|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as Delusion (response to Richard Dawkins by John Davison)
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. January 2007 18:08
Alan Fox at alanfox.blogspot.com/ has opened a new thread with the essay which is the subject of this thread as the title.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 17. January 2007 16:56
Alan Fox over at
alanfox.blogspot.com/
is up to his usual tactics again.
He introduced the subject of this thread (which has now appeared in The American Chronicle). I did not ask him to do this. Once again I am blocked from participation or even viewing the comments of others as the blocked sign descends every time I try to see what is going on. I am sure he will once again deny that he is blocking me. Who besides Alan CAN block me is the question I ask. It is all so very revealing.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Christopher D. Beling
Member
Member # 723
|
posted 24. January 2007 20:11
Sal,
I agree mostly with what you say about ontogeny following phylogeny, but question whether we can be 100% sure about mammals being the descendents of amphibians in the past:
quote:
Thus the mammalian womb retains the properties of the environment in which our ancestors developed in the past as their relatives still do today.
This could be so as in John's Semi-Meiotic- Hypothesis, that each new genus/family/order? of animals was born (with a freshly new zero entropy) genome from the previous form; On the other hand don't you think that the Great Mind behind it all could not have worked through a number of "information downloads"? I am quite sure that the prokaryote to eukaryote transition could not have occured through the SMH since it is so extreme? John do you have any comments?
Chris
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2007 07:28
Chris
I will respond to your post later today. I would also like to hear from Salvador so I hope he responds as well. It seems he has joined with others at Uncommon Descent in pretending I do not exist. That has become an old story to this investigator. It is unfortunate.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2007 10:21
Excuse me folks.
I goofed. Alan Fox opened a new thread - "Julian Huxley's Confession" where he is also making it very difficult for me to comment. That essay was also recently published in the American Chronicle compliments of Kazmer.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I am having difficulty commenting anywhere except right here.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 25. January 2007 11:29
Chris
In response to your question I will present a preview of a paper I am writing with the tentative title "What we don't know about evolution."
I will be using the editorial "We" instead of "I" to indicate that what I offer is shared with my sources. The first thing that must be presented is what "we" DO know about evolution. We DO know that it is no longer going on beyond the production of intra-specific varieties none of which are incipient species. In other words, progressive evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. We also know that chance played no role whatsoever in either the creation or subsequent evolution (phylogeny) of any reproductively continuous lineage. Neither does it now play any role in the development of the individual (ontogeny). Commenting on both phylogeny and ontogeny -
"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogesis, page 134.
Now, what DON'T we know? We have virtually no certain knowledge about the following -
1. How many times life was created.
2. Where life was created.
3. When life was created.
4. How many Creators were involved.
5. How many times created lineages were subsequently front-loaded with genetic information.
6. Of course how life was created goes without saying as the biggest mystery of all, one about which absolutely nothing is known with certainty except that, as "we" said before, chance played no role whatsoever.
However we can at present make some educated guesses as to the question how many times life may have been created. It may have been created or subsequently front-loaded as many times as we are unable to establish proof of reproductive continuity. Let me explain. If we ask to what extent we are able to explain evolutionary diversity as the restructuring of a common original body of potential information the highest taxonomic category that will allow such an interpretation is, for mammals at least, the Order. All the members of the Order Primates (of which we are a member) can be understood as a restructuring of a common body of information. In other words it can be understood in terms of the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH). For many animal Orders even that can not be inferred. For example within the Amphibian order Urodela (newts and salamanders) large differences exist between the DNA levels of different genera. We still have no direct evidence as to how such profound differences can remain compatible with reproductive continuity. If large differences exist in DNA per cell, and they do, where did the DNA come from or go to? These are at present unanswered questions. Until they are answered we must reserve the possibility that wherever such large differences exist they may have involved independent creations or front-loadings. In short there is at present absolutely no reason to subscribe to a monophyletic evolution and several reasons not to do so. Those several reasons I have presented in my papers and need not be recounted here.
It is interesting to note that a polyphyletic evolution was first endorsed by Leo Berg, in my opinion the greatest evolutionist of all time. In marked contrast to Darwinian monophyleticism -
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis, page 406.
I feel that on the basis of what we REALLY know about evolution, Berg's estimate may be very close to the truth. There is at present absolutely nothing that we know for certain that can rule it out and much with which it remains compatible.
Life in all its manifestations is miraculous and tens of thousands of miracles are no more miraculous than one.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 26. January 2007 12:21
Just for fun I sent this just previous message off to Richard Dawkins for his candid appraisal. I expect a response of course!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. January 2007 02:47
Alan Fox has blocked me for the last time. I will never post there again.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. January 2007 03:07
Dembski has introduced an interesting thread over at Uncommon Descent, a topic which is becoming increasingly significant as the human population continues to increase.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/2005#more-2005
This might be worthy of a new thread here where I would be able to contribute.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 28. January 2007 03:38
Speaking of introducing threads, Salvador Cordova was kind to introduce this thread based on my essay - The Darwinian Delusion.
Salvador no longer responds to my email, my private mail or what I present here. Apparently he has now joined with others in regarding me as persona non grata, a fate which I share with my sources who also have been largely ignored by both sides of the debate which still rages concerning our origins, a debate which I feel should never have originated. It is not only the Darwinians who pretend their critics do not exist.
There is no place in science for either Religious Fundamentalism or Darwinian Mysticism. The truth lies elsewhere and is independent of both chance and a personal God.
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source....They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 30. January 2007 06:54
Would someone explain to me via private mail how I can introduce a thread? I am sorry to be such a computer illiterate.
Thanks.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
[ 30. January 2007, 06:55: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. March 2007 05:07
Being nonexistent is an enviable condition. That way one remains immune to criticism.
I love it so!
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 14. March 2007 09:46
George Bernard Shaw once wrote -
"Silence is the most perfect expression of scorn."
I do not agree since silence may mean fear. Scorn requires an active voice such as I employ when dealing with those who remain silent concerning myself, my science and that of my distinguished sources on which my science is so firmly based.
My scorn takes the form of referring to my silent adversaries by rearranging their names as -
Jillip Phonson, Wonathan Jells, Dilliam Wembski,
Esley Wellsberry, M.P. Zeyers and of course Dichard Rawkins. These incidentally are the same personalities that have refused to be interviewed on Jason Rennie's Sciphishow. The last four have also banned me from their forums. Are these mere coincidences? I don't think so. What think others or would they too rather remain silent?
Time will tell. It always has.
"If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 22. March 2007 04:31
The question I posed in my last post has been answered. Those who frequent this forum would rather not say. I regard that as very unfortunate.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic