|
Author
|
Topic: Peter Borger: Shared mutations: Common descent or common mechanism?
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. August 2006 06:55
Peter
That is exactly what I have been saying for twenty-two years now. Since evolution definitely DID occur, it most certainly could NOT have occurred through sexual reproduction. Ergo, the semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH).
Sexual reproduction, allelic mutation, population genetics, Mendelism and natural selection were and still are all anti-evolutionary and only led to extinction. Creative evolution is a phenomenon of the past. The whole scenario was planned from the beginning and chance had nothing more to do with it than it does with the development of the individual from the egg. There is absolutely no need to postulate special creation to account for Homo sapiens. He was always there, locked up in the chromosomes and he was finally released no more than 100,000 years ago, the youngest mammal and the last one.
My Manifesto is being presented by Salvador in installments over at Uncommon Descent if anyone is interested. Shoot it down if you can. That is what science is all about.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 30. August 2006 07:24
quote:
There is absolutely no need to postulate special creation to account for Homo sapiens. He was always there, locked up in the chromosomes and he was finally released no more than 100,000 years ago, the youngest mammal and the last one.
So, who did the lock up? Space aliens?
BTW, as pointed out before, many (to be precise 1183) novel genes have been added to the genomes over the last 80 million years.
Who did the addition? Space aliens?
And, as pointed out before, there are many non-random point mutations specific for human genes. Space aliens, too? Special creation is more likely.
peebee
[ 30. August 2006, 09:46: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 30. August 2006 09:23
there is compelling evidence that one of the modes (the sexual one) is the more complex mode of reproduction and will be inactivted over time:
Phylogeography of competing sexual and parthenogenetic forms of a freshwater flatworm: patterns and explanations
by Pongratz et al in the BMC Evol Biol 2003
The data show when the two modes operate simultaneously one is redundant (the sexual one).
Genetic redundancy is the ultimate evidence of the design of life (where did my review on the topic end up? I submitted it about 8 weeks ago)
peebee
[ 30. August 2006, 09:26: Message edited by: peter borger ]
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 30. August 2006 15:09
John,
inspired by reading cancelled discussion on evc phorum on Grasse I opened new thread - Mimicry and neodarwinism. I try to support your ideas by showing very curious cases of mimicry, but nobody seems impressed. The major problem is reduced to how and why is something coded in DNA. The random mutation seems to be venerated idea, which I see no real possibilty to be overthrown.
[ 30. August 2006, 15:11: Message edited by: Martin ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. August 2006 17:38
Peter.
"Who" is of no conseqence. Only "that" matters
The nature of the front-loaders is completely unknown and irrelevant "That" they once existed cannot be denied by any rational observer, only by irrational Darwinian, chance-worshipping mystics.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. August 2006 17:43
By the way, my Manifesto died on the vine at Uncommon Descent. It seems they don't want to hear about it. I am not surprised.
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw,
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. August 2006 21:09
The situation at Uncommon Descent is very revealing. Most of my messages never even appear and many that do are soon deleted. They must be somewhat worried about me because my comments have been very innocuous, and even quite educational. But it is pretty hard to enlighten others when your messages never appear don't you know.
Naturally I am flattered to be given such special treatment. They even found it necessary to close the thread on my Manifesto that Salvador had introduced. It was allowed only two installments. I feel sorry for Salvador. He is a decent Christian man and he should not be treated that way. No one should. Not even me.
All in all I am quite satisfied that I am on the right track. Why else would such tactics prove necessary? What I don't understand is why they don't just ban me. Apparently they enjoy what they imagine to be contempt and humiliation. They have only humiliated themselves. When a published evolutionist must be denied the presentation of his views, it is the forum that is at fault, not the scientist. I hope that never happens here. So far, so good.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. August 2006 22:05
It gets better and better. I have just been denied even viewing Uncommon Descent. That I had achieved at ARN long ago. Such cowardice exceeds my wildest expectations.
I love it so!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. August 2006 03:59
quote:
The nature of the front-loaders is completely unknown
John, are they, the front-loaders, Von Däniken's gods? Why don't you speculate a bit on it? Did they also evolve? Through front-loading or by Darwinian means? Please let me know.
Peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. August 2006 07:34
Peter
The nature of the original creator or creators and front-loaders is of no consequence. It matters not how mamy of them there were either, so I dismiss your question by not having to answer it. I think your ideas would be well received at Uncommon Descent. Why not try your luck with them as I have done. I am sure you would do better than I. By the way I am now again able to read their proceedings and haven't even been banned yet as near as I can tell. Of course there is no need to ban anyone when their messages hardly ever appear or, having appeared, are subsequently purged. They run a very tight ship at Uncommon Descent, a sure sign of insecurity.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. August 2006 07:56
quote:
The nature of the original creator or creators and front-loaders is of no consequence.
John, if their nature is similar to ours, built of the same material, then, aren't you begging the question how did they come into existance? Are you arguing for a relocation of an origin and evolutionary problem further back in time and space? If, on the other hand, the nature of the creator(s) is not materialistic, what could it be? I would be happy if you could elaborate a bit on this interesting topic. Thanks,
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. August 2006 10:22
Peter
Was the creator of the whole universe materialistic? Come on Peter, be reasonable. No one knows anything about the "creation" except that there was one and in my opinion possibly more than one. I have no intention of getting into a philosophical discussion on the origins of first causes.
"Upon reading books on philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can grasp only the inductive method... the works of speculative philosophy are beyond my reach."
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 193.
I have the same problem.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
peter borger
Member
Member # 722
|
posted 31. August 2006 10:34
quote:
Was the creator of the whole universe materialistic?
That is not the creator I meant. What I meant is the frontloader(s) of Davisonian evolution. The one (or more than one) that programmed the genomes. I didn't want to drag you into philosophy, I was just curious.
peebee
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. August 2006 10:47
Peter
I am not going to let you drag me into philosophy. Of that you can be certain.
Best regards.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 31. August 2006 10:55
I managed somehow to sneak in a comment on Dembski's thread at UD but was immediately greeted with a Forbidden page when I tried to access UD again. Isn't that precious?
I love it so!
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic