|
Author
|
Topic: Darwinism as Delusion (response to Richard Dawkins by John Davison)
|
Salvador T. Cordova
Member
Member # 959
|
posted 01. November 2006 15:12
Darwinism as Delusion
By John A. Davison
It is now 147 years since the publication of Darwin’s celebrated “On the Origin of Species,“ yet not a single species has been observed to be formed through the mechanism he proposed. That mechanism, the natural selection of randomly produced variations is apparently incompetent to transform contemporary species even into a new member of the same genus. The most intensive artificial selection has also proven to be unable to transcend the species barrier. Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that evolution is finished as proposed by the anti-Darwinian Robert Broom and the Darwinian Julian Huxley, curiously the same man who coined the term “the modern synthesis.” (Davison, 2004). Pierre Grasse suggested the same.
“Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna? (Grasse, 1977, page 71)).
I realize that some would not agree with us that evolution is finished, but I am now convinced that it is. How then is it possible for an hypothesis to survive without verification? Both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics collapsed when controlled experiment demonstrated them to be without foundation. Darwinism also has failed to survive the acid test of experimental verification. Why then has it persisted?
The reason for this paradox is the subject of this brief essay. It is, as my title indicates, because Darwinism is an illusion. The illusion is that evolution (phylogeny) has proceeded as the result of external causes which can be identified and experimentally manipulated. In my opinion that is impossible because such causes do not now and never did exist. They also do not exist for ontogeny, the development of the individual from the egg. Ontogeny and phylogeny are manifestations of the same reproductive continuum. Since only ontogeny remains, we must look to it as a model evolution. Does not ontogeny proceed entirely on the basis of contained information present in the fertilized egg? Of course it does. The only role for exogenous factors is to provide the necessary conditions for development to take place. For the amphibian fertilized egg, all that is required is a freshwater environment at a suitable temperature. In a very real sense that is all that is required for the development of a mammal. I can say that because the amniotic fluid in which the mammalian embryo is bathed is very low in dissolved salts, like the ancestral environment in which our amphibian predecessors developed. Even the crab-eating frog of India, which dives into the surf to capture its prey, must go inland to fresh-water ponds in order to reproduce. 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 is true also of the amniotic fluid surrounding the bird or reptile embryo. It too is much lower in salts than the blood or tissue fluids, betraying their fresh-water ancestry as well..
In every instance when we look for a role for the environment as a guide to evolutionary change we encounter a blank wall. The most that can be documented is that of acting as a stimulus for a potential already present. That includes the capacity to become resistant to insecticides and all other phasic responses which, unlike evolution, have proven to be reversible. Mendelian allelic mutations are also reversible and accordingly have played no significant role in evolution either, This realization has led me to postulate the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) as the only reasonable alternative for the formation of species as well as any of the higher taxonomic categories (Davison, 2005).
Coupled with the Darwinian illusion is the incapacity of certain ideologies to accept the implications of a predetermined evolution. Such a scenario demands one or more past intelligences far beyond our present capacity to comprehend. Such concepts are anathema to the atheist Darwinian perspective. The Darwinians have traditionally pretended that they had no critics. It is evident in the references and citations that are missing from the writings of their primary spokespersons, Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Stephen Jay Gould and most recently Richard Dawkins.
Otto Schindewolf recognized the failure of the experimental approach to phylogeny more than a half century ago. He too has been ignored.
“Many recent authors have spoken of experimental evolution; there is no such thing, Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way.” Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 311, italics his emphasis, bold my emphasis.
References
Davison, J.A. [2004], Is Evolution Finished? Rivista di Biologia 97:111-116.
Davison, J.A. [2005], A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166.
Grasse, P. [1977], Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence for a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York. (original French edition 1973).
Schindewolf, O. [1993] Basic Questions in Paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. (original German edition 1950).
[ 01. November 2006, 20:27: Message edited by: Salvador T. Cordova ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. November 2006 11:52
Would someone who can post at "After The Bar Closes" please alert them of this thread?
Zachriel, I believe you can manage that can't you? I am anxious to observe their response. I would like to see the same at Dawkins' blog but I am banned and denied viewing so I will have to rely on reactions via my email. If Uncommon Descent choses to comment, while I cannot respond, I can at least observe. I hope they too will be reminded of this thread which is a direct reponse to Dawkins' most recent book - "The God Delusion." God knows this brief essay speaks loud and clear for Intelligent Design. I have also challenged "ID The Future" to publish it there as well where I presented it as an attachment. It will be interesting to see how this experiment works out.
Thanks in advance.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Zachriel
Member
Member # 1793
|
posted 02. November 2006 14:25
John Davison: "Would someone who can post at "After The Bar Closes" please alert them of this thread?"
Done.
[ 02. November 2006, 15:20: Message edited by: Zachriel ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. November 2006 18:56
Thank you Zachriel.
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 02. November 2006 19:38
I hope it can be introduced at Uncommon Descent as well. The more the merrier.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. November 2006 01:42
I think the title of my essay should be changed to "The Darwinian Illusion" as a direct rebuttal to Dawkins's latest fantasy - "The God Delusion."
Maybe Salvador would be so kind as to take care of that for me. Thanks Sal.
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 05. November 2006 14:41
John,
I admire you that you are still willing to discuss your issue with those people. I found there no arguments just insinuatiuon on your person. They are sometimes like unleshead beasts.
I sent there my favourite case of Papilio Dardanus.
I am little perplexed - I am by now way expert on genetics - that if behind morphs stand single locus with 11 allele that these: "Clarke and Sheppard (1960d) suggested that the diverse phenotypic effects of this locus could be explained if it was actually a tightly linked cluster of genes, each with an independent effect on the phenotype. Such a supergene could arise by recombination events that move genes with related functions for pattern specification to a common region of a chromosome; recombination within such a gene cluster could be inhibited by an inversion." (Nijhout 2003)
Such rearrangements should not occurs randomly - if we underestimate number of butterfly genes to 1.000, that probability of putting together 11 alleles from 1.000 would be 10^(-1041) - impossible. And there should be much more components on the cluster like only these alleles - I suppose.
Mimicry is good example, because also birds detect them and neodarwinists cannot throw them away as superficial resemblance as they do in case of convergence (tasmanian wolf, sabretooths cats, placenta...).
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 05. November 2006 17:59
Martin
Thank you for the kind words.
The history of this little essay of mine is very revealing. I asked DaveScot over at Uncommon Descent to introduce it as a thread there and received no reply. Perhaps that is because he banned me again but it seems to me that a professional would at least acknowledge the request. I also offered it at ID the Future and Discovery Institute where I have also received no response. I am grateful that Salvador was willing to present it here. It is understandable why the Darwnians would not be interested in such a frontal assault on their atheist philosophy but it is not so obvious why the Intelligent Design camp would also pretend its author does not exist which is exactly the response which has been forthcoming.
I think I can explain why. The Intelligent Design faction is dominated to a large extent by Protestant Fundamentalism as represented by their most prominant spokespersons whose names I need not mention. It is obvious that their respective followers are advocates of the views of their self-appointed leaders many of whom are not even scientists. Both the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists are jockeying within their domains for personal supremacy. Dawkins even fights with Ken Miller, a fellow Darwinian simply because Miller claims to be a Christian! Neither group will tolerate any deviation from the positions held by their leadership. Anyone who dares question their authority is summarily banned from discussion. DaveScot over at Uncommon Descent bans everyone who takes exception with either himself, any of his cherished convictions, or those of any of the leaders of the forum. He is a bully, having banned more people than any other "moderator" in the history of internet forums. The history of most forums is the history of ridicule, denigration and ultimate bannishment. Unfortunately that has become the fate of Uncommon Descent too. Rarely do basic issues ever survive long enough for serious discussion. Naturally I am pleased that is not the case here at "brainstorms" but I must add the word - yet. I am concerned for the future of this forum and I hope others are as well.
My cardinal sin and that of all of my distinguished predecesors is that we have not only rejected Darwinism in all of it forms, but have also never found it necessary to invoke a personal God. Grasse only mentioned God once and that only in passing. Robert Broom had the temerity to suggest there had been a Plan, a word he capitalized. That was all it took for Julian Huxley to dismiss Broom as a mystic even though Huxley had agreed in private correspondence with Broom that evolution was finished, as I fully documented in my Manifesto and elsewhere. Huxley reduced Robert Broom to a mere footnote in his book Evolution: The Modern Synthesis, page 568. That disgraceful treatment was for purely ideological reasons. Everything we are now observing in internet forums is being presented for purely ideological reasons. It is a scandal and I have every intention of broadcasting that for all to consider and respond to as they may choose.
There is no place for ideology in science and there is also no place for sectarian religion either. Louis Pasteur was a devout Catholic but never did he have to invoke God in his research or discoveries. I know of not a single decent scientist who ever did and neither does anyone else. They just think they do. We are all victims of our "prescribed fates." Some of us have been luckier than others.
I have deliberately isolated myself from any organization and that has proved to be the primary reason I am not allowed to exist by the still prevalent factions, neither one of which has ever contributed anything whatsoever to our understanding of the great mystery of organic evolution. The truth is not subject to debate, only to disclosure. There is not a single scientific advance that ever was influenced by ones belief or disbelief in a Creator. It is always a terrible error to let a personal God play a role in science. The Catholic Church learned that long ago much to its credit. It is no accident that the Pontifical Academy of Sciences has Nobel Prize winners among its members.
The Protestant Fundamentalists and the atheist Darwinians should each take a lesson from Albert Einstein -
"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it stems from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
ibid
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 06. November 2006 07:37
Martin
Thank you for supporting my thesis over at After The Bar Closes. I am surprised they haven't banned you. If they had any courage they would allow me back in to defend my convictions. Panda's Thumb has become the last bastion of Darwinian mysticism. A new thread has not been introduced in months. All they do now is congratulate one another on their great wit and cast aspersions on those who cannot respond. It is gloriously revealing.
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 06. November 2006 10:40
There is now and never was such a thing as convergent evolution. Similar forms were simply reading the same preformed "blueprints" at the time of their appearance. Furthermore, the vast majority of all such forms disappeared into extinction unchanged from their original morphology. There were always only a few "evolvers" and their numbers steadily declined with time until now there apparently are none left. Creative evolution is a phenomenon of the past, the distant past.
The Darwinian paradigm is a figment of the human imagination and a necessary construct of the atheist mentality. That it still persists is a scandal.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
Martin
Member
Member # 2001
|
posted 08. November 2006 14:52
quote:
Similar forms were simply reading the same preformed "blueprints" at the time of their appearance.
John, does it means that these "blueprints" - if the animals structures look strikingly alike as is the case of unrelated sabretooth cats - are also same as to the coding patterns of DNA? One of the arguments neodarwinists like use is that genes behind same structures of unrelated species are different and that should be only due to convergence.
Yet I am not sure if they are right and DNA coding regions are really different.
Anyway same problem exist in models and their mimics in mimicry. Discussing some problems on EvC I hit by chance on article "Mimetic Polymorphism, a Controversial Chapter of Darwinism " written by Richard Goldschmidt Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 20, No. 2 Jun., 1945), pp. 147-164.
There is only first page of his article on jstor, but unfortunatelly brainstorm do not allow send links containing parenthesis in address, so I cannot give you the link, but it can be found easily using google.
I do not have full access to the article but it should be interesting to know how Goldschmidt addressed the problem.
IP: Logged
|
|
DaveScot
Member
Member # 1545
|
posted 08. November 2006 15:09
John, your cardinal sin at uncommondescent is letting your paranoia manifest itself to such an extent that you start hurling falsely based invective in every direction.
I didn't receive your request to introduce this paper at uncommondescent because I configured my email inbox to automatically delete any email from you without notifying me of its arrival. That way I don't have to see your serveral daily paranoid letters accusing me of lying and conspiring against you.
That said, I have no problem adding this latest dissertation of yours to the collection of your papers at uncommon descent and will do that immediately.
Update: Done. See here for the entire collection
http://www.uncommondescent.com/archives/1647
and here specifically for the new paper
http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/2006-darwinism-as-delusion/
[ 08. November 2006, 15:20: Message edited by: DaveScot ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2006 06:36
Well thanks a lot. Now why don't you allow me to respond to any citicisms it may evoke? Fat chance eh?
I don't deny my paranoia as you are one of its primary causes. Got that? Write that down. Now go bully someone else. That is what you do best.
"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger
[ 09. November 2006, 09:48: Message edited by: John A. Davison ]
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2006 06:45
DaveScot
Incidentally, the quote from Schindewolf is not properly presented as it lacks the italics and the bold portions as they are presented here at "brainstorms." Please make those corrections.
IP: Logged
|
|
John A. Davison
Member
Member # 1425
|
posted 09. November 2006 07:27
DaveScot
I also note that you did not introduce my essay as a thread as I requested but simply tacked it on to my other papers on the side board. Your tactics are obvious. I recommend you readmit me in good standing. You are on trial, not I.
"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic