispanicus has a complicated bowl system which has parallels with digestive system of ruminata or hippo. Common poits go further - they have horns on heads and some of them nurture themselves only from bowles of artiodactyla.
Author spends lot of time with description of baffling similarities and other phenomenons in realm of butterflies.
He literally refuses, that these facts can be explained by chance and proposes new explanation:
something like goethian conception of forms and he noticed, that we should better reconcile with idea that butterflies can actively accomodate to the environment.
Author on the first page writes, that if 30 years ago somebody doubted DOGMA of chance
and mechanic processes migt only ridiculed himself, yet his experiences (he is professional zoologist who teach on Universiy and spent also some time in Amazonia) led him to different conclusions and ideas of forces behind evolution.
John, is it not interesting, that entomologists are the scientists, that infirmed darwinism so to say regularly?
Majority of species are insects, especially beetles, yet not even Jay Gould gives them enough space in his essays - he just ridicules the fact by citing aphorism, that God probably enjoyed creating beetles.
[ 20. August 2006, 16:31: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 21. August 2006 04:27
Martin
Thanks for the informative comments. Some of the most amazing examples of a "prescribed" evolution are offered by the ciliate protozoa. There is a ciliate, Diplodinium ecaudata, that lives in the rumen of cattle, where it occurs in huge numbers. It has whole "organ systems" elaborated within the confines of a single cell. It is pictured in Berg's "Nomogenesis." I also show it in my Manifesto along with the key to its internal structures, a key listing over 40 internal discrete structures. It was first reported by Sharp in 1914 and has been largely igored, but certainly not by Berg nor myself.
Berg described this as "phylogenetic acceleration," thereby suggesting that the evolutionary information was realized prematurely with which I entirely agree. I have used the term "phylogenetic derepression" to describe such phenonomena. Either way it supports the notion that the necessary infomation was present from very early on in the evolutionary sequence and did not progressively arise. Many other examples exist such as the presence of a true placenta in sharks and in certain invertebrates as well. Berg's Nomogenesis is a treasure house of material supporting the Prescribed Rvolutionary Hypothesis. It is no wonder I have described it as the greatest single book ever written on the subject of organic evolution. Some day they will be discussing Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution.
One of the most depressing features of Berg's treatment is revealed by the comments of Theodosius Dobzhansky who wrote the Foreword to the paper back edition in 1968. This is what Berg's former student had to say about the work of his mentor:
"A majority of evolutionists at present, including the author of this Preface, consider L.S. Berg's theory of nomogenesis erroneus." I found that disgusting to say the very least.
Just to make sure that no one would take Berg seriously, Darcy Wentworth Thompson added his comment in an Introduction which followed Dobzhansky's Preface:
"I need go no further, nor say one word more, to show that Professor Berg holds views of his own, with many of which many of us are little likely to agree."
It is a wonder anyone ever bothered to read the book!
Stephen Jay Gould did a similar number on Schindewolf when he described his views as "spectacularly flawed" when Gould wrote the Foreward to Schindwolf's great work "Basic Questions in Paleontology" when it was translated in 1993, 43 years after the German edition.
These scandalous treatments of course took place after both authors were long dead and represent a perfect demonstration of the cowardly conquest of blind ideology over reasoned facts presented by two of the greatest scholars of all time.
Goldschmidt has been similarly treated as have nearly all of my other sources, sources that led the way to the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They continue to be ridiculed or ignored to this day. It is a scandal unprecedented in the history of science and it has become one of my stated objectives to expose it as such. I regard it as both a responsibility and a great personal pleasure. I hope everyone within cybershot reads this message and I welcome any response.
Thank you again Martin.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 23. August 2006 14:39
Thank you John. I have read again Manifesto (for the fourth,fifth time?), now focusing on parts which is your contribution to evolution -
semimeiosis as mechanism of derepression of genes. I always find there something interesting.
Yet it seems to me, that your claim contradicts religious concept of creation - first Adam, than Eva. According PEH I would expect that Eva was first, Adam follows. Am I right? But Lewis Wolpert in his "The triumph of the embryo" also writes, that the man is in fact woman turned during ontogeny by hormons into the man.
On the other hand history teach us that only men are founders of religion - Jesus, Budha, Mohamed...
Also greatest philospophers and - alas evoutionists too, are only men.
Why not women - they should penetrate into the puzzle of life deeper - they are older.
But as you noticed, this is philosophy.
I have read that Japanese scientists reproduced mouse without sperm. It is not truly parthenogenesis but I think that it corroborate conception that also mammalian females could theoretically evolved without sexual reproduction.
It seems to me that the entry of the second polar body nucleus (as you cited Wilson in Manifesto) into the egg is something, that resemble this experiment most.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/04/0421_040421_whoneedsmales.html
[ 23. August 2006, 14:41: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 23. August 2006 15:02
Thank you Martin
The best evidence in favor of the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) is the nature of meiosis itself. If the sole purpose of meiosis was to produce haploid sperm and ova from diploid cells, there would be but a single meiotic division which would take the cells from 2N to IN in a single step. No sexual organism produces gametes this way. That is why I am convinced that the first meiotic division which takes the gametes from 4N to 2N is a primitive form of diploid reproduction. It must have historically preceded the second division. When sexual reproduction became the sole means of reproduction, creative evolution came to a standstill. That immediately explains why evolution cannot be demonstrated with contemporary sexually reproducing organisms.
Again thank you for your interest.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 23. August 2006, 15:13: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 24. August 2006 04:37
quote:
If the sole purpose of meiosis was to produce haploid sperm and ova from diploid cells, there would be but a single meiotic division which would take the cells from 2N to IN in a single step.
John, this is true indeed. If you wish, pure biologically speaking the extra division is redundant. But, there is also more to meiosis. It is the stage where extensive exchange of daughter chromosomes takes place and the only stage when the VIGEs are active to further induce variation. A simple split from 2N into 1N would not do the same. The extra meiotic division is required to produce variation and to prevent that mutations become lethal immediately in offspring.
peter
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. August 2006 10:48
Sorry Peter but I think you are wrong. If the original two chromosomes met in synapsis and exchanged their genetic segments as they do in the tetrad state now, it could accomplish the same end. The important point is that no organism produces its gametes by means of that method. What we observe with meiosis is a recapitulation of the history of its origin. The first meiotic division is a perfectly sound means of diploid reproduction as I have demonstrated with the literature cited in the Manifesto.
We should remember that ordinary mitosis proceeds from 2N to 4N before returning to 2N. The first meiotic division does exactly the same but with the added benefit of producing every chromosome rearrangement as paired homologues in a single step. This is ensured by the universal property of the first divison which is that the sister (identical) chromosomes always remain together in the first meiotic division. The origin of the new chromosome homozygote has always been the problem as Goldschmidt recognized and the semi-meiotic hypothesis provides the answer. Once the second divison became mandatory with sexual reproduction, evolution came to a screeching halt.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution is undemonstrable.
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 24. August 2006 11:05
Peter
The extra divison is not required to produce variation either as it would be a random matter which chromosomes segregated during a single division. It is random in ordinary mitosis is it not? Of course it is. A single synapsis followed by a single division could produce exactly as much Mendelian variation as two step meiosis does, but it could never produce novel chromosome homozygotes which is the unique property of the semi-meiotic mode. Do you undertand what I am trying to say? There is a diagram in the Manifesto that would help. It is also present in my 1984 paper "Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism." Journal of Theoretical Biology., 111: 725-735.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. August 2006 19:30
Incidentally, if anyone is interested I have now abandoned both of my blogs,
prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
and
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
confident that they represent a lasting record of the nature and tactics of my several adversaries from both sides of the ideological fence. One of the few virtues of internet communication is its permanence at the discretion of the author. I wouldn't dream of cancelling either of my blogs as they speak volumes as to the nature of the debate that still rages concerning our origins, a debate which I feel should never have begun.
Many of these "detractors" if I am use that word have also pursued me to EvC, where I can no longer post as well as to Panda's Thumb where I am also banned as well as to some of the lesser known blogs such as:
udoj.blogspot.com/
alanfox.blogspot.com/
where I am also denied response and others too numerous to mention. They have also pursued me here of course where I am very grateful to be allowed to present my heresies without fear of deletion or worse.
In any event I have now opened a new blog with the provocative title as indicated in the URL -
theendofevolution.blogspot.com/
Feel free to comment there and be confident you will never be banned or even deleted as long as you are civil. I have found that to be a very effective technique.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 29. August 2006 03:08
quote:
The first meiotic division is a perfectly sound means of diploid reproduction as I have demonstrated with the literature cited in the Manifesto.
John, that is exactly my point. There already was a perfectly sound means to reproduce (Remember: "All biology only makes sense in the light of reproduction"). The second mode (sexual reproduction) is thus completely redundant unless it was predesigned and for a purpose. The purpose is, as we know, to prohibit evolution.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic