The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis December 16, 2007
Posted by John A. Davison in general.trackback
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PDF download requires Adobe or similar viewer)
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PDF download requires Adobe or similar viewer)
It’s nice you have your own blog John. I hope you can check all emails from those neodarwinian fanatics who
would like to block discussion here. Your Manifesto is one of the best available critics of neodarwinian thinking.
It continues in the best tradition of those men who claimed that natural selection play no role in
evolution. You mentioned Berg, Schindewolf, Broom, Grasse. I have already backed up such ideas by
thoughts of Franz Heikertinger, Adolf Portmann and Zdenek Neubauer.
No one of mentioned prominent biologists believe natural selection play any role in evolution. The process is predetermined and has more to do with internal forces than with “environment”, “empty niches” etc. The final product is mankind and evolution is finished now.
I also hope that this blog is not under control of hypocrite Alan Fox who has started his whining and denigration at AtBC commeting your blog.
Thank you Martin.
Actually, Alan Fox was kind to set this blog up for me. I doubt very much if he would do anything to jeopardize its future since he is responsible for its existence. He has the password and if he chooses to sabotage this blog, it is within his power to do so. I have thanked Alan for his help and will continue to be grateful unless events occur that will change my mind. If Alan now chooses to ridicule me at After The Bar Closes, there is a name for that condition. It is called hypocricy. That’s OK with me too!
Thanks for posting.
I wouldn’t believe Alan a word and change the password immidiately. But we will see.
I am curious if there will be some on-topic responses here about your Manifesto. The discussion could be
interesting. But you know very well that darwinists from Pharyngula and other venues have very limited knowledge.
Repeating their mantras about natural selection and empty niches they don’t know even themselves what
they are talking about.
Martin
It will all come out in the wash because, as Einstein declared – “everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.” I am not afraid of any man or any institution and I am prepared to deal with any necessity that may arise. I love it when people ridicule me as it reflects on the ridiculer not on the ridiculee. The simple truth is that not a word I have ever published has been shown to lack foundation. It is only in the ephemeral world of cyberdumb that I am denigrated and so it is in that world that I respond. I am quite content.
SOCKITTOME!
I love it so!
Thanks for posting.
John,
its’s fine there is a link to your Manifesto. People can check it if they like. The process of evolution is a complicated phenomenon and much has to be done. Those who don’t want to accept the fact of prescribed process of evolution
(orthogenesis) need more and more neodarwinian “articles” in order to live in their fantastical atheistic world. That’s why they flocked together at Pharyngula blog run by the doctor of darwinism Myers. He writes his “scientific” neodarwinian articles every two hours unless he sleeps. Darwinists are heated up by such articles. I am a bit surprised they haven’t come here with their “arguments” yet. Obviously they need their atheistic niche where they are protected from their adversories.
Martin
Thank you. On one of my earlier blogs I invited everyone to present their views on the mechanism of evolution in the form of a short essay. No one responded except my friend Phillip Engle. I personally emailed invitations to P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells and William Dembski. I received responses only from Wells and Behe who both claimed they were too busy.
I extend that invitation again here, confident that there again will be little response. I believe that the Darwinians know that their paradigm is a complete failure. That is why they don’t defend it any more. Instead they rabidly attack every form of theism which is the only apparent alternative.
It is quite possible that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is incorrect alhough I don’t regard that as likely or I would never have proposed it. Of one thing I am certain, There was never a role for blind chance in the origin or origins and subsequent evolution of life. I am not alone in that conclusion. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
“Any system which purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245, the sentence in his italics for emphasis.
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis presents and supports such a mechanism and, as far as I am aware, it remains in accord with both the fossil record and the findings of the experimental laboratory.
I have been publishing in refereed journals for over a half century and I can still humbly claim that nothing I have ever put in hard print has been shown to be without merit in that same venue and certainly not in the ephemeral and relatively meaningless world of cyberdumb.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Thanks for posting.
Since I am banned and unable to reach most other evolutionary blogs, I ask that those who can please call attention to my invitation to all to defend their brand of evolutionary science in open discussion here or any place else for that matter. Failure publicly to acknowledge this request will be interpreted to be intellectual cowardice.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I am waiting for the following to acknowlege my invitation to present their evolutionary paradigms here for all to discuss and compare with The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry, Richard Dawkins, Michael Behe, Jonathon Wells, William Dembski. and Michael Denton. I have selected these as the most prominent spokespersons currently representing the two major factions, Of course anyone else is free to participate as well. The more the merrier.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Martin
With respect to your comment in message # 1.
Natural selection, the cornerstone of the Darwinian myth, has always played and still plays a very important role by PREVENTING change. By preventing change it made extinction inevitable, without which evolution could never have taken place. A conservative role for natural selection was recognized by others long before me.
“The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard.”
Leo Berg, Nomogeneis, page 406
“Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed.”
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152. My added emphasis is in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
Even before Punnett and Berg, Henry Fairfield Osborn (1909) characterized natural selection as follows -
“In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any paleontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous.”
quoted by Berg, Nomogenesis, page 127.
Incidentally, Osborn was the head of the American Museum of Natural History and a close friend of Robert Broom.
In short, in my not very guarded opinion, natural selection has played only an inhibitory role and has had nothing to do with either the origin or the subsequent history of any organism, living or extinct. Its role has always been very limited to responses to small environmental changes, responses which have not transcended the species level. Nearly every organism that ever lived became extinct. The number of “evolvers” has always been few and, as nearly as can be determined, now there are none.
Ergo – The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
For reasons I do not understand, Figure 1 does not appear in this version of my paper. If someone would be so kind as to reproduce it, I would be very grateful. It can be found in the published version, Rivista di Biologia 98:155-166 (2005), or in the original source on page 261 of Otto Schindewolf’s remarkable book, Basic Questions in Paleontology. As the old saying goes -
“a picture is worth a thousand words.”
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I guess I will have to buy a scanner to get Figure 1 published on this thread.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
John,
thank you for your answer nr.9. Franz Heikertinger who argued with darwinists about mimicry held opinion that each species pay so called tall (der Tribut) from it’s own ranks. I was surprised when I hit upon the same idea of paying tall, tax (der Tribut) in the work of Swiss zoologist Adolf Portmann. Probably the idea of tall is of older origin I don’t know. Anyway we see that every species – however unpalatable and noxious it is – has always it’s own predator. Considering this fact as well as the fact that there are still many empty niches we must be cautios in cases where darwinists put “natural selection” as driving force of evolution of aposematism and mimicry.
Anyway I agree with the idea that natural selection removes extremities and has nothing to do with origin of new species.
Thank you Martin.
I think the African Elephant may not have a natural predator which is why it is so capable of destroying environments. Its numbers need to be controlled by man. The same can be said for other animals at the top of their food chains.
Man, the last mammal to ever appear, is his own predator, destroying his environment and with it himself as well as all those animals dependent on that environment. It seems to be a kind of programmed, “prescribed” suicide!
By the way Martin, one can’t argue with Darwinists It is a monumental waste of time. They are immune to reason. It is much more productive and personally gratifying to laugh at them.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable,”
John A, Davison
Let the record show that after a month has elapsed not a single comment has addressed the content and significance of my “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” paper, the subject of this thread. Not a single Darwinist has surfaced to defend the most failed hypothesis in the history of science nor has a single Christian Fundamentalist proposed the Genesis account. I predicted that this would be the case in message #6. So far all my predictions remain valid. I will leave this thread open hoping that someone, somewhere has the courage to offer an alternative interpretation of the cause of organic evolution. It is only the cause that has ever been in question and chance never had anything to do with any of it. So much for the Darwinian myth.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
This thread, in my opinon the most important one, has evoked not a single comment in the over six weeks it has been open. I will let others draw their own conclusions, but mine is that the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is perfectly valid as an alternative to the Darwinian fairy tale.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
The pdf Linked above seems an abreiviated version of another paper by the same name. I read through a bit of the paper. I have to admit most of it was difficult to stomach. After reading a sentence to the effect that evolution is “Blind chance” I thought What kind of college professor can spew this misinformation? Alas it seems one might in the context of the paragraph contrue that you were in fact speaking of abiogenisis being a chance event and not as I had thought Ignoring that Natural selection is the greater part of evolutions mechanism.
I was directed to your site here by some youtuber you may know as carnage123123123.
I was attempting to explain to him the irreversibility of evolution. We had come to discussing this via dialog about randomness in computer programming. Curiously he was admonishing my stand and defending yours although they are the same in this one regard. .. er, well there was one minor difference in understanding perhaps you could clear this up. From reading you paper I gathered that you viewed point mutations as reversable. How is this so? I contend that the odds of reversal are huge but more significantly perhaps the odds of reversal become worse with each sucsesive generation to which they are passed on to. Not just because any genome is large compared to where the mutation had taken place but by being spread across a plurality of offspring the plausibilty of reversal goes asymptotic to impossible. I contend that this imparts a forwards only direction to even point mutations. I believe this is significant with regard to your paper because i get the sense that you do not feel that the accumulated mutations exist (even though you mention this accumulation later in the same paper) and as a corralary you find it difficult to view them as a means for gradual protien deformations into new protien products. If this is on target or signifiacnt to your work i hope this has been a usefull observation. If not, well i appolgize for not having the wherewithall to follow adequatly the entirety of your thesis to address it pertainently.
This message is a test. I just attempted to answer # 16 and my message did not appear.
It has failed to appear again.
Obviously, some one is interfering with this weblog. Congratulations to the pig that is responsible.
I will resume communication when that becomes possible. Sorry for the delay.
John, your messeges are showing up. If they still seem to appear to be failing to show up on your side, post anyway. Or e-mail me if you wish.
I have a better idea. Send me the message that you have received from me in answer to your message # 16.
hmm, no messege received. You have my g-mail address right?
remove the obvious
damianpoirierNOSPAMATALL@gmail.com
In other words my response to damianpoirier was never sent.
Folks. I hope you might understand why I have a touch of paranoia.
As Henry Kissinger put it -
“Even a paranoid can have enemies.”
I will let damanpoirier’s comments stand but will remove him from the user list. I do not regard my comments as spam!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/thomas-jefferson-on-id/#comments
This thread from Uncommon Descent is a letter written by Thomas Jefferson which conforms perfectly with the thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I recommend it highly.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Paleontologist Vaclav Petr from Uni Prague has just published his Evolutionary dictionary:
http://www.vydavatel.sk/inshop/evolucni-teorie-triton+id-13115.htm
There are several references to John Davison’s work and his original semi-meiotic hypothesis of evolution. The author is another scientist form Uni Prague who mentioned professor John Davison in his work. The first one was Jaroslav Flegr in his monography Evolutionary biology where he explained professor John’s Davison theory of non-homology of germ cells in mammals.
I will soon on this thread present an essay I am preparing which involves an extension of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which proposes it as an ethic for human behavior. By way of preparation I will remind any potential readers that I remain a convinced determinist.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.hedgeschool.com/files/evolution/Evolution_for_New_Jersey.pdf
I just received this from Mary Daly, a friend and home school teacher who has taken my work seriously as one can gather from the above link.
Thank you Mary.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I have corrected some errors in the following version.
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as a Model for Ethical Behavior
by
John A. Davison
Our actions should be based on the ever-present
awareness that human beings in their thinking,
feeling, and acting are not free but are
just as causally bound as the stars
in their motion.
Everything is determined… by forces over
which we have no control.
Albert Einstein
I introduce this essay with the determinism I share with Einstein, a determinism that is implicit in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). Those who are unable to accept our shared determinism need read no further, because they will not be receptive to what I have to offer.
It is my hope to be able to place next to the Christian ethic a similar model for human behavior that does not require a living personal God but can theoretically be just as effective in promoting a benevolent, virtuous society which is of course what the Christian ideal has always represented. This does not mean that I have rejected a personal God because that is quite impossible. Gods are like that. It is precisely because Gods are not subject to characterization in any certain way that belief in them requires a departure from reality in order to justify their existence. That departure is called “faith.” The point I want to make here is that “faith” is no longer a necessary prerequisite for the acceptance of a planned, purposeful, goal directed universe as the evidence now overwhelmingly pleads for that interpretation.
Whether we like it or not, there is not a shred of direct verifiable evidence for the existence of a personal God. I also don’t believe there is any experimentally verified support for the power of prayer. Of course that does not mean that prayer does not work. It only means that it is not subject to verification through the methods of experimental science.
It is difficult to imagine a more magnificent model for human behavior than that provided by the life of Christ. It has served to provide the basis for all of Western Civilization. It was the Catholic Church that kept Greek science alive all through the middle ages as documented in “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization” by Thomas E. Woods Jr., a book I recommend for Catholic and non-Catholic alike.
It is especially important today to offer an alternative model for social harmony when religious institutions are losing potency in regulating an affluent society which has obviously abandoned the Christian ethic, the very ethic which made its existence possible.
There is a price which must be paid for this alternative model however, a price which some will find unacceptable. That price is accepting the position that Einstein has so unambiguously declared as a preamble to this essay.
Is it possible that we really are not free as Einstein declares? If so, there should be concrete evidence supporting that position. Since such evidence exists, I will now turn my attention to it.
One of the most significant contributions of recent times are the studies on monozygotic (identical) twins which were put up for adoption as infants and then reunited years later to be interviewed and studied with respect to the extent to which their development had been influenced by their environment. The results of several studies have been summarized in William Wright’s book “Born That Way” which, as the title suggests, supports a heritable, genetic basis for every character which was examined. I have presented this evidence elsewhere, notably in my essay, “The Age of Denial” and will not repeat it here except to say that it remains in perfect accord with Einstein’s dicta with which I introduced this essay. Specifically, I emphasize that one of those innate features was whether or not one believed in a Creator. Some of us do and some of us do not and, if we were, as I believe, “born that way,” is there anything that can be done for us? Judging from the intractable positions held by the extreme elements concerned with our origins, I answer with an unqualified NO!. Does anyone think that rabid atheists like P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins are capable of conversion into believers in a planned, determined universe, the only conceivable alternative to an evolution driven by chance? There is just about as much chance of that happening as there is of Pope Benedict XVI becoming an atheist!
Most significant is the opportunity the determined paradigm presents to simulate the Christian ideal – “Love thy enemy.” It is hard to hate an adversary who is not intellectually responsible for his intractable convictions, convictions beyond his capacity to alter through reason and objective dialogue. In my opinion, that is precisely the reality with which we are presently being confronted, a reality which is eroding the basis of Christianity, the greatest model for human behavior ever conceived.
Rather than trying to reason with those who reject a planned and purposeful universe, it might prove to be more effective to shun them, to ignore them, to isolate them, perhaps even to feel sorry for them as the incurable intellectual lepers which I believe they have proven themselves to be.
Now, one might ask, what has this to do with the Christian ethic? Actually it was anticipated by Christ himself with -
“Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.”
St. Luke 23:34
Isn’t that statement in accord with Einstein’s lifelong determinism? Wasn’t Christ determined, predestined to appear when and where he did?
Is there really any conflict between a determined universe as postulated by the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and Christianity? I answer NO once again. Everything in the Christian ethic pleads for a purposeful universe. Nothing in atheism does – absolutely nothing.
It is interesting that Christ offered another comment that also is in accord with my conviction that organic evolution is finished. He even used the same words -
“It is finished.”
St. John 19:30
And so I will end my attempt to unify the Christian ethic with the findings of experimental and descriptive science. I hope this may serve to clarify my position without further antagonizing either the Christian Fundamentalists or the equally fanatical atheists. Just as I introduced this essay, I will now end it with the words of Albert Einstein, in my humble opinion the greatest mortal mind that ever existed. His deep understanding of the human condition was every bit as important as his physics, perhaps even more so, because relativity was incipient and would have emerged even if he had never lived.
“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.”
The above essay soon will appear in the “Investigating Atheism Forum” sponsored by Cambridge University.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/
THE AGE of DENIAL
By John A. Davison
In order to understand my perspective it is essential to realize that, with Einstein, I am a confirmed determinist.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
I further believe that which IS determined WAS determined, probably millions of years ago. I have rejected the notion of an intervening God but cannot deny that one or more such entities must have existed in the distant past. I believe that recognition of a past supernatural intervention cannot be denied by any rational observer of the natural world. I am equally convinced that is all that MUST be acknowledged in order to understand both ontogeny, the development of the individual and phylogeny, the evolution of all organisms, both those of the present and those of the past.. Ontogeny and phylogeny are closely related aspects of the same organic continuum and should be considered simultaneously. I do not believe that non-material forces are any longer at work and reject any scheme that postulates such forces. Everything is material or it wouldn’t be here. I am also convinced with others that organic evolution is finished (Davison, 2004)
As further background for the material I will present here, I recommend my published “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” (Davison, 2005). I believe that everything was preprogrammed, planned in advance and that we are now in the terminal century for civilization as we have known it and possibly the last century for our survival as a species. I fully realize the reaction these heresies will probably produce but I am also aware of my responsibilities as a scientist and citizen to offer my views on what I regard as the greatest crisis ever faced by the human animal.
In a mere two centuries man has increased his numbers 100 fold, vastly exceeded the carrying capacity of the earth, thoroughly polluted his environment, permanently exterminated countless fellow organisms and started in motion forces which I am convinced cannot now be reversed. All this has been accomplished through the price that the Age of Technology has exacted to achieve the present state of our civilization. The culprits are two simple gases, carbon dioxide and water vapor, the major products of the oxidation of fossil fuel. They are also the major products of the metabolism of nearly seven billion large mammals, approximately the same number of chickens and a few billions more of various domesticated animals.
Prior to the Age of Technology the production of these two gases was largely balanced by their utilization by green plants. There is now no conceivable means by which the earth could support the necessary plant life to neutralize such an insult to the balance of nature. To give one some idea of what this means in terms we can easily understand, a typical human being at rest is metabolizing at a rate of about 80 watts or a tenth of a horsepower (One horsepower is 746 watts). When such a person is driving an automobile conservatively rated at 200 horsepower while in motion, he is producing CO2 and H20 vapor at a rate 2000 times greater than he was before he decided to go somewhere, a rate that continues until he gets to wherever he was going and turns off the ignition. These same two gases are the principle “greenhouse” gases which retard heat loss from the earth’s surface and produce global warming.
The earth has always undergone great changes in average temperature and atmospheric composition which has led some to regard these recent changes as of little significance. I concur with a fellow alarmist, Tim Flannery
“We have known for some decades that the climate change we are creating for the twenty-first century was of a similar magnitude to that seen at the end of the last ice age, but that it was occurring thirty times faster. We have known that the Gulf Stream shut down on at least three occasions at the end of the last ice age, that sea levels rose by at least 300 feet, that the earth’s biosphere was profoundly reorganized, and we have known that agriculture was impossible before the Long Summer of 10,000 years ago. And so there has been little reason for our blindness, except perhaps an unwillingness to look such horror in the face and say ‘You are my creation’.”
Tim Flannery, The Weather Makers, page 210.
It is the “rate of change” that distinguishes the present from the past, a rate unprecedented in the history of the earth.
The Long Summer of 10,000 years coincides with the period during which civilizations arose independently at several sites, civilizations that until a mere two centuries ago were in reasonable balance with their environment but no longer are.
I will not dwell here in length on the matter of global warming, except to say that “global warming” is one example of what I have called The Age of Denial. It is very real, it is entirely man made, and those that continue to deny it are fools.
I will next turn to the evidence that explains why such denials are so characteristic of the human condition.
Until a few decades ago a favorite topic for polite discussion was ” Which is more important, Nature or Nurture? Recent studies leave little question as to which is the most important. There is a natural experiment which provides incisive answers to this question. Occasionally monozygotic (identical) twins are put up for adoption and are reared in quite different environments. Thomas Bouchard and his colleagues at the University of Minnesota found and examined such reunited twins to study to what extent their physical and psychological features would cast light on the question of Nature versus Nurture. The findings of that group and others have been summarized in William Wright’s book “Born That Way.” As his title indicates, Nature seems to have carried the day to a degree which astounded the investigators themselves.
“Bouchard would later insist that while he and his colleagues had fully expected to find traits with a high degree of heritability, they also expected to find traits that had no genetic component. He was certain, he says, that they would find traits that proved to be purely environmental. They were astonished when they did not. While the degree of heritability varied widely – from the low thirties to the high seventies – EVERY TRAIT THEY MEASURED showed at least some degree of genetic influence. Many showed a lot.”
Born That Way, page 40, the author’s emphasis, original in italics.
Two of the traits that showed genetic predisposition are of special significance to the present essay. They are political preferences, whether liberal or conservative, and whether or not one believed in a Creator, a measure of ones devoutness. One of the fascinating features of the latter measure is that if one twin was a devout Muslim for example, the other twin, who might be a Christian, was devout as well. If one twin was an atheist, so was the other twin likely to be an atheist. As I hope to demonstrate, these findings can go a long way to explain the polarization that continues to plague rational discussion of certain aspects of the way we view the world around us. Differences in world view have special significance to the way in which the origin of life and its subsequent evolution have been interpreted by various investigators and the sects with which they are identified. It is my opinion, based on my 50 years in academe, that political liberalism and atheism tend to link together, suggesting that they may be pleiotropic expressions of the same genetic predisposition. Both of these further correlate with the Darwinian atheist paradigm.
It goes without saying that these results remain in accord with Einstein’s determinism. It is equally obvious that they create problems for those who believe in a Free Will, something which I have seriously come to question, especially in view of the behavior I observe on internet weblogs and forums.
The notion of Einstein’s lifelong determinism was anticipated by Gilbert and Sullivan as William Wright noted in Born That Way, page 262. From the operetta Iolanthe (1873) -
Every boy and every girl
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
Or else a little conservative.
Innate tendencies are indicated in some of our popular music as in “Doin’ what comes naturally” and “I cain’t say no!” from Rogers and Hammerstein’s Oklahoma and the ballad made popular by Marlene Dietrich -
“Falling in love again,
Never wanted to,
What am I to do?
Can’t help it
The realization that we may not be intellectually free has been largely ignored for obvious reasons. No one, including myself, is anxious to accept the implications of such a revelation, even as it has been supported by carefully controlled observations in which a role for the environment has obviously been minimized. When I applied the “predestined criterion” to myself, I “discovered” some rather unpleasant realities, but also one which I found very encouraging. I “discovered” that my primary destiny, my Providence as it were, was to restore some of the greatest minds of the past to their rightful place as the real pioneers in understanding the nature of the great mystery of organic evolution. That is exactly what my papers have achieved with my own contributions being of relatively secondary significance.
I also seem to be blessed with the ability to identify those who fail to meet the standards established by my intellectual sources, real scientists all, not an atheist or a religious fanatic in the lot.
I am happy to be able to say that I have passed Thomas Carlyle’s acid test -
“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
When an objective analysis is made of the primary spokespersons in the ongoing debate concerning the great mystery of evolution, one discovers that they often fail to satisfy
that measure of objectivity that has always been the hallmark of scientific progress. I am blessed with the uncanny and apparently congenital capacity to identify such types at great distance and deeply enjoy exposing them with their own words.
It is always with their own words that people betray their innate biases and prejudices. Here are some examples.
Ernst Mayr at Harvard’s Museum of Comparative Zoology has displayed his prejudice in his opus magnus, “The Growth of Biological Thought,” with a thought of his own. Commenting on the role of DNA he says -
“This may be true, but it is not very convincing for a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself,”
page 134.
Isn’t “dyed-in-the-wool” a synonym for congenital? He might just as well have substituted “born that way.”
His colleague down the hall, Stephen Jay Gould, once compared evolution to a “drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door” and he described intelligence as an “evolutionary accident.”
Gould wrote the Foreword to the 1993 English version of Otto Schindewolf’s opus magnus “Basic Questions in Paleontology” originally published forty-three years earlier in 1950. In that Foreword Gould exposed his bias in no uncertain terms by describing Schindewolf’s non-Darwinian evolutionary views as -
“spectacularly flawed.”
Foreword, page xi
Another Darwinian, Theodosius Dobzhansky, wrote a Foreword, in this case to the English translation of Nomogenesis by Leo Berg, his former mentor before Dobzhansky left Russia to come to America. Forty six years after its original publication and long after Berg’s death, here is how Dobzhansky characterized his former Professor’s work.
“A majority of evolutionists at present, including the author of this Preface, consider L.S. Berg’s theory of nomogenesis to be erroneous.”
page vii
Not satisfied, the distinguished English scholar, D’Arcy Wentworth Thompson added his denunciation to that by Dobzhansky in what was called an Introduction -
“I need go no further, nor say one word more, to show that Professor Berg holds views of his own, with which many of us are little likely to agree.”
page xvi
Oh the power of majority opinion!
I have never forgiven Gould for his hideous demonstration of intellectual bigotry. It was a scandalous treatment of the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier. Comments like that probably affected sales! Nor can I forgive Thompson and Dobzhansky for their similar treatment of the greatest Russian biologist of his day and probably of all time.
Today, virulence and polarization of ideas are at an all time high. Nowhere is this more obvious than the controversy that surrounds the question of our origins. The mechanism by which organic evolution took place has become a battleground for men’s very souls. We have two armed camps, the Darwinians led by professed atheists like P.Z, Myers and Richard Dawkins and their mortal enemies, those believing in a role for a Creator in the evolutionary scenario. I will first concentrate on the Darwinians as they are by far the most vocal, organized and venomous in the pursuit of their objective, which, as far as I am able to discern, is permanently to establish their atheist agenda whatever the cost.
Two of their most influential leaders are P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, both declared atheists. Myers hosts the Pharyngula weblog, the most popular biologically oriented forum on the present scene. He presents his daily thoughts in unambiguous fashion under the banner -
“Evolution, development and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal.”
Like Dawkins, Myers has completely abandoned any semblance of science to dedicate all his energies to the destruction of any person or institution that might have the temerity to include in its credo a role for any sort of higher power. His venom knows no bounds. The Holy Father, Pope Bendict XVI is now “bennie” as in “What do we care what bennie thinks?” The President of the United States is “asshole-in-chief.” On a personal note, some time ago I ventured to comment on his weblog only to be greeted with -
“Your stench has preceded you,”
followed by summary banishment. The man is a master of invective which is encouraged and praised by hundreds of his wildly cheering fans. He gleefully responds with more of the same.
His friend and fellow atheist Richard Dawkins, while much more civilized, is no less dedicated to their common goal which is to convert the entire world to Universal Atheism. He too has hundreds of dedicated followers at RichardDawkins.net with its forum. Other rabid Darwinians are concentrated at Panda’s Thumb and its “inner sanctum,” After The Bar Closes. Some of the devoted comment on all three weblogs. While Wesley Elsberry is nominally in charge of Panda’s Thumb, P.Z, Myers was instrumental in its establishment and frequently introduces topics there. These three forums are the principle surviving bastions of Darwinian mysticism. They all share the same dogged adherence to the most failed hypothesis in the history of science, godless, purposeless Darwinism.
The thing that most unifies these “groupthinktanks,” aside from their common loathing of any departure from the “one true faith,” is that they have completely abandoned any pretense of science and rarely mention the paradigm they so violently protect. The reason for this is transparent to this investigator. It is because the Darwinian model is indefensible and they know it but are unable, probably for the congenital reasons I earlier discussed, to accept the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian model which is a guided evolution. They have painted themselves into an ideological corner from which there is no escape except a complete recantation of their commitment to the Darwinian myth. Unable to accept the only viable alternative, they now must lash out blindly at all those who also for congenital reasons accept, even demand, a role for a Higher Power in establishing the origin of life and its subsequent evolution. They are highly organized and in my opinion constitute a serious threat to the free advancement of biological science.
Dawkins and Myers have joined forces to engage in the recruitment of atheist followers on a grand scale. In order to fully appreciate their joint efforts, I recommend going to Myers’ Pharyngula forum and clicking on the red A which adorns each days edition of “hatespeech,” with often as many as ten threads per day dedicated to the denigration and ridicule of many defenseless human beings and some of our most cherished institutions. Behind the big red A you will discover an extensive exhortation by Richard Dawkins detailing several reasons one should “come out” and “join the atheist movement.” There you will also find the opportunity to purchase Tshirts, coffee mugs and bumper stickers all emblazoned with the big red A for atheism. They have completely abandoned science for a business venture!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Quite independently, the atheist movement IS growing in America as indicated by the fact that for the first time in our history we have a declared atheist in the House of Representatives, not surprisingly a Democrat from California. We now have an atheist inspired Political Action Committee and atheist camps for our youth reminiscent of the Hitlerjugend movement of Nazi Germany. It is both revealing and depressing if you ask me.
One of the most mystifying features of the persistence of the Darwinian myth is the fact that some of the most distinguished scientists identified with Darwinism have reached firm conclusions devastating to its basic tenets. Theodosius Dobzhansky, already mentioned, proved experimentally that artificial selection was unable to transform the fruitfly, Drosophila melanogaster, into a new species. Why didn’t he recognize the significance of this unambiguous result? My answer is that he was unable for congenital reasons to accept what that meant for the Darwinian paradigm. More precisely, he could not accept the idea that, exactly like ontogeny, phylogeny has also proved to be a self-limiting, goal directed process, a concept foreign to the atheist Darwinian mentality, a mentality which cannot recognize a goal in a process driven by random variations. Isn’t the goal, the purpose, of ontogeny to produce a final product which does not further change? It is called the adult.
When innate ideology confronts hard facts, ideology invariably carries the day but cannot alter reality. The reality is that Drosophila melanogaster can’t change and, as far as we know, hasn’t changed for millions of years.
“The fruitfly (Drosophila melanogaster), the favorite pet insect of the geneticists, whose geographical, biotypical, urban and rural genotypes are now known inside out, seems not to have changed since the remotest times.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 130.
Another prominent Darwinian was Julian Huxley, grandson of Thomas Henry Huxley, “Darwin’s Bulldog” who, incidentally, was never a convinced Darwinian himself. His grandson Julian, like Dobzhansky, remained a Darwinian even as he presented evidence that evolution was finished, a reality lethal to the Darwinian paradigm.
Julian Huxley published Evolution: The Modern Synthesis in 1942, a 578 page consensus as the title suggests. Huxley coined the term Modern Synthesis, a term which still dominates evolutionary thinking today. On page 571, seven pages from the end, he presents his conclusion, one that can never be reconciled with the Darwinian fairy tale in one of the most remarkable demonstrations in all of the evolutionary literature. I will not quote the entire paragraph, more than a half page in length, but I recommend every serious student of evolution read it in its entirety and ask yourself the question as I have – how could this man possibly remain a Darwinian?
“Evolution is thus seen as a series of blind alleys. Some are extremely short – those leading to new genera and species that either remain stable or become extinct. Others are longer – the lines of adaptive radiation within a group such as a class or sub-class, which run for tens of millions of years before coming up against their terminal blank wall. Others are still longer – the lines that in the past led to the development of the major phyla and their highest representatives; their course is to be reckoned not in tens but in hundreds of millions of years. But all in the long run have terminated blindly……..”
Incidentally, Huxley was dead wrong with respect to the lengths of times involved in the development of any of the taxonomic categories. The appearance of every category from species to phylum was an instantaneous event as the fossil record clearly demonstrates. His insistence on gradualism is another fatal flaw in the Darwinian model and receives no support from the testimony of the fossil record.
“We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed. …The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
from Otto Schindewolf as presented by Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 395.
As for Darwinism and the Modern Synthesis, let me quote Boris Ephrussi who proved that mitochondria are self-replicating, autonomous elements.
“An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
One of the defining features of internet blogs and forums is what is termed “moderation policy.”.
It is interesting to see what form “moderation policy” takes in various blogs. One device is summary banishment the moment someone dares question the judgment of the blog head or one of his faithful lieutenants. That was my fate at Pharyngula as I recounted earlier in this essay. P.Z. Myers has a very revealing way of dealing with his critics, friends or foes alike. Apparently anyone can submit a comment but Myers alone decides its fate. I have found this to be a useful means of reminding Myers what I am up to. Of course my comments neither appear nor are acknowledged.
At both ARN and at RichardDawkins.net forum I have not only been denied commentary but I can’t view either forum from this computer, a distinction I cherish and suspect is reserved for very few.
At Panda’s Thumb an imaginative “moderation policy” way has evolved to deal with dissenters. If a comment is deemed unacceptable, it is not deleted but appears on a special thread, appropriately named “The Bathroom Wall.” While that was fine with me, it was not sufficient for Wesley Elsberry, who finally opted to give me my own thread which he named “Davison’s Soap Box.” Like all threads at Panda’s Thumb, that too disappeared off the bottom of the page and with it Davison, Soap Box and all. It was fun while it lasted.
A remarkably similar “solution” evolved apparently independently at EvC forum. Dissenters were sent to “Boot Camp” ostensibly to “learn how to debate properly.” Needless to say, I failed to master that presumed criterion for rational exchange and was soon banished from EvC. The very word “debate” is foreign to my sensibilities as a scientist. Scientists do not debate: they discover and then they publish their findings. We now live in an age of debate just as we live in the Age of Denial. It is denial that spawns debate.
Next I will turn my attention to those who, like myself, believe that there was a purpose, a goal in evolution. Unfortunately they too have found my position unacceptable. I will try to explain why.
Nowhere is the word “debate” more evident than in the question of our origins. A never ending debate continues between the atheist Darwinians and the Christian Fundamentalists. In a very real sense this is a debate between science and religion, especially a religion involving a role for a personal God. We should always approach this question mindful of Einstein’s warning -
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”
So it is not surprising to see that the most vocal opponents to the Darwinian model are associated with religious institutions. Uncommon Descent is the most prominent internet forum critical of the Darwinian paradigm. Its founder is William A. Dembski. His biographical sketch, updated 11/26/07, is as follows -
“A mathematician and philosopher, William A. Dembski is Research Professor in Philosophy at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary in Ft. Worth. He is also a senior fellow with Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture in Seattle. previously he was the Carl F. H. Henry Professor of Theology and Science at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, where he founded its Center for Theology and Science. Before that he was Associate Research Professor in the Conceptual Foundations of Science at Baylor University, where he also headed the first intelligent design think-tank at a major research university: the Michael Polanyi Center.
Dr. Dembski has taught at Northwestern University, the University of Notre Dame, and the University of Dallas. He has done postdoctoral work in mathematics at MIT, in physics at at the University of Chicago, and in computer science at Princeton University. A graduate of the University of Illinois at Chicago where he earned a B.A. in Psychology, an M.S. in statistics, and a PH. D. in philosophy, he also received a doctorate in mathematics from the University of Chicago in 1988 and a master of divinity degree from Princeton Theological Seminary in 1996. He has held National Science Foundation graduate and postdoctoral fellowships.”
It is often useful in evaluating a forum to examine the way it introduces itself.
UNCOMMON DESCENT
The Intelligent Design Weblog of William Dembski,
Denyse O’Leary and Friends.
“Materialist ideology has subverted the study of biological and cosmological origins so that the actual content of these sciences has become corrupted.”
I will not carry the introduction any further because I must reject what has already been presented. Incidentally, O’Leary is a Canadian journalist and a Catholic.
First, I reject the title, Uncommon Descent, because it suggests that man is not a product of organic evolution and accordingly does not share ancestry with his fellow Primates. It would have been much more effective if a question mark had been added – “Uncommon Descent?”
Secondly, and far more important, is the assertion that “the actual contents of these sciences have been corrupted by a materialist ideology.”
My position is that there is no place for ideology in science nor is there anything that is not material. Science does not deal with what is not material and accordingly science cannot be corrupted by a materialist ideology. Ideologists may fail to properly interpret reality but they can do nothing to corrupt it.
Nevertheless, I am certainly far more in sympathy with the position of the ID proponents, than I am with the Godless Darwinian zealots. Everything I have ever published in the field of evolution pleads for design and purpose in both ontogeny and phylogeny; so I was disappointed to find that I was to be excluded from their proceedings just as I had been by their adversaries.
Long before Darwin, William Paley anticipated what has recently been resurrected by Dembski and others as the “Intelligent Design Movement.”
“Where there is design there is a designer.”
William Paley
My only difference with Paley is his use of the present tense. All that can be established with certainty is that there WAS a designer. Even that is in question. For all we know there may have been several designers. Like it or not, there is no tangible evidence for either non-material factors or for an intervening personal God or Gods. That does not mean that one or more such Gods do not exist. My personal preference is for at least two Gods, one benevolent, the other malevolent. It makes what we see going on around us so much more easily understood!
“Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, Grasse’s emphasis, original in italics.
Notice that Grasse has capitalized He and Him, suggesting a Christian perspective, hardly a criminal offense, except of course for atheist Darwinian mystics like Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and P.Z. Myers!
The reality is that there is no more reason to demand monotheism than there is to accept the monophyletic evolution assumed by the Darwinian model.
“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
Darwinism is the slowest yet most certain form of intellectaul suicide ever conjured up by an overactive human imagination.
As I will demonstrate, my exclusion from the proceedings of Uncommon Descent has more to do with “moderation policy” than with my relatively minor differences with William Dembski and his forum.
Unfortunately, Dembski has delegated his “moderation policy” to a large extent to a single individual, David Springer, who posts under the alias DaveScot. He has become a “blogczar” who wields the power to ban users or delete their comments if he deems them unacceptable. This is often done for the slightest of reasons accompanied with arrogant farewells such as ” ______ is no longer with us” or “You’re outa here homo” or some other insulting form of termination. Springer has undoubtedly terminated more users than any other individual in the history of forum communication. He has in the past even insulted O’Leary and Dembski. Why Dembski gave him this power remains a mystery, as it serves only to provoke animus between the various factions debating the basis for evolution. Springer has a whole thread dedicated just to him at After The Bar Closes where his tactics are continually monitored, exposed and discussed. His notoriety, which he seems to enjoy, is legendary and has contributed very little of value to the current dialogue.
His arrogance knows no bounds. He recently invited me back to the fold at Uncommon Descent “provided” I would “promise” not to comment on Global Warming or say anything that might irritate the membership. Since he had already terminated me twice, I responded that I would be happy to return to Uncommon Descent if William Dembski would extend the invitation. Springer in the past has openly declared – “Dembski thinks you are nuts.” Since I have not heard from Dembksi, I guess he still thinks so. It is revealing when someone allows another to be his spokesperson, something many, including myself, wouldn’t dream of doing.
It should surprise no one that I am somewhat disenchanted with Uncommon Descent as a venue for rational discourse. Like Pharyngula, it too is intolerant and protectionist. The basic difference is that Dembski lets another serve as the guardian of his domain, a pleasure P.Z. Myers reserves entirely for himself.
While the various forums and blogs go right on promoting the agendas of their owners and insulting or ignoring their adversaries, real scientists continue to disclose facts that can never be reconciled with either Darwinian atheism or the credos of a personal God. Neither has ever played any role in the elucidation of what is now and always has been there, patiently waiting only to be discovered. All that matter are the facts.
“Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don’t.”
anonymous
“Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”
Galileo
I have asked myself the question – Why do we have all these polarized, intractable positions? I have already presented a partial answer which I am sure will not be found acceptable for some. Stated simply, we were “born that way.” Just as our eye color has a genetic basis, so it seems do our prejudices. I doubt very much if these predispositions will prove to be reduced to simple Mendelian alleles like those that determine many of our physical traits. I doubt there will ever prove to be a “God gene.” I am not even certain that our world views will ever prove to have a demonstrable, tangible genetic foundation even though there is powerful evidence favoring that conclusion. An alternative explanation may be simply that we were predestined to be what we are, just as I believe everything else was. Perhaps some were “chosen,” if I may use that word, to be the instruments of a sequence planned millions of years ago.
It should be noted that genius often just “pops up” with no apparent antecedent preparation. Karl Friedrich Gauss was the son of peasants. Mozart and Bach both came from relatively modest musical backgrounds. Great minds have often appeared for no apparent reason. Einstein often referred to the “music of the spheres,” music he claimed some could not hear. That raises a further possibility. Isn’t it possible that Mozart and Bach didn’t actually compose their great music but were simply the selected instruments of its ultimate publication?
Admittedly these seem absurdly improbable extrapolations of my deterministic foundations and I offer them only as possibilities which we shouldn’t reflexively reject, especially since we have no concrete evidence which proves they are wrong.
Consideration of a predestined evolution can offer a new insight into the polarization and vehement defense offered by so many, especially of the so-called “intellectual class” we associate with our institutions of higher learning, our political institutions and even the Supreme Court. Our innate predispositions offer an explanation for what Robert Bork has called the “adversary culture.” I agree with Bork.
“The intellectual class, then, is composed of people whose mindset is very like that of the student radicals of the Sixties: hostile to this culture and society coupled with millenarium dreams.”
Slouching Towards Gomorrah, page 84.
Note Bork’s use of the term “mindset” Isn’t “mindset” the perfect term defining the posture of congenital atheists like P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins? And doesn’t it apply to the radical Christian Fundamentalist just as well?
I looked up the word “mindset” in the American Heritage Dictionary and was delighted to find support in the definition -
“A fixed mental attitude or disposition that PREDETERMINES a person’s responses to and interpretations of situations.” my emphasis.
Why has this swing to the liberal left become so obvious in recent decades? I don’t believe it represents a fundamental change in people’s world views. We have always had both religious fanatics and equally fanatical atheists. The difference is that in the not so distant past they did not have the leisure to express themselves a they do today. In the Great Depression in which I grew up, most citizens were so busy making ends meet that they had little time to let their innate selves be expressed. In other words I suggest that the polarizations we now see are due to affluence. The same Age of Technology that has poisoned our planet also has given us the opportunity to gravitate to others with the same congenital predispositions. Man is a social animal and these aggregations occur spontaneously as Cervantes observed -
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
To this we may add -
“Idle time is the devil’s handmaiden.”
anonymous
The capacity to loathe something or someone seems to be a common feature for large fractions of the human population. Nowhere is this more evident than on such “hatethinktanks” as Pharyngula, EvC, Panda’s Thumb and After The Bar Closes.
I do not mean to suggest that all idle time is dedicated to evil purposes. Many use their leisure hours in pursuit of benign activities such as hunting, fishing and gardening. These reflect our heritage in a manner which is also beneficial to our economy. There is little that can be beneficial in a mindset that denigrates everything upon which this Republic was founded. Yet that is exactly what the Darwinian atheist mentality demands. P.Z. Myers went so far not too long ago to suggest that academics who question Darwinian evolution should be denied tenure. Of course that was long after he had tenure himself! Richard Dawkins has completely abandoned any semblance of science to write “The God Delusion.” The frightening aspect is the huge followings that these ideologues have gathered as well as the fanatical dedication to their leaders the users of these weblogs display.
I offer my explanation for this as follows. Both Dawkins and Myers are fully aware of the total failure of the Darwinian model but are unable to accept what is the only conceivable alternative, some form of guided, purposeful evolution. They have painted themselves into a corner from which there is no escape short of recantation of everything they hold dear. This, I submit, they are congenitally incapable of achieving so they must do what they were “determined” to do which is to lash out at all who recognize a guided purposeful, goal-directed phylogeny.
I now ask the question – Is there anything that can be done to reverse the downward trend we see everywhere in our society? We have lost all semblance of standards for human behavior as is so obvious in our music, our literature, our respect for our institutions. Even our most sacred institutions are now corrupted. Witness the posture of the courts as revealed by Robert Bork in his penetrating book “Slouching Toward Gomorrah,” an analysis with which I agree completely.
If we look at the Ages of Man we see flowerings which reached magnificent heights only then to fall to incredible depths. It is especially evident in musical culture which remained largely static until J.S. Bach invented the tempered scale which served as a gateway for the subsequent expression of Mozart, Beethoven, Brahms, Chopin and the other great composers of what came to be known as the Romantic Age of Music. We have even identified these discrete ages by naming them as we have named the Stone Age, the Iron Age etc. It is interesting to trace the fates of some of these Ages. The “Golden Age of Opera” dominated the nineteenth century and extended into the first quarter of the twentieth century with Puccini after which it for all practical purposes died. There has not been a great opera since Turandot and there probably will never be one. It is interesting that as the Golden Age of Opera died, the “Golden Age of the Broadway Musical” began with Jerome Kern’s Showboat, in my opinion the greatest musical ever written. In the brief span of little more than a half century there followed the great musicals of Rogers and Hammerstein and their contemporaries following which that great era also came to an end. The Ages of “Ragtime,” “Swing,” “Jazz” and “Rock and Roll” have come and gone never to be replaced. What passes as popular music today is an offense to my sensibilities as it is to my contemporaries. The great optimism expressed in the music of my youth has been replaced with the hideous nihilism and depravity of “hard rock” and other genres dedicated to cop killing, sexual perversion and the denigration of all that is virtuous and uplifting for the human spirit.
It is my opinion that this is another feature of what I have called a “Prescribed Evolution.” As near as I can tell there is absolutely nothing that we can do to reverse these “determined” sequences just as there is nothing we can do to reverse the destruction we have wreaked on our physical environment. Both seem to me to be the result of an original plan, a plan which somehow has apparently gone terribly awry. Neither ontogeny nor phylogeny are reversible and I see no reason to assume that will not prove to be true for every other aspect of our history as the ultimate product of a planned evolution.
It is no pleasure for me to have to present such a dismal picture of our future, but I have a responsibility as a student of the natural world to be as objective as possible whatever the consequences.
“La commedia e finita.”
Pagliacci
REFERENCES
Berg, Leo S. (1969), Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (Original Russian edition, 1922).
Bork, Robert H. (1996), Slouching Toward Gomorrah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline. Regan Books.
Davison, J.A. (2000), Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information. Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 93: 513-524.
Davison, J.A. (2005), A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 98: 155-166.
Flannery, Tim (2005), The Weather Makers. Atlantic Monthly Press.
Goldschmidt, Richard B. (1940), The Material Basis of Evolution. Yale University Press.
Grasse, Pierre (1977), Evolution of Living Organisms. Academic Press, New York
Mayr, Ernst (1982), The Growth of Biological Thought. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
Schindewolf, O. H. (1993), Basic Questions in Paleontology. University of Chicago Press. (Original German edition, 1950).
Wright, William (1998), Born That Way. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
The above is the edited form of the essay which had been presented in installments on the PREDICTIONS thread which is now deleted.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=85#001268
The above link is my response to P.Z. Myers’ critique of a paper in which the authors describe the Platypus as a chimera. I agree with the authors, as the Platypus, combining, as it does, mammalian. reptilian and avian features, is a beautiful example of an organism which supports my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Of course the notion of a predetermined evolution is completely unacceptable to Myers’ atheist, purposeless, Darwinian mentality. There is nothing that can be done for him. He is a “prescribed” loser.
Leo Berg was the first to recognize that -
“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
To save valuable cyberspace -
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=85#001270 my current comment.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=85#001277
Investigating Atheism has published my brief essay – The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as a Model for Ethical Behavior.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
It may be found here.
http://www.investigatingatheism.info/johnadavison.html
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Things are looking up.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=87#001298
my message June 9, 00:58.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable”
I feel the following link will be of some interest to those who continue to deny a planned universe.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/546#comment-1992
For the record -
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=87#001305
Apparently my exchange with Bob Mort, whoever that is, has finally ended. Many thanks to Denyse O’Leary for permitting me to present my heresies on Overwhelming Evidence.
My comment June 14, 5:42
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/543#comment-2000
my comment.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/new-scientist-the-first-time-evolution-has-been-caught-in-the-act/#comments
For the life of me I can’t tell if DaveScot/David Springer is denytng evolution generally or just the Darwinian version of it.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
It gets worse -
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=88#001310
comment 17:34
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-88.html
My comment June 20, 08, 19:06
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=88#001318
my comment June 26, 17:42
It seems that DaveScot aka David “I love being right” Springer has now added plagiarism to his long list of arrogant, egomaniacal pronouncements.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=88#001319
Today’s date for the record.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolutipn undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=88#001323
My comment, 4:53
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-89.html
July 5, 21:30
Apparently P.Z. Myers thinks that the origin of life was an accident just like all the rest of the Darwinian myth.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I call your attention to the following link which I just presented.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/565#comment-2008
I call your attention to my views on quantum uncertainty -
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/562#comment-2010
I call attention to my comments about chimps and humans -
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/564#comment-2014
Feel free to react here since I am not getting any responses at Overwhelming Evidence or anywhere else for that matter. With my several sources, not an atheist or religious fanatic among us, we are not allowed to exist by either faction involved in this idiotic debate, a debate that should never have taken place. Real scientists do not debate. They discover and then they disclose their discoveries. That is the way it has always been and always will be. Debate is for lawyers, politicians and other questionable types.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
In the meaningless discussions on internet I hit on interesing research which has been published in the
Economist. There are some proteins resposnsible for maintaining different kinds of fishes “fit” also in water below zero. Because such same proteins could not have evolved by random mutations neodarwinists came up with gene transfer between species of fishes. Would you believe it? Neodarwinists now can shake their hands with proponents of “cosmic ancestry”. They share common idea that behind evolution is gene transfer – but no creator of genes.
The chance of such similar proteins emerging in unrelated species is so vanishingly small that the team propose another option. They think the genes for antifreeze proteins jumped from one species to another.
http://www.economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11703152
Thank you Martin.
The paper is interesting and gene transfer is not out of the question. But the notion that random mutation and selection produced nearly identical results in unrelated forms is absurd on the face of it. Random mutation and selection have never played any role in the appearance of any new feature of the living condition. The Darwinian model is a joke and should be treated as such.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/564#comment-2019
My comments at Overwhelming Evidence have received a response from Patrick, whoever that is. I suspect it is the same Patrick who posts at Uncommon Descent where I cannot speak.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Below is another essay. It is now looking for a publisher. Any suggestions? I sent it off to “Investigating Atheism” but have heard nothing yet. They published my essay “The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as a Model for Ethical Behavior” but declined to publish my more controversial “Age of Denial” which didn’t surprise me. It was pretty brutal on both factions involved in the debate concerning our origins, a debate that should never have taken place. Scientists don’t debate; they discover and then present their findings. That is the way it is supposed to be. Debates are for lawyers, politicians and other questionable types. I challenge anyone to name a single issue that was ever resolved by “debate.”
Have fun!
________________________________________________________________________________________________________
What is an atheist?
by John A. Davison
It is always a good idea to define the terms when one asks a question. In asking “What is an atheist?” I discovered an ambiguity in the dictionary definition. The American Heritage Dictionary defines an atheist as -
“One who does not believe in the existence of God.”
I will use Friedrich Nietzsche to illustrate the ambiguity to which I refer. His
“Gott ist Tot” is one of the most profound summaries in all of philosophy. Hasn’t Nietzsche implied that God once existed? Can such a person properly be considered to be an atheist?
I think this calls for a clarification of the word atheist. The key word in the dictionary definition is “existence.” A more precise definition might be as follows -
“An atheist is one who denies that God ever existed.”
This is the brand of atheist represented by Richard Dawkins and his New World counterpart Paul Zachary Myers, or for that matter by any proponent of the Darwinian paradigm, one which includes no role for a higher power either now or in the past. I realize there are devout Darwinians who also claim to be devout Christians. The Christian ethic demands a living, personal God. What would be the role of such a God in a mechanism driven entirely by chance and natural selection?
I had an interesting experience on the Richard Dawkins weblog, richarddawkins.net. On October 12, 2006 I introduced the thread “God or Gods are now dead but must have once existed.” That title was a ruse of course because no one knows anything for certain about Gods. The important thing is that it worked! In the course of about a week it produced twelve pages of heated exchange, nearly all directed against me and around 60,000 views, probably a forum record, following which I was summarily banished and denied further viewing of the forum from my computer, a condition still in effect.
An important feature of any inquiry is never to make unnecessary assumptions (Principle of Parsimony or Occam’s Razor). Is it necessary that God or Gods still exist in order to understand the world? I answer no. Obversely, can we understand the world without postulating that a God or Gods once existed? Once again I must answer no. I find it unthinkable that matter could organize itself even once into a living, evolving organism. I regard it as mandatory that there were an unknown number of supernatural interventions (creations) in the remote past. Those who claim otherwise are, in my carefully considered opinion, living in fantasy worlds.
I have pluralized God for a sound reason. When I examine the world I find it quite impossible to accept a single Creator. The world is much easier for me to understand if I postulate at least two Gods, one benevolent, the other malevolent. Actually this dualism is present in the Judeo-Christian ethic with Lucifer as a fallen angel. I hope I can be forgiven if I have elevated him to the level of a God!
Parallel differences prevail in evolutionary science. The Darwinians assume a single origin of life with diversity emanating from a single source, a diversity resulting from random mutations and natural selection. Actually there is very little evidence for such a perspective. Both the fossil and the extant living worlds are represented by profound discontinuities most of which are unconnected and may remain so. Leo Berg, for whom I have enormous respect, maintained -
“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
There is nothing in the present state of our knowledge in conflict with Berg’s assertion and much in support of it.
As an example close to home, it is only within the level of the Mammalian Order Primates to which we belong that we now have incontrovertible evidence for evolutionary continuity, a continuity which has obviously been accompanied by, and perhaps largely caused by, reorganizations of a common ancestral chromosome structure. There is no question that Homo sapiens is an animal with animal ancestors. The origins of all the higher taxonomic categories from Order to Phylum remain shrouded in mystery. The same can be said for the plant world.
In summary, there is no more reason to insist on a monotheistic creation than there is on a monophyletic evolution, but to deny that one or more Creators, beyond our present capacity to comprehend, must have once existed is unthinkable for this investigator. By rejecting the Darwinian model, I am joined by Pierre Grasse who put his convictions in italics for emphasis.
“Any system which purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory.”
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245.
and
“Let us not invoke God in realities in which He no longer has to intervene.
page 166.
* italics do not appear in this version of the essay. Grasse’s first statement was entirely in italics. In the second so was “no longer has to intervene.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/John_A_Davison
http://www.conservapedia.com/Prescribed_Evolutionary_Hypothesis
It is refreshing to get a favorable plug for a change.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=488da63a0008036c;act=ST;f=14;t=4697;st=120
Please note that I am being recognized at that citadel of civil discourse, After the Bar Closes, complete with the f word. I predict that Wesley Elsberry will attempt to stop any further discussion. Like P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins, he too is terrified of me and my sources, some of the finest biologists of the post Darwinian era.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/dr-john-davison-biologist/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/
This link, provided courtesy of David Springer, is a more readable version of my 2005 paper, complete with the figure. Only the upper pair of figures appeared in the published version.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/581#comment-2048
I recommend this link for a non-Darwinian interpretation of mimicry in butterflies.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2008/08/channel-4-the-g.html#comments
Check this link out for laughs. The notion that Charles Darwin was a genius is one of the most absurd assumptions in the history of science. I doubt if his IQ broke 120. By way of contrast, Alfred Russel Wallace, co-author of the evolutionary fantasy, who abandoned it completely later in life, probably was a genius. His “Man’s Place in the Universe” should be on everyone’s reading list as it forecast the global warming crisis we now face.
New experiments have proved Franz Heikertinger’s concept of ineffectiveness of aposemtism in insect realm.
Professor John Davison noticed me about it and I have commented it just now at richarddawkins.net. Here is my comment:
———–
Another research dismissed the effectiveness of butterflies “eyespots” in “the struggle for life”.
The evolution of “eyes” on butteflies wings pose a problem for neodarwinian school for a long time. It is “believed” – and presented in the textbooks as fact – that eyespots on butterfly wings deter their predators. This armchair neodarwinian theory has not been proved by latest experiments.
The article appeared in the National Geographic.
If eyespots worked by mimicking eyes, then the paper insects with circular spots presented in pairs should be preyed on least.
But this was not the case, Stevens said: Making the spots appear more eyelike by moving the center “pupil” of the eye inward didn’t give the paper moths any advantage.
Large bars and squares placed on the waterproof paper wings of the experiments provided as much protection as circles—and the larger the marking, the less it was preyed upon.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news … spots.html
—
It was professor John Davison who noticed me about this interesting fact. He commented it here:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/ … mment-2048
So I think that “outdated” theories of evolution of wing patterns like orthogenesis by professor Theodor Eimer where “natural selection” play no role is no way experimentaly refuted as selectionists would like people to believe.
What do you think?
————-
The evolution of coloration of animals is a problem that can hardly be explained by natural selection.
Thank you Martin. I am amazed you haven’t been banned at RichardDawkins.net. I appreciate your references to my comments there where I am unable even to view the proceedings from this computer.
Darwinism is the biggest hoax in the history of science. It should have been abandoned shortly after it appeared at the same time that the ether of Physics was also exposed as a hoax and for exactly the same reasons. An hypothesis that cannot be supported experimentally is useless as an explanatory device. The Darwinian fairy tale has survived for one reason. A substantial fraction of humankind is unable, apparently for congenital reasons, to realize that there was a purpose in the design of the universe both animate and inanimate. There is nothing that can be done for them.
“An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/581#comment-2050
This link will take you directly to my comments on mimicry and edibility which fully support Martin’s references.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.conservapedia.com/User_talk:Johnadavison
I introduced my essay “What is an atheist?” on Conservapedia but am uncertain about what I am supposed to do next. I also called PeeZee’s attention to it via his one-way communication system on Pharyngula.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23678552&postID=114184195590542744
Here is yet another, this one with 655 comments, nearly all from anonymous blowhards.
I love it so!
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=4412672427182333335&postID=7556043756485780134
This is one of my earlier blogs, now no longer active. Neverthless, I recommend it as a source of my convictions and of my treatment by the various factions in the evolutionary “debate,” a debate which has produced nothing serving to further our understading of the great mystery of organic evolution.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=33398610&postID=115662883399780616
Here is another of my earlier ventures, complete with the great contributions from my distinguished adversaries, mostly anonymous cowards.
I love it so!
Here is another with over 800 comments.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18568882&postID=113094610998517478
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
i love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
If anyone chooses to add further comments to the above blogs, please do but I have no intention of responding. These earlier blogs served their purpose well by exposing the nature of my several intellectual enemies which was their real purpose all along. The important thing is that -
“What happens in cyberdumb, stays in cyberdumb.”
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=93#001390
August 9, 2008, 20:57.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=93#001391
just presented August 11, 9:07, 2008.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
To avoid repetition I refer to the following link -
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/586#comment-2058
Dear John,
I was unale to register as “VMartin” so I registerd as “vmartin1″. Do you see my previous post?
After reading of some Franz Heikertinger’s work on mimicry I haved prepared and sent just now this post to richarddawkins.net. Because John has some problems to access those pages I copy it here as another record refuting “natural selection”:
One of the proponents of neodarwinian teaching R.A.Fisher enthusiastically called the theory of mimicry “the greatest post-Darwinian application of Natural Selection”. But closer look at it could prove something else. I am afraid that even nowadays we are facing more plain theorizing about “natural selection” than results of any real research.
In order to explain the so-called “butterfly mimicry” neodarwinian theoretists assume that butterflies are often preyed upon by birds and that birds are “selective agent”. To support this hypothesis they use sometimes curious arguments like these:
“[b]Birds and lizards have long been considered [/b] to be the major selective agents responsible…It is well established that birds attack and eat butterflies in wild (Carpenter, 1937, 1941-1942). Lizard are less…”
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2407673
The author wrote the article in 1975. Why he didn´t use more updated works for such “established theory”? Just one author?
Another author wrote in 1988 (!):
“…the lack of adequate field data for bird predation on insects involved in mimicry complexes. [b]Valiant deductions[/b] (Carpenter and Ford 1933; Cott 1940; Edmunds 1974) and considerable field data (Endler 1986) have largely refuted this criticism, [u] but some investigators continue to maintain that mimicry is a figment of the imagination (e.g. Urquhart 1960. 1987)[/u]”
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2461939
I don´t know what the author means by “valiant deduction” – perhaps some neodarwinian armchair dialectical thought excercises? But the problem should be solved more experimentally and less by Sherlock Holmes´ armchair “consideration” and “valiant deduction”. The problem is simple – neodarwinists should just present some plausible experiments that:
* birds heavily predate on butterflies in order to act as “selective agent”
* birds perceive some butterflies species as “unpalatable”
Let me introduce some data from Franz Heikertinger´s voluminous work refuting “natural selection” as the source mimicry and aposematism. He addressed both of the mentioned points at length.
First he refuted the point one. He considered as most reliable source of feeding habits the scrutiny of birds stomachs or faeces and pellets in free.
The experiments with caged birds have less value because of several factors we can discuss later (shyness, stress, regular feeding etc…)
The scrutiny of several times mentioned adversary of natural selection McAtee shows that:
- 80′000 stomach of birds contained 237′399 prey items. Only 113 were butterflies, from which 24 were worms. From remaining 87 the one species [i] Falco columbarius [/i] ate 69.
- Marshall (1902) 48 stomachs of south-Afrika birds – no butterfly found
- G.L.Bates(1911) 178 stomachs in South-Camerun – no butterfly found
- Swynnerton (1912) more than 1′000 stomachs of African birds scrutinized – 5 butterflies.
- Carpenter(1937) – probably the same Carpenter mentioned above – 116 birds – no butterfly
etc…
I am looking forward to your arguments (one remark for Mr. eversbane – on of my previous links mentioned that
two species of birds ate two millions of “overwintering” Monarchs).
Probably the whole problem of butterflies mimicry is nothing else as professor Vavilov´s homologous sequences as presented in his “THE LAW OF HOMOLOGOUS SERIES IN THE INHERITANCE OF VARIABILITY (1949)”
http://caliban.mpiz-koeln.mpg.de/~stueber/vavilov2/icon_page_00012.html
Such opinion – or similar – were presented also by other scientists like Punnet, Lemcke, Goldschmidt.
And last but not least professor John Davison adressed the discussed problem from his point of view at:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/581#comment-2053
————————————————————————————————-
Martin, personally I have always been very impressed with your critique of the Darwinian fairytale.
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Yes I did. Thanks Martin.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/583#comment-2062
Above is my response to Bob Mort.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/508#comment-2066
which I just posted at Everwhelming Evidence.
Reginald C. Punnett’s Mimicry in Butterflies is now available in paperback. I got my copy from Amazon. A curious feature is that nowhere is there any mention of who the present publisher might be. It is apparently a faithful reprint of the 1915 edition and a valuable source for the student of evolution. The original hardbound edition is extremely rare and dear which is why I never bought one.
One of the greatest Austrian entomologist who dismissed “natural selection” as the source of mimicry asked why there is curious case of polymorphic mimicry in the case of Papilio Dardanus. I sent have my comment to richarddawkins.net:
Regardless of the fact that birds obviously avoid eating butterflies (can you present some research supporting your view btw?) and do not recognise “palatable” and “unpalatable” butterflies species :
one have to explain “selective agent” in the case of polymorphic mimicry of P. Dardanus. How is it possible that there coexist several polymorphic female “mimics” of P. Dardanus and at the same time females of the same species of P. Dardanus living in the same area that mimic nothing? And several other palatable non-mimicking butterflies spieces that thrive in the same araes as well? Did “natural selection” forget them?
I am afraid that the whole concept of “natural selection” in butterfly mimicry is only neodarwinian phantasy and – using words of Mick Jagger:
It’s All In Your Head
Neodarwinists had better not decieve children at schools that “natural selection” is the source of mimicry until they have enough scientific evidence for it.
I meant Austrian entomologist Franz Heikertinger.
Thank you Martin.
Darwimps deceive themselves and always have. They don’t know any better. As Richard P. Feynman observed -
“The easiest person to fool is yourself.”
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Speaking of Mick Jagger and “Its all in your head,” the man said to his gay friend -
“You can get that out of your head right now!”
I hope you will let me know via email what they say over at AfterThe Bar Closes or has Esley Welsberry blocked you too?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aYay74sr7Gtk&refer=home
This is an interesting discussion. It doesn’t surprise me to see that chicken and dinosaur proteins might be very similar, even identical. It is in perfect accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Just as there are probably a limited number of Butterfly wing patterns so might there be a limited number of any other “prescribed” features found in the biotic world.
William Bateson made a similar suggestion nearly a century ago -
“Finally, Bateson likewise (1914, p. 640) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as “an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 359
Berg agrees with Bateson -
“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
These two great scientists have contributed more to our understanding of the mechanism of organic evolution than all the thousands of Darwinians combined. Darwinism is the most useless hypothesis in the history of science. Just as it has no predictive competence so does it have no value as a working hypothesis.
Let me add that protein similarity, even identity, need not indicate a close evolutionary ancestry any more than does a similar butterfly wing pattern when it can occur in different Lipidopteran families. Once again the Darwinian model is found to be without merit as it collapses in light of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and the findings of both natural history and molecular biology. In other words -
“Darwinism is mysticism.”
John A. Davison
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/588#comment-2078
Just posted.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/
As one can see from the recent comments, I am having a ball.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/508#comment-2091
I am carrying on a revealing exchange with Patrick whoever that is.
Enjoy
Here is a new essay to complement my earlier essay – What is an atheist?
What is a creationist?
By John A. Davison
In an earlier essay I asked the question – What is an atheist? – to discover that there is an ambiguity in the dictionary definition –
Atheist – “One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods” American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition.
Such a definition does not preclude the past existence of God or Gods. That ambiguity allowed me to question the traditional view of atheism. While there is no need to postulate a living God, it is in my mind unthinkable that one or more such supernatural entities did not once exist.
Now I ask the question – What is a creationist? – to discover an ambiguity there as well -
Creationist – “One who believes in the literal interpretation of the account of the creation of the universe and of all living things related in the Bible.”
Since I regard myself as a creationist, the dictionary definition fails to include those like myself who reject the Genesis account as without scientific foundation. So I will redefine creationist for the purposes of this essay as follows –
“A creationist is one who believes that one or more creators must have once existed even though there may be no tangible evidence that they still do.”
This definition distinguishes the creationist from the atheist who denies even the past existence of God or Gods. That is the genre of atheist represented by Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Paul Zachary Myers. There is no role for a creator in the atheist Darwinian model to which they adhere. This distinction has enormous significance with respect to the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution.
I will now indicate what is required by the atheist (Darwinian) model and contrast it with the creationist perspective as I have redefined it.
It seems to me that the atheist is forced to believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of non-living matter to assemble itself at least once into a living, metabolizing, reproducing and evolving entity. This view requires reproductive continuity throughout geological history as revealed by the fossil record. Does any such evidence exist?
None whatever is my answer. Quite the contrary, everything in the Linnaean taxonomic system pleads to the exact opposite. The living landscape, both fossil and recent, is characterized by profound discontinuities with little indication for continuous transformation. While this does not argue against evolution, it does present strong evidence against the gradualism intrinsic in the Darwinian model. These discontinuities are what prompted Otto Schindewolf to claim that we might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed. Schindewolf, a convinced evolutionist, proposed that evolution proceeded by jumps (saltations), a conclusion independently reached by Richard B. Goldschmidt both over a half century ago, and with which I am in complete agreement.
We must also consider the experimental evidence for the Darwinian mutation/selection model. Does any evidence exist for this? As far as the generation of new species is concerned I can again answer – none whatever. While it is true that artificial selection can generate considerable variation in some but certainly not all organisms, there is not a single instance, to my knowledge, of the experimental production of a new species through selection in the experimental laboratory. Quite the contrary, intensive selection invariably leads to reduced fitness and, if continued too far, to spontaneous extinction. In short, artificial selection is anti-evolutionary and natural selection prevents rather than promotes change. I am certainly not the first to recognize this role for natural selection.
“In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge, has been brought forward by any palaeontologist, either of the vertebrated or the invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the fortuitous.
Henry Fairfield Osborn, Fifty years of Darwinism, page 223, (1909).
“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,(1922).
There is no evidence, natural or experimental, that selection has ever played a role in either speciation or the generation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. How the Darwinians have been able to ignore this vacuum for a century and a half is beyond my comprehension. They doggedly pursue a phantom rather than admit that chance and variation are impotent to produce even the simplest product capable of growth, reproduction and ascending change, all of which features characterize the one undeniable feature and ultimate arbiter of the evolutionary sequence – the fossil record.
I now turn to the question – What can be established with certainty about the great mystery of organic evolution?
Before I answer that question I feel compelled to point out that the Darwinians do not regard evolution as a mystery. They maintain that the forces we see operating today are the same as those that acted in the past, an extrapolation to the living world of Charles Lyell’s Principle of Uniformation, an extrapolation without foundation. The living world is not to be compared with the inanimate geological world. They have nothing in common.
How many times was life created? How many times, once created, were life’s evolutionary paths further directed? Where, when and above all how was life created and how many creators were involved? None of these questions have been answered and it is quite possible that they may never be.
I find it revealing that when I ask the question – what is a creationist? – I come up with the same conclusion that I reached when I asked the question – what is an atheist? There is no more reason to assume a single creator than there is to assume a monophyletic evolution. As a matter of fact, all the realities revealed by experimental and descriptive science speak for many creation events possibly involving multiple creators. In short, while there is little in the Judeo-Christian ethic which supports experimental and descriptive science, there is even less support to be found in the atheist foundation of the neo-Darwinian fairy tale. I remain convinced that the truth lies elsewhere in a planned and now terminated evolution generated by an unknown number of entities millions of years ago, entities whose existence cannot now be demonstrated but whose past existence cannot be denied. As my signature proclaims -
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution indemonstrable.”
My thread about mimicry on richarddawkins.net is active again. I asked important question:
“The discussion with sectarian neodarwinian bretherns is as meaningless as discussion with marxists. You have to present “selective agents” in the case of butteflies mimicry. Birds? Or – perhaps – white bears? Or – even extraterrestrials? I repeat McAtee’s arguments:
[quote="W.L.McAtee"][b]
[color=#0000FF][size=170]The principal failing of the selectionists always has been a vast ignorance of what wild birds really eat.[/color][/size] They have made very little effort to acquire such knowledge, and their speculations throughout show the lack of it. Practically the only large body of authentic information on the natural food habits of birds is contained in the
records of the United States Biological Survey. They comprise detailed identifications of the contents of more than 48,000 bird stomachs representing all families of birds and collected in hundreds of localities in the United States at all seasons. The United States has a goodly representation of butterflies, [size=130][color=#0000FF] yet only five of these 48,000 stomachs contained remains of Rhopalocera[/size][/color]. It is hoped this will be more satisfactory to the selectionists than the “negative evidence” they are accustomed to cite with contempt. [/b]
[/quote]
[i]
The Experimental Method of Testing the Efficiency of Warning and Cryptic
Coloration in Protecting Animals from Their Enemies
W. L. McAtee Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia, Vol. 64. (1912), p.313.
[/i]
Give me some scientific link regarding “selective agents” in the case of evolution of butterflies mimicry. That’s all. Or you present bats?”
Thank you Martin.
Not only have the Darwinians given up testing their silly hypothesis, they have also given up even the collecting of raw data. In other words Darwinism is not a science and never was one. It is the only hypothesis of which I am aware which has no predictive value whatever. How they have gotten away with this charade for a century and a half is one of the greatest scandals in the history of civilization. The reason is perfectly ovious to me. It is because there is only one alternative to the random mutation / natural selection position which the atheist mentality demands. That is a purposeful, goal-directed scenario which their congenital biases are quite unable to even consider. They are doomed to oblivion and I repeat my prediction that Darwinism will be an embarrassing footnote by next February, hopefully just in time to celebrate the 200th birthday of Charles Darwin. A century and a half of continuous mass hysteria is more than enough!
I transmitted this message to PeeZee Myers via his one way communication system. I’ll bet it gave him the runs!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2109
Just posted.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2111
Here is another one, just posted.
Enjoy as I do.
I commented at overwhelmingevidence. We see if my comment appears.
In the meantime I noticed folks at richdawkinsnet that there are probably rules of coloration that animals follows biochromatic rules:
Biochromatic law according professor Stanislav Komarek Uni Prague (a critique of “natural selection” explanation in many cases of “mimicry”. Professor Komarek himself wrote some papers on butterflies btw.) claims that:
A close relationship between Portmann’s observations and Peterich’s so-called biochromatic law (Peterich, 1972, 1973) exists,which formulates rules for the combination of colors on organisms’ surfaces (this law appliesto plants only in part): warm (from red to yellow-green) and cold (from blue-green to purple) colors aren’t found next to each other on the organism’s surface, but are at least separated by a strip of some neutral color (from white to black, brown, neutral green…
Mimicry, aposematism and related phenomena in animals and plants …
http://www.stanislav-komarek.cz/pdf/pre … imicry.pdf
Peterich’s paper is here:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/v6763u15838g71xl/
Peterich spent 20 years studying the problem. I wonder why his work is so neglected. Google gives only 2 items on “Peterich biochromatic law”
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/274#comment-887
Just posted.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2118
Just posted.
My latest post here about Peterich’s biochromatic rule disappeared.
Also my post to overwhelming evidence has been probably rejected. It hasn’t appeared there.
It’s a pity.
Errata: my post about Peterich’s rule is here. Three posts above.
Martin
Where is the “here” to which you refer? It is not here at this weblog is it? I have rejected no one. VMartin is listed on the side bar under “Who’s new” at Overwhelming Evidence. Of course I don’t know who is in charge at Overwhelming Evidence. I will be very disappointed if you are not allowed to comment. If they let Alan Fox comment they should let ANYONE comment! Try again.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=95#001427
Just posted.
I’ve just send post to overwhelming evidence. I have to wait – again – for “moderation”:
User VMartin earned 3 points! Total now is 6 points.
Your comment has been queued for moderation by site administrators and will be published after approval.
My text adressed BobMort:
I don’t underestand what do you mean by “obscure texts”. Professor Davison quoted excellent minds of the past who dismissed darwinian fancy. I have tried to support professor John Davison’s views several times with another excellent sources who dismissed the random mutation&natural-selection explanation of the evolution. Like entomologist Franz Heikertinger; professor Wilhelm Troll, the prominent botanist and proponent of German idealistic morphology, professor Adolf Portman, zoologist Uni Basel; profesor Zdenek Neubauer, biologist and philosopher Uni Prague, etc… It is unacceptable without knowing anything about the teaching of those great men to label their texts as “obscure”.
Just for a record. The problem of color perception (and consequently of mimicry) should be investigated from the “predators point of view” and not by human Sherlock Holmes’ armchair theorizing. I think that:
It was Goethe who criticised strongly Newtonian concept that color is only the property of light entering the eye. He adressed many problems when you see a color which spectrum ferquency is not entering the eye in fact.
Now the problems outlined by Goethe has been reopened by modern science by Herring’s red-green perception canals or “Opponent Process Colour Theory” etc… It is more than questionable how humans and birds percieve colors (and “perfect” mimicry consequently). Especially the so-called “Land’s effect” regarding the color perception. You sometimes see colors frequency which are not present in the light entering your eye.
Edwin Land (the inventor of Polaroid) argued with late Richard Feynman about the problem (Richard Feynman was a prominent awardee of Nobel price in Physics. Btw. Richard Feynman suffered also from “incredulity” – he didn’t believe that neo-darwinian explanation is sufficent to explain evolution of human brain. Maybe he -as expert on quantum mechanics and statistics – was unable to comprehend the statistical problem of “intraspecies competition” over long period of time as presented by supporters of natural selection or what, eh.)
Thank you Martin
I wouldn’t be a bit surprosed if it is Bob Mort who is moderating Overwhelming Evidence in which case I can safely predict that your comment will never appear. Time will tell won’t it?
Anyway, at 7:PM, I just checked and your comments have appeared.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2127
Don’t miss this demonstration of Alan Fox at his most degenerate.
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/09/ay_yi_yi.php#comments
This thread is powerful evidence for my claim that political liberalism and Darwinian atheism are closely linked congenital characteristics and may be pleiotropic expressions of exactly the same genetic disease.
Thank you for your support John. Now my comment has appeared at overwhelming evidence immidiately.
I couldn’t help laughing at Alan Fox’s comments about professor Uni Basel. Maybe he knows also some guys with names Oxford, Cambridge, Paris and New York.
I must recommend everyone to read Giordano Bruno’s work “The Ash Wednesday Supper ” where he ridicules ptolemaist’s pundits at Oxford University. The history repeated. The main problem nowadays is not Ptolemaios but Darwin. I’ve just commented and supported professor John Davison’s work at
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2157
Martin
I am through responding to Alan Fox who is now being allowed to spew his nonsense at Overwhelming Evidence. You are doing a fine job dealing with that low life there. Keep up the good work and I thank you for your support.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/594#comment-2163
Just posted.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/604#comment-2173
Note that Alan Fox is still commenting there.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/604#comment-2176
Enjoy!
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=96#001436
Ditto!
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/archives/280#comment-890
I think this may be of interest with respect to the God issue. I welcome any response it might evoke.
Professor Davison,
you are on the right track. You have your sopporters. Go on.
Neodarwinists are pretty lost how to explain the problem of mammalian “descent of testicles”.
Birds (often having temperature 42 Celsius), marsupials and many mammalian groups do not “cool” their testicles. It was zoologist professor Adolf Portmann University Basel, who challenged neodarwinian explanation of the phenomena.
Thank you Martin. I have one demonstrable supporter, yourself. If I have others is debatable. That is fine with me as -
“The applause of a single human being is of great consequence.”
Samuel Johnson
Below is my latest contribution at Overwhelming Evidence -
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/604#comment-2180
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-96.html
comment Sept 27, 6:01
Dave “I love being right” Springer is now denying supernatural intervention in phylogeny. I wonder how Dembski feels about that.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=96#001441
5:16 AM September 28, 2008 and previous.
This link is to expose David “I love being right” Springer as the coward that he so obviously is. Real men don’t ban their critics. They confront them in open exchange. Here is as good a place as any but it takes “two to tangle” don’t you know. If not here, how about Overwhelming Evidence or “brainstorms” Dave?
I am getting tired of your pompous, cowardly tactics. What kind of a Marine are you?
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-96.html
Comment posted September 28, 18:10 PM
A further exposure of Springer’s refusal to defend the revealing statement he presented at Uncommon Descent. It seems to this investigator that Dembski has a real fox in his hen house with David “I love being right” Springer. Imagine an atheist Darwinian as one of the elite “authors,” those allowed to ban others at their whim. Like a good parasite, Springer doesn’t kill his host but he sure can weaken him. It is all a search for unbridled power, still the only goal in Springer’s life.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
Hello Dr. Davison. Dan Smith here. I’m glad to see you’re continually poking immense holes in the neodarwinist/atheistic establishment’s vacuous “theory”! It’s too bad they don’t allow dissenting opinions to be heard but rather must resort to banning those who don’t toe the party line. Keep up the good work.
I’ve started my own blog of sorts with a newsvine account under the pseudonym “Chucky Darwin”. I’ve introduced an article there entitled the “Argument from Impossibility”.
http://chuckydarwin.newsvine.com/_news/2008/09/25/1912604-the-argument-from-impossibility
It echoes your position that the creator of life was an intelligence “orders of magnitude” above our own.
Thank you so much for your work. I’m especially indebted to you for championing the great scientists of the past who dared to break from Darwinism. I’ve read Schindewolf’s “Basic Questions in Paleontology”, Berg’s “Nomogenesis”, Goldshmidt’s “The Material Basis of Evolution” and Bateson’s “Problems of Genetics” solely because of you (I’m still looking for an affordable copy of Grasse’s work). All these great men of science laid out impeccable cases against the Darwinist paradigm – cases that to this day have not been answered, but were rather ignored. With your “Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” you follow in their footsteps.
Thank you again Dr. Davison.
I second that chuckydarwin !!
Well thank you both for the encouragement. I have some additional reading you might enjoy at
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=96#001445
one of the few weblogs on which I can still hold forth. I just left my latest message there today at 16:32.
Thanks again.
I especially like this from your latest post at Brainstorms, Dr. Davison:
“One of my favorite philosophers is Michel Montaigne, but there is one of his aphorisms with which I take exception -
“Man is certainly stark mad; he cannot make a worm and yet he will be making gods by dozens.
I respond -
“Man must make gods because he cannot make worms.”"
Excellent!!
Thank you Daniel.
I thought it was pretty good myself!
I will continue to comment at “brainstorms” until the inevitable may occur which will be to be muzzled as both you and Martin already have been. Why I am allowed still to hold forth on Dembski’s creation remains a mystery for which I am nevertheless very grateful. I am practically the only participant there. Maybe Dembski thinks I will self destruct! Maybe he thinks I already have and is just enjoying the spectacle! David Springer has claimed that Dembski thinks I am “nuts.” What this means will someday be disclosed. Of that I am certain.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-97.html
Springer finally surfaced at “brainstorms” and as you can see I have responded to him. He probably won’t reply for quite some time or ever as is his usual habit. I really don’t care what he does any more. I have better things to do with my remaining time this side of the sod.
“Every day above ground is a bonus!”
anonymous
Neodarwinists are still pretty lost how to explain
mammalian’s “descent of testicles”.
I’ve just asked neodarwinists (using professor John Davison irony) on richarddawkins.net this question:
There are some examples where even lions do not have external testicles. Look here:
[img]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3d/BridgesBabylon97.jpg/200px-BridgesBabylon97.jpg[/img]
Maybe Mick Jagger hasn’t read the article written by doctor Myers yet (based on wrong outdated mammalian phylogeny). Otherwise he would know that lions need to “cool” their testicles to survive their neodarwinian “struggle for life”.
Thank you Martin.
I wish I could join you at richarddawkins.net but I have been banished from that “groupthink” of atheist Darwimpian mysticism.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Martin
The “struggle for existence” is one more Darwinian fantasy. I can’t remember who said the following but it is rght on.
“Animals are not struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all.”
Wih plants the whole notion of struggling disintegrates into absurdity.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
The truth is that there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING in the Darwinian fantasy that ever had anything to do with the appearance or subsequent history of any organism. The whole sequence was planned from beginning to end and the end is any time now.
“It isn’t over until it is over.”
Yogi Berra
“La commedia e finita.”
Pagliacci
“Our Final Century.”
Martin Rees
Got that? Write that down!
How do you like them apples?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Dr. Davison,
Are you familiar with Michael Sherman’s (Department of Biochemistry; Boston University Medical School) “Universal Genome”?
http://www.machanaim.org/philosof/nauka-rel/universal_genome.htm
On the surface, and viewed with an untrained eye (like mine), it seems eerily similar to your PEH.
Daniel
I would think he might cite my papers and since he doesn’t, why doesn’t he? Nothing surprises me anymore.
A prescribed evolution was implicit in my 1984 paper – Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism, Journal of Theoretical Biology 111: 725-735 and in several papers since.
Actually the idea of a determined evolution can be traced back to William Bateson (1914), Reginald C. Punnett (1915) and Leo Berg (1922). The oldest reference Sherman cites is in 2001. This is characteristic of the present literature with everyone anxious to get the credit. It is all about power.
These things eventually get sorted out.
“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!”
Gregor Mendel
Mendel had to wait 32 years for recognition, most of which time he was dead! I anticipate the same.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Dr. Davison,
I don’t know why he doesn’t cite you or any of your sources. It’s like many of today’s scientists are blind to the past in that regard. I do think that his findings complement yours though. I’d imagine that anyone who looks at the evidence honestly will arrive at similar conclusions. I know others such as Behe, Denton, and Mike Gene (pseudonym) have also embraced a prescribed evolution in their recent books. It’d be nice if all of these resources from the past and present could be grouped together somehow, somewhere, as a resource for future research – like a curriculum or something.
Daniel
Sure. It sounds good in principle, but the truth is everyone is anxious to take credit for reinventing the wheel. The IDists are a good example. Any fool can see design everywhere in the living world. To make that a debatable matter was silly. And why for God sake does anyone even try to communicate with the Darwinista, let alone try to convince them of anything? Just as ones political tendencies have been shown to have an heritable basis so are ones feelings about a Creator. Liberals are atheists by and large, while conservatives are primarily God fearing believers. That is why the vast majority of University Professors are flaming Darwinian left leaning atheists. Liberals don’t believe in anything. It is called “relativism.” I know all about it having spent a half century in academe.
It was Thomas Henry Huxley who coined the term “agnostic” meaning one who does not know. I have always felt that agnostic was, for all practical purposes, synonymous with atheist because if you don’t know you sure as hell don’t believe. But that is just me.
I can’t conceive of a real scientist who would be so weak minded as to deny one or more Creators. While there is no tangible proof of their present existence, there is need for such existence either. Even Richard P. Feynman, who pretended to be an atheist, compared scientific discovery to a “religious experience” thereby proving he wasn’t an atheist after all. I have had that experience too. All real scientists have had it. It is indeed a religious experience.
Clowns like Myers and Dawkins have never done an experiment in their miserable lives so they wouldn’t know what discovery means anyhow. They now peddle Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs in their insane quest to convert the entire world to Universal Atheism. What a miserable way to waste ones life. They deserve all the contempt I am so delighted to heap upon them.
“Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe, one that is vastly superior to that of man…”
Albert Einstein
That is why PeeZee “randomly ejaculating” Myers and “Trickie Dickie” Dawkins are not scientists. Neither were Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr.
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Dr Davison,
Johnny Cash said, “It’s good to know who hates you, and it’s good to be hated by the right people.”
I think you’ll agree that you’re hated by all the right people for all the right reasons.
Keep up the good work!
Daniel
Oops! I meant to post that on a different thread.
Corrected.
I’ve just post a message to richarddawkins.net, the thread about the “Descent of testicles”. I mentioned also the difference between doctor Myers and professor Adolf Portmann. The difference between the way of presenting arguments by “neodarwinain liberal blogger” vs. the great Swiss non-darwinian zoologist and humanist professor Adolf Portmann.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=40826&p=1433290#p1433290
Even though all my posts are automatically redirected to “The Bathroom Wall” at “After The Bar Closes”, I’ve decided to go ahead and post a link to my “Argument From Impossibility” in “The Bathroom Wall” thread anyway (under my real name – Daniel Smith).
I just posted the following comment in regard to my position on evolution:
“As for evolution, I embrace John Davison’s Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis – which basically says that phylogeny unfolded like ontogeny. Evolution of new lifeforms was saltational, quick, planned, and is now over.”
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48ef908547b23924;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8520
That Daniel backs up the idea that “phylogeny unfolded like ontogeny” is a great thing. It is the greatest non-darwinian evolutionary idea.
Well good for you Daniel. It is always a good idea to use your real name, something most of the trash that populate After The Bar Closes are afraid to do. Anonymity is cowardice. That is why so much of it is found at Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb, richarddawkins.net, After The Bar Closes and Darwinian ghettos generally. The Fundies aren’t much better. I predict that you will probably be banished for your efforts but not before both you and I are insulted, denigrated and abused by the usual suspects, Alan Fox, oldmanintheskydidn’tdoit, Arden Chatfield and many of the rest of Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Elsberry’s lock step, goose stepping storm troopers. Mark my words.
I love it so!
Daniel
Since I can now read After The Bar Closes, I see that the first response was from Arden Chatfield, an alias of course as I predicted. Now watch the others follow in lock step, although Elsberry may stifle any further mention of my name. The shabby, mindless little twerp is scared fecesless of me and my sources.
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I am getting tired of being Kaspar Milquetoast with my several adversaries so I am now “reverting back” to a previous and more militant stance toward them. When one is confronted with arrogant, unprincipled, egomaniacal enemies and I am and have been for a very long time, it is a mistake to treat them fairly. So I once again will identify them with the contempt I sincerely feel toward them all. I have a very simple device which I implemented in the past and probably never should have abandoned. It is to rearrange the names of my adversaries so that both they and the intellectual world generally will recognize how I really feel about them. It greatly simplifies my task and leaves no question about my attitude toward them, their purposes, their tactics and their character.
Here then are some of the transformed characters in this idiotic debate, this mindless search for power, this intellectual disaster which continues to subvert the only thing that really matters which is the unvarnished truth about the great mystery of phylogeny. They are presented in no particular order although the first four I find especially offensive.
M. P. Zeyers
Esley Welsberry
Dichard Rawkins
Spravid Dinger
Dilliam Wembski
Darles Charwin
Gephen J. Stould
Mernst Ayr
Pilliam Wrovine
Falan Ox
Charden Atfield
others as they earn my contempt and they will.
There is another device which I employed in the past and may resurrect if I feel like it,
As you know The Fox News channel has a motto which describes its philosophy -
“Fair, balanced and unafraid.”
I have no intention of being fair or balanced with those characters. To emphasize my position, I used to describe it as -
Unfair, unbalanced and scared to death of both the Darwimps and the Fundies.
How do you like them apples?
Now just what the hell are you going to do about it?
“Lay on, Macduff, and damn’d be him who first cries,
“Hold, enough!”
Shakespeare
War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton
“I’m an old campaigner and I love a good fight.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f07654558511af;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8520
Daniel
You notice how stevestory, another loser, is desperately trying to change the subject rather than acknowledge your devastating critique of the Darwinian fairy tale. This is the standard response of the Fascist Darwinista under the leadership of Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Velsberry), boy fisheries biologist. They have no critics. That is how they have managed to stay alive for a century and a half. I think you will have to slap them back into the awareness that Darwimpianism is the biggest joke in the history of science.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f109b5d0cbdff3;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8550
As I predicted, the thread on which Daniel decimated the Darwnian myth is losing its focus. Der Fuhrer Esley Welsberry is terrified at the prospect that it might revive. Only Daniel can revive it. Notice that Daniel cannot speak except on the Bathroom Wall thread. That is the prelude to banishment as both Martin and I can testify.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f1be7038d63b01;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8550
Instead of reponding to Daniel, they have changed the subject to the virtues of foul language, something they are experts about. And look at who is leading the cowardly diversion – Falan Ox of course, Welsberry’s chief goon and bottle washer.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
Hi Dr. Davison,
I noticed they didn’t really want to talk at all about your PEH. All they did was make a few disparaging remarks aimed at you personally. When it comes to actual ANSWERS, they have none.
Daniel
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f2489c7554d587;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8550
Please note the foul mouthed comments by PTET and Louis just preceding Daniel’s most recent response to the trash that typifies Esley Welsberry’s “inner sanctum,” nothing but a magnet for social misfits perfectly comparable to the garbage one finds at M.P. Zeyer’s Pharyngula forum.
“Birds of a feather flock togeher.”
Cervantes
Congratulations Daniel. It is always with their own words that ones enemies reveal themselves.
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/587#comment-2189
just posted.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=48f5ca3239e79c0d;act=ST;f=14;t=1272;st=8580
Daniel Smith continues to make fools of the cowardly anonymous blowhards at Esley Welsberry’s “inner sanctum.”
I predict that it is only a matter of time before they will ban him just as they did Martin and myself and for exactly the same reasons.
I love it so!
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=98#001465
Just posted. Follow the links.
Hi John,
Please explain to me how Dawkin’s even got popular? I don’t see him debating and scientist that oppose his version of creation?
Also I wish we could file a lawsuit against theses people and websites who refuse to allow You,Martin and now Daniel to debate them. I am sorry the evidence doesn’t support their findings.
Thanks John
Professor Dawkins joined campaign that put
ads on London double-deckers: “There’s probably no God. Now stop worrying and enjoy your life”.
More at “Dawkins takes atheist message to buses.”
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/people,1531,dawkins-spreads-atheist-message-on-buses,51075
Dublin
Atheists are not made. They are born that way. I know that doesn’t sound right but it has been firmly established through studies with separated monozygotic (identical) twins which were separated as infants and then reunited and interviewed as adults. I refer you to the book on the sidebar “Born That Way” by William Wright.
Albert Einstein was acutely aware of predestination and presented his convictions in no uncertain terms –
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness trhat human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion…Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
A determined universe is also central to the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
I hope this helps.
Martin
Thanks for the link. As you know, if you go to Pharyngula and click on the big red A that adorns every day’s edition of venomous hate, you will discover that Myers and Dawkins have joined in exhorting their followers to “come out” (as if they were closet homosexuals) and display their allegiances by purchasing Tshirts, bumper stickers and coffee mugs all adorned with the big red A for atheism.
Just what do Dawkins and Myers expect to gain by attacking religion? Do they really expect to overthrow the basis for all of Western Civilization? And what has that goal to do with the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny?
I recommend that they read Thomas E. Woods Jr.’s “How the Catholic Church Built Western Civilization.” I just added it to “Important Books” on the side bar, not that it will do any good.
These two pathetic losers will go to any length to maintain the atheist Darwinian fairy tale. They are congenitally unable to recognize what is obvious to so many of us. We live in a planned world, an evolutionarily finished world, a world in which Homo sapiens represents the last mammal species ever to appear.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Hey John,
I know DaveScot is a boob but does he have any credentials? I mean I been reading yours and Martin’s battle with the guy ( you guys just responded in my opinion to the debates as gentlemen do, I think he might have a little Napoleon complex?) does he hold any degrees in the field of science? Or is he just a administrator they let play with the grown up’s?
Martin I must say I am very impressed with your debating abilities as well. I am learning alot from both of you.
Thanks
Dublin
Credentials don’t mean a darn thing. Look at the credentials of P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins and all the rest of the Darwinian herd. They all have Ph.D.s as do many of their followers.
DaveScot /David Springer is a brilliant guy who is entirely self absorbed. He is ruthless, unprincipled and in his own words –
“I love being right.”
He rules Uncommon Descent with the full approval of Bill Dembski or so it seems. The poor souls who comment there are terrified to differ with him about anything for fear of banishment. He lives to treat others with contempt, an art he has mastered. I know from personal experience.
He is the perfect example of what Einstein meant -
“It is abhorrent to me when a fine intelligence is paired with an unsavory character.”
Self-described “Blog czars” invariably are intolerant, power crazed egomaniacs. Most forums, especially those dealing with evolution, are insular, protectionist magnets for those who share the congenital predispositions of the forum founders and their natural “prescribed” allies. Those who disagree are excluded.
One cannot “debate” with ideologues. It is a waste of time. The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery.
We live in a highly polarized world and nowhere is it more obvious than in the way we imagine how we came to exist. We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others.
“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. … Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/10/a_heartening_graph.php#comments
Note how Paul Zachary “randomly ejaculating” Myers (what a mess) is now gloating over the decline in the percentage of those professing a belief in God.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I ask that those who can please call attention to my invitation to all to defend their brand of evolutionary science in open discussion here or any place else for that matter.
Hey John,
I talk to the so called elite evolutionist everyday and tell them about your site. I never hear from them again they literately cannot defend their religion.
I just sent some invites John,
I bet none show up with a viable challenge to PEH. John and Martin I am excited ,This is like history in the making. But Dawkins and Meyers don’t like the making of history because they are not in it.
Dublin
Thanks but you are wasting your time. The Darwimpians have always pretended that they had no critics. Nothing has changed in a century and a half.
Who did you invite? Paul Zachary “random biological ejaculations” Myers. I thought all ejaculations were biological, but random? What a mess!
Richard “the blind watchmaking mountaineer” Dawkins? Its hard to believe isn’t it?
How did you get through to them?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Hi John,
All I got was a response from aguy who dared you to deny that bacteria resistance is proof of evolution. Kinda weak, John it’s like they are zombies. They don’t want you to destroy their theory because that means all those dollars wasted on Richard Dawkins books. I miss when people wanted to get at the truth.
The simple truth is that they are cowardly genetic trash.
As one of supporters of professor John Davison’s PEH I have opened a new thread at richarddawkis.net. The name of the thread is
“The fruiting bodies of mushrooms”. It was professor Zdenek Neubauer Uni Prague who challenged neodarwinian explanation of evolution of coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms. And one of greatest anti-darwinian entomologist Franz Heikertinger ridiculed Charles Darwin, who was so perplexed how to explain conspicuous coloration of some larvae. Charles Darwin was lost and defended his “natural selection” concept in one of his letters using these words: “….I could not answer, but should maintain my ground.”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/2429339/The-Life-and-Letters-of-Charles-Darwin-Volume-II-Dodo-Press
But there is aloso no correlation between conspicuos coloration of fruiting bodies of mushrooms and their poisonos qualities – as everyone in Central Europe know. So going into the forest do not follow the neodarwinian rule: conspicuos = unpalatable, cryptic = palatable. Such a rule could kill you. Mimicry and aposematism is an unproved “natural selection” neodarwinian invention.
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=61689
My latest post here disappeared. I hope that John is sill the only master of this anti-antidarwinian venue, or am I wrong?
—————————————————————————————————-
Martin, nothing has changed. Me and John are the only ones that have administrative authorization over this blog. Rest assured that I am very anti-Darwinian and have no intention of deleting anti-Darwinian material. I may delete it though if its not anti-Darwinian enough. (just kidding!)
I’m glad to see that John’s blog is getting more hits then his previous blog on roughly the same time frame.
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
And my lateast post is here again. I don’t understand. Maybe I should reboot my computer completely. This is the only antidarwinian venue worth of reading and contributing.
And this my latest post at richarddawkins.net (maybe too personal?) – responding to a guy who ridiculed the great anti-darwinian enotmologist Franz Heikertinger:
“Na yeah. The great antidarwinian entomologist Franz Heikeringer was employed at the Post Office Savings Bank.
Oddly enough Gregor Mendel was the director of the Mortgage Bank of Moravia (Brno).
http://www.mendelmuseum.muni.cz/en/gregor-mendel/
Would you like too dismiss the Mendelian genetics too?
(Btw. the chief populariser of the ideas of Gregor Mendel who coined the term “genetics” was another antidarwinian scientist Bateson.If there were no Augustian priest Mendel and anti-darwinian scientist Bateson, your neodarwinian “genetic mutation” fairy-tale pseudoscience might not have been alive and kicking. )”
Thank you anonymous benefactor.
Martin
You must realize that you can’t either reason with or insult Darwimpians. They are congenitally immune to rational discourse. That is why they treat us as they do. Thank them for exposing themselves as I do. It is always with ones own words that one displays himself. Encourage them to make fools of themselves. It is great sport!
I love it so!
Incidentally, William Bateson abandoned Mendelism, the science he founded, as a factor in evolution, describing it as a -
“blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species nor on evolution in general.”
Davison, J.A. 1998. “Evolution as a self-limiting process.” Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220.
Bateson was correct. Natural selection, sexual reproduction, population genetics, random mutations and every other aspect of Mendelian science are anti-evolutionary, serving to preserve the status quo for as long as possible. Sexual reproduction independently appeared many times during evolution but its function was always the same. It was to stabilize the species for as long as possible. That is all it ever did and all that it does now.
Every creative evolutionary event involved a change in the genome of the egg, a change which profoundly modified the manner in which that egg developed. That new female species that resulted then bred with males of the parent species to produce hybrids which then segregated out through Mendelian sexual means into the original species and the new species. That is why I am convinced that perhaps only a single Neanderthal female was the ancestor of Homo sapiens. Eric Trinkhaus has presented convincing evidence for Neanderthal/sapiens hybrids. Such a unique original female could only have been produced semi-meiotically as I first postulated in 1984.
The simple truth is that sexual reproduction is now impotent as an evolutionary device and probably always was.
It is also within the province of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis and the prescribed evolutionary model that Homo sapiens may have been produced on more than one occasion and perhaps even from different immediate ancestral species. That may prove one day to be the basis for the races of man, the original differences which have since become blurred through interbreeding.
Apparently the modern horse (Equus) independently appeared in the New World and in the Old World with the New World species going extinct prior to the arrival of the European species which arrived with the early explorers.
If my reconstruction is correct, each new species should be found with the species which produced it and with which it could produce a viable and at least partially fertile hybrid. I know of nothing from the fossil record which renders this interpretation invalid.
I feel that this model can explain evolution within the taxonomic Order but may not be sufficient to explain the origin of the higher taxonomic categories. There may prove to be an element of truth in the Biblical account of the de novo (supernatural) origin of “kinds.”
Leo Berg favored such origins without resorting to the Genesis account -
“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
I am convinced that some day they will be discussing Bergian rather than Darwinian evolution. I will be long gone before that day arrives.
There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian model that ever had anything to do with creative evolution, a process apparently no longer in progress.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
* Since this thread was posted it was edited October 25, 11:00 AM.
How do you like them apples Dickie Dawkins, boy atheist? Respond to them if you have the guts which I doubt very much. You too PeeZee Myers, you hate mongering moral degenerate. You two deserve each other. Go peddle your coffee mugs and your bumper stickers. Start a political party. Don’t just lie there absorbing my contempt. You both make me sick to my stomach! So do you Wesley Elsberry: cowardly trash all three!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Oooooooh, How sweet it is!
Jackie Gleason
I just received this email from my friend Martin who has not yet been banished from richarddawkins.net but soon will be.
________________________________________
John,
the problem is that threads at “debunking creationism” are not visible from outside – one has to be logged in. The same is valid for your
thread “God or Gods are now dead but must have once existed.” No one using google can see it, unless he registers. This is a cunning policy
of amins there I am afraid. If the debate becomes too unpleasant they put it there. Oddly enogh the neodarwinian section “Evolution and Natural selection”
can be read by everyone without registering. Probably they use the section “debunking” the same way the AtBC´s idiots use “The bathroom wall”.
with best regards
Martin
_________________________________________
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
—–
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=98#001474
Just posted.
http://theautopsy.wordpress.com/2008/10/28/the-loyal-footsoldiers-and-the-untouchable-leaders/#comments
comment #2
Hey John,
Any progress with Berg? The election is soon.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-98.html
My challenge to David “I love being right” Springer to defend his atheist assertion that there is no evidence that supernatural intervention was necessary to explain organic evolution. I bet he won’t show.
John,
Not to sound paranoid but Youtube has blocked me several times from giving your site out?
Dublin,
Thanks.
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————-
Hi John,
I was thinking about you mentioning DaveScot revealing his Darwinian roots. Personally, I think both of you are on the same track. DaveScot believes all that required was a type of supreme intelligence compared to your version that supernatural intervention or supernatural intelligence was required. I think there is a rather blurred distinction between the two if you ask me. DaveScot doesn’t mention Aliens as a marker of that intelligence as that would only loop back and pose the question of how those Aliens came to be. To infer Aliens as the supreme intelligence would render DaveScot a atheist Darwinian, no doubt. But I am not so sure, he doesn’t explicitly state that so I wouldn’t go so far (just yet) as to claim he IS a Darwinian. Both views cannot be tested anyways (SI or SNI) and therefore they are both in the same class, which is of course the non-scientific type. We can detect design patterns and infer intelligence as the best explanation, supernatural would be far beyond the scope of measurable or testable. Of course, I agree with you that a supernatural intelligence must have once existed else anything which limits origins to the natural is subsequently an inclination to the chance and luck worshiping propaganda. I know for a fact that neither you or DaveScot share this sentiment for the design of life on this planet.
Either way, there is not one bit of a difference between a past supreme intelligence and a past supernatural intelligence as far as science can tell. To conclude, (IMHO) the offset between your view and DS’s is not so much of an offset at all. Correct me if I’m wrong John, also note that I am not disagreeing with you on anything in particular. I just think its too early to tell and/or not enough specifics about DaveScot’s true position
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
It is David Springer that is belaboring me, accusing me of “hand-waving.” You would know that if you were following “brainstorms.” I am a convinced Creationist with a capital C. That seems to really rankle Springer. That is just tough.
David Springer is an intoloerant bully who now rules Uncommon Descent with an iron fist.
Thanks for the comment.
—————————————————————————————————–
Hi John,
Here is the latest comment from DaveScot:
I agree with DaveScot that life on this planet requires -atleast- Intelligent agency. If it doesn’t require supernatural agency then what makes Intelligent agency all that different from Darwinian agency? My point John, was that DaveScot is the one doing the hand waving here. All that design detection talk and now design is attributed to nothing more then an Intelligent agency wrapped around in Darwinian origins. Whats so Intelligent about that?
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Thank you “anonymous benefactor”
I responded to David “I love being right” Springer at “brainstorms.” As usual he strikes and then disappears. His greatest joy is to dominate others. On his most recent thread at Uncommon Descent he told a user to shut up. He also ignored a link introduced there devastating to his repeated assertions that anthropogenic global warming and climate change is nonsense. The man is an intellectual tyrant, incapable of being wrong about anything. How he got to be that way is interesting. I would love to examine his genetic history because -
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control”
Albert Einstein
First causes DEMAND supernatural intervention and that is all that is required. There is no evidence for the supernatural at present nor is there any need for it. Nevertheless such interventions may heve occurred several times in the past. I am not alone with this suggestion.
Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406
There is no reason to assume a single deity either and certainly not a male one. The sole purpose of the male in evolution was to bring that particular line to a screeching halt. Sexual reproduction with its associated Mendelian Genetics was always and still is entirely anti-evolutionary. So is natural selection. All of evolution WAS emergent, prescheduled and, as near as I can determine, is now finished. In other words -
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I believe with Robert Broom that there was a Plan, a word that he capitalized . I further believe the Plan has been completed with the present biota.
It is hard to believe isn’t it? That does not mean it is wrong.
Thanks for stimulating me to this response.
———————————————————————————————————————————————————
Hi John, no problem!
Maybe we should ask DaveScot if he is the Intelligent agent we’ve all been looking for. With all his infinite knowledge and wisdom I don’t see anything that would prevent him from having done the designing and at the same time making it look like it happened billions of years ago (OOL Spoof?). “H”e is the answer John, we should just leave The Designer alone now because he might get mad and kill us with his IQ. Personally, I am terrified, thats why I haven’t yet bothered myself to register at uncommondescent A.K.A DaveScot-land.
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor:
P.S: I ran DaveScot through Dembski’s explanatory filter and it happened to return “unkown” results. What does that mean John? Supernatural perhaps!
P.S.S: I have much respect for DaveScot. But, like anyone, I think hes given as much as he could to ID and now it seems whats left is banning everyone else and taking all the credit. Maybe if he could he would ban Dembski and Denyse as well (probably Denyse first then Dembski second). In the end, he’d ban himself if the option was available.
I am happy to see I am not alone in my critique of the “anointed one.” He might as well ban O”Leary and Dembski since he doesn’t believe a thing they represent. He invaded Uncommon Descent with one goal in mind which was to dominate it with his insufferable ego. He has been remarkably successful.
Springer has defined himself with his own words and deeds with “I love being right,” “My IQ is north of 150,” The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and “You’re outta here homo” and “_________ is no longer with us.” I know from personal experience.
I hope he continues to love himself silly if you get my drift.
His most recent thread at Uncommon Descent is very revealing. It opens with him threatening to deal with anyone that might take exception to him and sure enough he had to shut someone up. Even more revealing was the way he deliberately ignored a link introduced by one of his hapless victims, a link devastating to his unshakable conviction that anthropogenic global warming and violent climate change was utter nonsense.
Springer is totally lacking in the most important features of the true scientist – humility and an open mind. Springer has just about as much humility as Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Wesley Elsberry, arrogant atheist Darwinians all. They are all victims of their “prescribed” fates to be egomaniacal ethical defectives in a determined universe. We are all victims. Some of us have been luckier than others. It is as simple as that.
“Everything is determined….by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
P.S. Why not register at Uncommon Design. Just don’t be so rash as to comment on one of his many threads by questioning in any way what “the one” has to say. Better yet, be brave and learn from personal experience as I and countless others already have.
Hi John,
I found a link to a recent article (on a thread authored by Bradford on Telic Thoughts) that seems widely in support of your “Prescribed Evolutionary hypothesis”.
Link to article
From the article:
On “pattern language” (couldn’t get access to full publication )
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Hi John,
Not to bring back bad memories but I noticed a gentlemen on ISCID who seemed to have a vendetta against you Ron Okimoto. Not to be nosy John but is there a reason why this guy is so threaten by you. Save the obvious?
“anonymous benefactor,”
Thanks for the link. I am banished at Telic Thoughts. Everyone is reinventing the wheel these days and taking credit for it. History will sort out the origins of the PEH and its sources in the post Darwinian literature. I am persona non grata in the current scene and there is nothing I can do about it. That is the way it was “prescribed” to be, probably millions of years ago.
“Everything is determined … by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
In my 2005 paper, “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis,” I suggested that much of evolution may have involved a LOSS rather than a GAIN of information. This concept can go a long way to explain why creative evolution is no longer in progress. It remains in agreement with both the Universal Genome and the PEH hypotheses. It also provides a rationale for a role for gene silencing in both ontogeny and phylogeny.
I have always provided the sources for my science with chapter and verse. It no longer troubles me when others ignore my science as I know from history that the truth will out. It always has and always will. My 1984 paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology – “Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechansim” – was lethal to Darwinian mysticism. So are all my several subsequent publications including my unpublished “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesiis for Organic Change.” The Darwinians and others just refuse to admit it. That suits me just fine. I am content.
That anyone anywhere can still support any aspect of the Darwinian myth is scandalous, in violation of the testimony of both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory, and can only be explained as a congenital defect in the ability to interpret the real world. All of phylogeny, just like ontogeny, was planned from beginning to end and the end is any time now.
“Here I stand. I can do no otherwise.”
Martin Luther
“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!
Gregor Mendel
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Dublin
Thanks.
I have no idea where this was posted. He is not speaking on the “brainstorms” forum. Can you provide a link to the source of his comments?
————————————————————————————————–
Hi John, you wrote:
It seems there are many cheap imitations of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. One name that comes to mind is Mike Genes front-loading hypothesis. Last I checked even DaveScot had his own version, next is some unknown dubbed Thought Provoker, he too has some “new” idea about the mechanism over evolution, whatever that is.
I am still pondering over the difference, it makes no sense to me that Mike Gene’s ideas are somehow “new” or unique. The difference between you and the others John, is that the others are still arguing plausible circumstances with the Darwinista.
They are still in their own little circular world of “debate”. So it seems the ID proponents have trouble accepting the complete failure of Darwinian Evolution, I question such logic.
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
________________________________________________________________________________
You are right. Note that they still employ Natural Selection and Genetic Drift, nether of which ever had anything to do with creative evolution. I maintain that Natural Selection, all of Mendelian Genetics, Population Genetics, Genetic Drift and Random Mutation are ANTI-EVOLUTIONARY, serving only to prolong the status quo as long as possible only ultimately to fail and ensure extinction. The vast majority of all the millions of species that have existed over the millennia were doomed to extinction from the moment of their appearance, just as the individual is doomed to certain death at the moment of his conception. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny. At present we witness only extinction which is why I am convinced that the great mystery of organic evolution has reached its goal, a goal which was there from the very beginning.
This is pure Einsteinian determinism on my part, a determinism in which there is now and never was a role for chance. I am not alone. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
and
“I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to meet its final goal.”
Robert Broom, Finding the Missing Link, page 101.
Robert Broom and Leo Berg are among the finest minds ever to address the great mystery pf organic evolution. They with Otto Schindewolf, Pierre Grasse, William Bateson, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Reginald C. Punnettt and many others have been the real pioneers in evolutionary theory. They will prevail when Godless Darwinism is nothing but an embarrassing foot note in the history of science which is all that it has really ever been.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
P.S. There is no room for debate or interpretation in science and never was. Science is discovery and nothing else.
Anonymous benefactor.
Very interesting article. The group name is “Altenberg 16″. As far as I can judge they continue in great tradition of German embryology. Roux, great biologist and vitalist Driesch and I think also professor Adolf Portmann whose original ideas of morphology of uni/multicellular organisms are heavily neglected by neodarwinists.
Another support for idea that “natural selection” plays no role in creative evolution.
Hi John no problem,
It was under Topic: ISCID Forums » General » Brainstorms John A. Davison: The Case for Instant Evolution. He’s a rude little bugger, the only reason I saw it was I been following yours and Martins correspondence on ISCID. Funny Darwinians really try to pull out things then resort to just nasty words. They think they are winning the arguments but it just makes them look bad and sad. He just wanted to argue with you, he made no clear points just attacked your logic.What was funny was Scott replied “Ron, why is this such an issue? Why do you not just go to a search engine and do a search on Pierre-Paul Grasse, as I did?” As you see everyone could see this little Darwinian boot licker’s agenda. Well John I guess they can’t defend your papers they want to destroy your logic.
Although prepared for martyrdom, I preferred that it be postponed.
Sir Winston Churchill
This is the only anti-darwinian venue worth to contribute. My opinion is that John’s “Manifesto” is better work than Behe’s “Darwin’s black box”. One of my point is refuting neodarwinian explanation of so-called “mimicry”. All of my threads at richarddawkins.net are now at the section “Debunking creationism”. No one can see opinions presented there unless he is a “participant” there. The same is valid for John’s thread about his PEH. Just for a record my latest post there:
Another so-called “outdated” research refuting darwinian “natural selection” as the source of conspicuous coloration of ladybugs (aposematism- “die Warntracht”). Fortunatelly these pre-war German researches refuting “mimicry” and “aposematism” and “natural selection” are becoming more and more available on inet nowadays. For those who can read German:
Heikertinger Franz, 1932
Die Coccinelliden, ihr “Ekelblut”, ihre Warntracht und ihre Feinde (6,28 MB) //
Biologischen Zentralblatt, 52 Band, Heft 2, Verlag, Leipzig, P. 65-102.
http://www.zin.ru/Animalia/Coleoptera/pdf/Heikertinger32.pdf
See page 83 and subsequent pages. Do you still believe in “mimicry” in this case?
Dublin
I can’t find the source you mention. It would help if you could provide a direct link.
I published “The case for instant evolution” in Rivista di Biologia 96, 203-205 (2003). I regard it as one of my more significant publications. It is buried as “correspondence” in that volume of Rivista with no reference to it in the table of contents. I don’t recall where it was presented on “brainstorms” so I can’t respond to the comments to which you refer.
I am now also persona non grata at Rivista and was amazed that they published my paper -
“A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” Rivista di Biologia 98:155-166 (2005).
where it was presented as a “Discussion” rather than a full fledged paper. It seems that Rivista’s Editor, Giuseppe Sermonti, no longer regards me with respect as he has since turned down papers I have submitted to his journal. It is unfortunate as I have always regarded him as an ally against Darwinian mysticism. Why this has changed is a mystery to me but it most definitely has. I suspect it may be due to others on his Editorial Board.
I am not the most popular scientist in the contemporary world. Neither were any of my sources when they were publishing their heresies, notably Leo Berg, William Bateson, Pierre Grasse, Otto Schindewolf and especially Richard B. Goldschmidt, without question the greatest geneticist of his generation. He is still being abused a half century after his death even as everything he proposed is now being realized. As he insisted, it is the chromosome, not the gene, that is (was) the unit of organic evolution. Allelic mutation has now and never had anything to do with creative evolution although it probably has often played a role in extinction.
Maybe Sermonti is no longer in charge of his journal just as Dembski is no longer in charge of Uncommon Descent, having surrendered it to David “I love being right” Springer, the biggest bully in the history of human communication.
Nothing surprises me any more.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
My latest post (or the last one?) at OE:
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/614#comment-2243
And now I have written OE admin Patrick that he is a “neodarwinian idiot”. Never mind. You have to treat neodarwinists like marxists – or the same way as the great Giordano Bruno treated Oxford pundits-ptolemaists in his famous “The Ash Wednesday Supper”.
Thank you Martin. Unlike Bruno who ended up burned at the stake, these days they just pretend they have no critics and proceed on their merry empty ways as perfect losers.
I read your link and I suspect that Patrick, whoever that is, will probably ban you too. That is all that weaklings are capable of doing. It is all about power and ego and nothing else.
It doesn’t get any better than this, but it does, it does!
I love it so!
Hey John,
http://www.iscid.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=000520#000000
It’s very interesting John,
If they are so right, why do they try so hard to destroy you? Also great Martin I read it, I am alway amused at how easy you can turn the tables on these stooges.
Dublin.
Are you aware that the comments to which you refer were made in 2004? It is no wonder that I have forgotten about them. PvM, actually Pim van Meurs, another dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian, was another participant then and I responded to both of them. van Meurs is a prominent contributor to Panda’s Thumb. Need I say more? Pim van Meurs was once forced by his then employer to take a remedial course in ethics based on his unprincipled behavior. Isn’t that wonderful? The man has never contributed an original idea in his life bearing on the subject of organic evolution, sharing that distinction with Wesley Elsberry, Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins. Only Dawkins could even claim that he has but of course that is pure self deception. His several books, each more bizarre than its predecessor are all confined to the side bar under the heading DARWINIAN SORCERY a category suggested by my “anonymous contributor.”
Thanks for reminding me of some of my several enemies. Most of them are terrified of me and my distinguished sources which is why they leave me alone these days. We are not allowed to exist. It is as simple as that.
Thanks again.
I love it so!
“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali
Sorry John,
As I said I am looking back at your comments very interesting conversation. I personally think John that you handled yourself well and they on the other hand did not.
Thanks John
“anonymous benefactor”
Thanks but it is too late. Overwhelming Evidence is history because of the ineptness of Patrick.
It was the IDists who insisted on the debate. They initiated it. They should have known better. What we see on these internet blogs is living proof that we are all victims of our congenital predispositions. You cannot reason with ideologues whether they be atheists or religious fanatics.
“Then we have 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
Meanwhile, the laboratories of the world continue to support a past phylogeny which, exactly like ontogeny, involved the unfolding of pre-existing information which was produced by an unkown number of programmers an unkown number of times at an unknown number of places. As I have concluded in my recent essays, there is no more reason to accept a monotheistic creation than there is to accept a monophyletic evolution.
Unfortunately my perspective is unacceptable to both factions in the highly polarized world that has become much more evident recently than it was prior to the so called Age of Enlightenment, an age which has spawned rampant atheism, an age which Charles Darwin, more than any other figure, was instrumental in initiating. The Age of Enlightenment became the Age of Denial, the denial that there was a purpose and a goal in the history of life, a history that, as far as we know, has taken place only here on our planet.
What can be rejected in its entirety is any role for chance in either the development of the individual or the emergence of any taxonomic category from Phylum to species.
The most lethal proof of the bankruptcy of the Darwinian fairy tale is the fact that evolution is no longer in progress. Charles Lyell’s doctrine of uniformation has no place in the living world. The living world is fundamentally different from the physical world of Lyell’s geology. Darwin never realized this and neither have his countless disciples. Lyell’s uniformationism coupled with Malthus’ overpopulation became the sole basis for the most idiotic hypothesis ever produced by an overactive human imagination.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not any more it isn’t!
Hi John,
I see it like this John like a old kung fu movie, you have the evil school that would be the treacherous Darwinians. You have the opposing school which keeps getting beat up that is the I.D’s. Then between both you have the old sage who lives in the wilderness outcast by both schools, that would be you John. They claim he’s crazy and lives by himself. As they movie goes on we see the old Kung Fu master laugh at both school’s strugle at dominance. The old Master has knowledge of both systems but has perfected a better system. A young hero discovers the old sage which both schools insist was once a great martial artist but is old and crazy but the Hero realizes he’s not crazy but a genus he just has a better understanding of Kung fu than both schools. The hero learns his style which allows him to defeat the evil school and dis own the other school. What do you think John?
Dublin
I think I am old. In fact I am quite certain about it. I do live in a sort of wilderness. It is Vermont. I live alone too; just myself and my Miniature Poodle “Sumbitch,” named in honor of Jackie Gleason’s portrayal of the Sheriff in whatever that movie was. I forget a lot.
Thanks for the interesting parable.
My feet are lethal weopons!
Patrick has not banned me yet. He is just going to “moderate” me. My comments are awaiting for his approval. Maybe they do not appear at all. My latest one:
—
Hehehe, “open user policy”. You have banned professor John Davison and now you are going to moderate me. But I hope your friend Alan Fox and other neodarwinian idiots have still free access to this venue to spread their denigrations here. Are you aspiring to become a neodarwinian admin at AtBC or EvC after this forum closes? Your qualification for such a job is excellent.
—-
Thank you Martin.
Patrick is trash. He “moderated” me too for a while. That is always the prelude to banishment. He didn’t “moderate” Alan Fox did he? I say to hell with him, but of course that is entirely up to you. Either way Overwhelming Evidence is finished and Patrick, by cultivating Alan Fox, did the finishing.
I love it so!
http://www.overwhelmingevidence.com/oe/node/614#comment-2246
What Patrick, whoever that is, can’t seem to understand is that he IS an idiot which is precisely why Martin called him one.
Hi John & Martin,
What do you guys make of this new earth all the Darwinians are talking about? Astronomers calculated that the planet is probably there by its gravitational effects. But they haven’t actually seen it. They said “plus water” like we know it has water.
The Darwinian model predicts, as Carl Sagan used to say, “billions and billions” of “earths” because the Darwinista believe it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to spontaneously assemble into living, evolving entities. The reality is that there is not a shred of evidence that life exists anywhere else in the universe except right here. SETI is a dismal failure. Science does not proceed on what MIGHT be but on what IS.
Of course life MIGHT exist elsewhere and we MIGHT have been visited and there MIGHT be aliens among us now. Anything is possible in a Darwinian world, a world determined by statistical probability, “random walks” and their mystical “natural selection” which is now and always was anti-evolutionary.
“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.
Darwinism is without question the most juvenile, the most bizarre, and the most failed hypothesis in the history of descriptive and experimental science. It dwarfs the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
At OE appeared another supporter of Alan Fox. Now there is a neodarwinian trio: Alan, Bob and Patrick. Three friends whose conversation is led in the “friendly spirit”.
My latest post:
It was “Alan Fox’s” post from Sat, 2008-11-01 11:14 which is probably here considered
as written ” in the friendly spirit”. I underestand that such “spirit” is wellcomed at drunken
“Bathroom wall” in the “After the bar closes” neodarwinian forum. Why such posts are allowed here I do not understand.
Fox should have been reprimanded and banned. Because admin obviously slept it was professor John Davison who defended himself. He doesnot not use nick like many participants here (is Alan Fox real name or not?). That is something that should have been taken into consideration when admin with nick “Patrick” banned professor Davison who defended himself against “Alan Fox”.
I noticed them also that their behaviur is commented here.
I have just asked that idiot “Partick” to reveal his real surname and to publish this sentence:
“Oh, hypocrisy, thy name is indeed ………”.
Something he and his friend BobMort consider for “friendly discussion”.
Thanks Martin.
Patrick is a plucked albatross, Bobmort is a closet Darwinian ostrich and Alan Fox is a mentally ill vulture. Overwhelming Evidence is an aviary. It will soon be extinct like the Dodo. I’ll bet none of them are using their real names. Cowards are like that wherever you find them.
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes
That is not all they do together.
I love it so!
To avoid duplication here I offer my recent comments at “brainstorms” as representing my overview if the great mystery of organic evolution.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=100#001495
Responses are welcome but will probably not be forthcoming.
If Patrick, whoever that is, and Bobmort, whoever that is, don’t like what Martin and I have to say about them, they are welcome to appear here to defend their shabby alliances. Only Alan Fox has earned the right to be permanently banished from this weblog. He just popped up again only to be deleted as some of “my countless fans” may have noticed.
I love it so!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/we-are-the-99-chimpanzee-scratch-that/#respond
It seems that Denyse O’Leary is now proposing that chimps and humans do not have a common ancestor.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
It doesn’t get any better than this. But it does, it does!!
I love it so!
I never cease to be amazed by the insights of William Bateson, the father of Mendelian Genetics, especially as they have anticipated the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I have been reading his “Problems of Genetics” which resulted from the Silliman Lectures which he gave at Yale in 1914. Bateson was then 53 and had already recognized the inadequacy of the Mendelian mechanism of mutation and selection as an explanation for evolutionary diversity. Here are a few excerpts which will illustrate my point.
“In spite of Darwin’s hopes, the acceptance of his views has led to no improvement – scarcely indeed to any change at all in either the practice or aims of systematists.” page 10.
“Every specific evolutionary change must represent a definite event in the construction of the living complex.” page 97.
“The unpacking of an original complex, the loss of various elements, and the recombination of pre-existing materials may all be invoked as sources of specific diversity.” page 98.
“If the differences between species have not come about by the addition or loss of factors one at a time, then we must suppose that the changes have been effected by even larger steps, and the variations including groups of characters, must be invoked.” page 101.
We now know that the groups of characters to which Bateson referred are born on the chromosome and it is the chromosome, not the gene that has been the unit of evolutionary change. These excerpts constitute a perfect refutation of the whole Darwinian notion of gradual incremental evolutionary change.
It is ironic that the father of Mendelian Genetics eventually dismissed Mendelism in its entirety as a device for speciation or any other aspect of organic evolution, a conclusion with which I stand in complete agreement.
William Bateson was one of the great minds of the post Darwinian era. Naturally, the Darwinians pretend he never existed.
__________________________________________________________________________________
Hi John,
This is excellent!!!
sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/peppered-moth-idolatry/#comments
I see Barry Arrington is resurrecting the peppered moth fantasy. Why dignify Darwinian nonsense by even mentioning such foolishness? Don’t they have anything better to do at Uncommon Descent? Apparently not.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-101.html
As you can see David Springer has surfaced again at “brainstorms” forum to issue another one of his arrogant pronouncements. I have responded. Please note the quote by William Bateson.
dublin
Not a chance. He loathes Myers just as much as I do. Springer is just trying to call attention to himself by issuing these idiotic claims. He “loves being right” you know. He has decided to replace God, I mean literally -
“The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away.”
David Springer
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Like HELL it is!
I love it so!
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/11/sunday_confession_of_a_lapsed.php
I am holding forth at aardvarchaeology as you can see but probably for not much longer. “I love invading blogs” to see the reactions I evoke. It is great sport.
I love it so!
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=102#001523
Enjoy!
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/11/18/the-further-adventures-of-the-emerald-green-sea-slug/#comment-12528
Please note that I have presented a challenge which hasn’t yet been answered. This not the first time I have left terminal unanswered challenges on internet blogs.
I love it so!
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/11/sunday_confession_of_a_lapsed.php#comments
my message December 4, 2008, 5:55AM
It looks like that Pharyngula thread about your letter has brought in some traffic, Professor, both welcome and otherwise. Have you had a reply, yet?
Maurice Caldwell
I have not received a reply from Governor Pawlenty. So much for Governor Pawlenty. Minnesota has become the Mecca for atheism in America, largely due to the efforts of Paul Zachary Myers, the second biggest bully in cyberdumb. Thank God McCain didn’t pick Pawlenty as a running mate.
Also I am unable to find the thread about my letter to Pawlenty. It seems PZ “randomly ejaculating” Myers thought it prudent to delete the whole sordid demonstration of what TRASH he once again has proven himself to be.
David Springer, the biggest bully in cyberdumb, has also been known to delete whole threads when he doesn’t care for the way they develop or so I have been told.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Like HELL it is!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
P.S. Don’t be surprized if Myers reinstates it now that I have exposed him as the low life TRASH he really is, especially since I just forwarded this message to Myers via his one way communication system.
http://scienceblogs.com/aardvarchaeology/2008/11/sunday_confession_of_a_lapsed.php#comments
just posted, one of my better efforts.
Also forwarded to Pharyngula.
Enjoy!
I want to thank 1dublinevans, Maurice Caldwell and 1sksparadigm for their warm support. However I must remind them that the purpose of this weblog is the search for the truth concerning the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. It is not to become a chatclub. Some of the threads are becoming much too long without contributing to the purposes of this venue.
Here is what I recommend. Rather than communicate through these threads, feel free to email me and one another with your thoughts and recommendations.
Accordingly, I plan to streamline this weblog and delete recent comments that I feel are not contributing directly to the stated purposes of this blog. I hope you will understand.
Thanks again for your support.
jdavison@uvm.edu
As one may gather, Alan Fox is still invading my blog with his nasty comments and I continue deleting them.
Alan
I don’t care what anybody thinks about the way I run this weblog, especially TRASH like you. I am engaged in a war with the forces of evil of which you are the perfect example. You contribute nothing of value now and never have. You are a proponent of two of the most degenerate minds in contemporary biology, Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins. Now drag your miserable degenerate self back to After The Bar Closes where you are afraid to even mention my name for fear that Elsberry might banish you.
If you insist on comng back here I will do everything in my power to embarrass you wherever I can. I will continue to delete your comments.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2008/11/18/the-further-adventures-of-the-emerald-green-sea-slug/#comments
My comment December 11, 8:02 PM and previous.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=102#001533
Just posted at Dec 13, 2008, 20:07
Follow the link. Daniel Smith continues to make fools of the TRASH at After The Bar Closes. Go get them Daniel!
Professor,
Please describe the difference in a Darwinian Atheist and a non Dawkin reading atheist?
1skasasparadigm
I have no intention of responding to your question except to say -
Whether one believes in a Creator or not has been shown to have a congenital basis. I recommend “Born That Way” by William Wright. It is one of the “Important Books” I have listed on the side bar. Religion is a personal matter and I have no intention of getting into a discussion of it as it has nothing to do with the purposes of this blog.
However, in their extreme manifestations, atheism and religious fundamentalism, each have profoundly inhibited the search for the truth.
I am not alone in reaching this conclusion.
“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
We are all victims in a determined universe. Some of us have been luckier than others.
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/finally-proof-of-evolution/#comments
I see David Springer claims that evolution has now finally been proven. I thought that had been established long ago. The only real problem has been the mechanism or mechanisms by which it took place. One other thing also seems pretty well established. It is no longer going on. So what else is new Dave?
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Professor,
Can you suggest some good botany books from actually good botanist not any of the Darwinian boot lickers?
Merry Christmas to John and all his friends and supporters!
Martin
Thank you very much Martin and MERRY CHRISTMAS to you and to all my fans everywhere as well as all my thousands of mortal enemies. As for the latter -
“Forgive them father for they know not what they do.”
You see they are “prescribed” congenital losers.
1skasaparadigm
That is a very good question. Botanists as a group have never been terribly confrontational about the mechanism of evolution. I don’t think you will find them as divided as zoologists. They are too busy plying their trade to waste their time debating matters which should never have been debated in the first place. I will look into the matter and see what I can come up with. The discontinuities that are so obvious in the plant Kingdom are even greater than those in the animal Kingdom so it hard to imagine a sincere Darwinian botanist. I think you will find them hard to find.
Merry Christmas to all,
Hope you all are doing well, and are having a very good holiday.
Thank you very much John. Your kind words means a lot for me, because it was your Manifesto that influenced me so much regarding the mystery of evolution.
Regarding botany I would recommend everyone some of the voluminous work by the great German botanist professor Wilhelm Troll (1897-1978). Darwinists hate him but they can’t deny his contribution to the botany .
http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=17896616
Professor Wilhelm Troll was a proponent of German idealistic morphology. He posed an ideal plant – so called “die Urpflanze”, of which every existing plant is a variant.
You would not believe what a conifer and a cabbage have common unless you read his
textbooks “Praktische Einführung in die Pflanzenmorphologie. (1957)”. But I am afraid his work has not been translated into English.
I can’t help myself, but I think that Universities are sometimes deadly wrong. It was a Russian pre-revolution minister who hated Russian Universities full of marxists more than pubs. And he was right. I’ve just posted this contribution to RichardDawkins.net:
Do you mean that Universities like Oxford are prominent places for iluminating the world with “eternal” truth – neodarwinism, ehm? Do you really think that neodarwinism is the last word? Then you are probably wrong. It was Oxford and his pundits who were the object of Giordano Bruno’s contempt. Giordano Bruno was beaten and ridiculed there when he defended Copernikus theory on the place. The great Italian Rennaisance scientist and philosopher Bruno wrote about Oxford doctors these words:
—————-
THE. Yes, my master; yes, my father; yes, my lady; yes, by all means; I believe, from Oxford.
Smi. Qualified?
THE. Why not? Men of distinction, of long [academic] robes, dressed in velvet, one of them with two golden chains shining round his neck, and the other, with that precious hand (which contained twelve rings on two fingers), seemed (by God) to be a very rich jeweller, who almost carved out your eyes and heart as he gesticulated.
.
.
.
Let them tell you with what rudeness and discourtesy that pig [doctor] did proceed and with what patience and humanness did that other, who in fact showed himself to be a native of Naples
.
.
.
—————
Giordano Bruno
THE ASH WEDNESDAY SUPPER
LA CENA DE LE CENERI
http://math.dartmouth.edu/~matc/Readers … upper.html
Thank you very much, everyone have a happy Christmas!
Thanks Martin. It is nice to see you back again. I sure wish I could still post at RichardDawkins.net forum. I am amazed they haven’t banished you.
Very few enlightened scholars deny organic evolution. The primary question has always been the MECHANISM by which it took place. The Darwinian myth never had anything to do with any aspect of creative evolution. All it has ever been able to do is to create intraspecific varieties which are all evolutionary dead ends doomed to extinction. Today, I believe extinction is all that we will ever witness and that will include the extinction of ourselves.
Sorry to be so pessimistic during the holiday season.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
John A. Davison
Merry Christmas! Martin glad to hear form you again. John you have stated that a Darwinian evolutionist biologist is different from a evolutionary biologist. Can you explain? (I am reading your material John)?
Darwinism is a hoax.
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to all!!!
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Hello gentlemen,
John are either you or Martin familiar with Dr. John Arbuthnot or the Scriblerus Club?
(born April 1667, Inverbervie, Scot. — died Feb. 27, 1735, London, Eng.) Scottish mathematician, physician, and satirist. His satirical writings include a political allegory, The History of John Bull (1712), that established John Bull as a personification of England. He was a founding member of the famous Scriblerus Club, which aimed to ridicule bad literature and false learning. He was also chief contributor to and guiding spirit of the Memoirs of Martinus Scriblerus (written 1713 – 14), a mocking exposure of pedantry that was written by club members. Just curious what you thought he was a member of my family.
Never heard of him. To bad he isn’t around today.
I have Dublin,
He translated Huygens’ tract De ratiociniis in ludo aleae on probability and extended it by adding to it a few further games of chance such as backgammon, the Royal Oak lottery, raffling, whist, and games with dice. He published it anonymously as Of the Laws of Chance in 1692. It was the first work on probability published in English and refers to:-
… the calculation of the quantity of probability.
This appears to be the first time the word “probability” appears in print.
He was a great man of science and of faith.
Arbuthnot continued his scientific work submitting a paper to the Royal Society in 1710 discussing the slight excess of male births over female births in the years from 1629 to 1710. This paper, published in the Philosophical Transactions, is perhaps the first application of probability to social statistics and includes the first formal test of significance. In this paper Arbuthnot claims to demonstrate that divine providence, not chance, governs the sex ratio at birth. In [12] Shoesmith explores the controversy which arose from Arbuthnot’s paper, looking at the positions taken by ’sGravesande and Nicolaus(I) Bernoulli in 1712 and Nieuwentijt in 1715.
Arbuthnot’s main fame, however, rests on his reputation as a wit and on his satirical writings. He became a friend of Jonathan Swift and the two produced satirical political pamphlets. Arbuthnot published five best selling John Bull pamphlets [3]:-
hope that helps:)
Hey Professor,
He sound alot like you? He wasn’t afraid to stand up against scum bags who disagreed with his scientific findings!!!
Sure and that is probably why he is not well known. The atheist Darwimps have always pretended that they had no critics when in fact they have had hundreds of them, some of them Darwinians themselves, like Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky. I can’t imagine any scientist worth his salt who would dream of denying a goal and a purpose in nature. Can anyone else? Oh sure. Every damn Darwinian atheist who ever walked this earth. They are “prescribed,” “born to lose” losers.
I love it so!
Thank John and Skas,
I think the Darwinian theory has run it’s coarse as you predicted, now we have just sexual ingrates and Baal worshipers who call themselves scientist. But as I have predicted John has set in motion the one thing they fear, the truth. When people become aware they will share the same fate as the hippies, new age movement and disco.
You rock John,
around the clock?
Note that I have just added “On the Genesis of Species” by St. George Mivart to the list of important books on the side bar. It is now available in paperback as part of the Michigan Historical Reprint Series. I recommend this book for everyone interested in the great mystery of evolution.
Mivart’s book was published in 1871, only 12 years after Darwn’s “On the Origin of Species,” yet it is a devastating critique of Darwin’s thesis at the same time that it anticipates much of what we now know to be true.
I will from time to time present excerpts from Mivart’s book and present them here, so make a note of message #244 and return here occasionally to appreciate the wisdom and foresight of this remarkable scientist.
I will begin with these from his Introduction. I interject my comments as his are presented in chronological order.
Referring to Darwin -
” It would be difficult to name another living laborer in the field of physical science who has excited an interest so wide-spread, and given rise to so much praise, gathering around him, as he has done, a chorus of more or less acquiescing disciples, themselves masters in science, and each the representative of a crowd of enthusiastic followers.”
“Such is the Darwinian theory of ‘Natural Selection,’ such are the more remarkable facts which it is potent to explain, and such is the reception it has met with in the world.”
page 22
It sounds a lot like P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins doesn’t it. Apparently little has changed since 1871!
Referring to the phrase “survival of the fittest,” Mivart continues -
“With nothing more than this, can, on the Darwinian theory, all the most intricate facts of distribution and affinity, form and color, be accounted for; as well the most complex instincts and the most admirable adjustments, such as those of the human eye and ear.”
page 23.
“Moreover, it must not be forgotten that he (Darwin) frequently uses that absolutely theological term, “the Creator,” and that he has retained in all the editions of the “Origin of Species” an expression which has been much criticized. He speaks ‘of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms, or into one.’ This is merely mentioned in justice to Mr. Darwin, and by no means because it is a position which this book is intended to support.”
page 27
“If the theory of Natural Selection can be shown to be quite insufficient to explain any considerable number of phenomena connected with the origin of species, that theory, as THE explanation, must be considered as provisionally discredited.”
page 32, (THE) in caps originally (the) in italics.
Mivart ends his Introduction with the following preview of what will follow.
“What is to be brought forward may be summed up as follows:”
“That ‘Natural Selection’ is incompetent to account for the incipient stages of useful structures.”
I certainly can’t disagree with that. It remains the weakest feature of the Darwinian model and lethal to it.
“That it does not harmonize with the coexistence of closely similar structures of diverse origin.”
A good example of this is the appearance of a true placenta in certain sharks. Leo Berg called this phenomenon “phylogenetic acceleration,” suggesting that the information for a placenta was present long before it finally appeared as a constant feature in the placental mammals. This also supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and the Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH) as well.
“That there are grounds for thinking that specific differences may be developed suddenly rather than gradually.”
Here Mivart anticipates the saltations postulated much later by Goldschmidt and Schindewolf. Darwinian gradualism is an unwarranted assumption without foundation. It cannot be demonstrated experimentally and it is absent from the fossil record.
“That the opinion that species have definite though very different limits to their variability is still tenable.”
Mivart is clearly questioning whether contemporary species are capable of evolutionary change. Needless to say, that is my position as well – “A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
“That certain fossil transitional forms are absent, which might have been expected to be present.”
That is as true today as it was in Mivart’s time. While more intermediate forms have been discovered, there is no evidence whatsoever for the gradual transformation of one to another. Darwinian gradualism is without foundation.
“That some facts of geographical distribution supplement other difficulties.”
“That the objection drawn from the physiological difference between ’species’ and ‘races’ still exists unrefuted.”
Races and varieties can be produced experimentally. True species cannot, even with the most intensive selection. Furthermore, neither speciation nor the formation of any other taxa are any longer evident. As near as can be ascertained, progressive evolution has ceased with the present biota.
“That there are many remarkable phenomena in organic forms upon which ‘Natural Selection’ throws no light whatever, but the explanations of which, if they could be attained, might throw light upon specific origination.”
page 34
The balance of his book is an in depth amplification of each of these preliminary statements which one can only appreciate through reading the detailed accounts.
It is interesting to examine how Mivart has been treated over the years by other evolutionists. Neither Goldschmidt nor Schindewolf make any mention of Mivart in their books even though he anticipated their saltational views as the excerpt above demonstrates. Ernst Mayr in “The Growth of Biological Thought” make no mention of Mivart.
Stephen J. Gould goes to great length in an attempt to discredit Mivart. In “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory,” his Index lists under Mivart – pages 107, 129, 344, 352, Darwin’s rebuttal of, 85, 342, 1218, 1219, 1222-1224.
It is my opinion that Gould fails to discredit the essential features of Mivart’s objections to the Darwinian model which Mivart presented in his introduction as I have summarized above.
By way of contrast, Leo Berg, in Nomogenesis gives credit to Mivart and cites him favorably six times including the following -
“On the other hand, Mivart (1871, p.111) says, ‘Arguments may yet be advanced in favour of the view that new species have from time to time manifested themselves with suddenness, and by modifications appearing at once, the species remaining stable in the intervals of such modifications.’” Nomogenesis, page 389.
and the following with which Berg introduces the Conclusion section of Nomogenesis.
“Of course, in this matter, as elsewhere throughout Nature, we have to do with the operation of fixed and and constant natural laws, but there is, it is believed, already enough evidence to show that these as yet unknown natural laws or law will never be resolved into the action of ‘Natural Selection.’” Mivart, 1871, p.75, Nomogenesis, page 400.
What is interesting about Berg’s quotation from Mivart is that it is incomplete. Mivart’s original statement continues after ‘Natural Selection,’ – “but will constitute or exemplify a mode and condition of organic action of which the Darwinian theory takes no account whatsoever.”
There is no doubt that Berg had the highest respect for Mivart and agreed with him on all the most important issues.
Berg and Mivart both insisted that evolution proceeded by “as yet unknown laws.” It is here that I find difficulties. It seems to me that such a perspective must carry with it the assumption that it was intrinsic in the nature of living matter to evolve according to “as yet unknown laws.” What kind of laws might these be? Were there laws that ensured reptiles would independently evolve into birds and mammals? Was there a law that evolution would be ascending, that it would terminate with the highest taxa and then stop? I am unable to imagine laws with these features. What laws from the physical world would lead us to believe that a system would spontaneously become more complex? I know of no such laws. Don’t the laws of physics say the exact opposite? Don’t the laws of thermodynamics tell us that energy always tends toward a minimum? It is for that reason I must remain a Creationist with a capital C.
I cannot even imagine life originating by law, let alone evolving that way. If we look objectively at the animate world, both fossil and contemporary, we see enormous discontinuities which I feel may never be filled. Until those gaps can be filled through demonstrated reproductive continuity, we must consider the possibility that evolution has involved an indefinite number of supernatural interventions. Even if reproductive continuity should eventually be proven, the mystery will remain as to how such an ascending process could be explained by any laws with which we are now familiar. Of course such laws may eventually become evident, but at present do not, to my knowledge, yet exist.
Is it a sin to consider and even postulate that which remains possible, that which has not yet been proven to be false? So it would seem to the atheist Darwinians. I see no conflict between a non-sectarian, non-personal Creationism and the realities revealed by laboratory science and the fossil record. Futhermore, I cannot understand why others are unable to reach the same position regarding the great mystery of organic evolution. I realize that this will not enhance my reputation with the advocates of Godless, purposeless Darwinism, but it also can’t make me any more unacceptable to them than I already am.
It is significant that Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-author of the gradualist Darwinian thesis, later in life abandoned that hypothesis completely as is so evident in his last book, “The World of Life: A Manifestation of Creative Power, Directive Mind and Ultimate Purpose,” a position with which I am in strong agreement.
In fact Wallace went much further than I. I have postulated a necessary minimum of two Creators, one benevolent, the other malevolent. I find this supposition necessary to explain what I see going on around me. Here is what Wallace offers on the last page of his last book.
“We conclude, therefore, that there are now in the universe infinite grades of power, infnite grades of knowledge and wisdom, infinite grades of influence of higher beings upon lower.”
The World of Life, page 400.
Who is to say he was wrong? Not I.
(to be continued and edited.)
I call your attention to message #244 which is an essay in progress on St. George Mivart, one of the pioneers of evolutionary science. I hope this will evoke responses from either my “hundreds of rabid fans” or my “tens of thousands of mortal enemies.”
I also call your attention to a new book I am adding to the side bar list of Important Books – The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels by Thomas Gold.
The myth of fossil fuels joins the myth of Darwinian evolution to comprise the two biggest hoaxes of the twentieth century. Unfortunately they are both still very much alive!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
I am disappointd in the lack of response to my essay on Mivart presented in message #244. Surely there must be some who would find my position preposterous. Are they afraid to speak, afraid to reveal their atheist Darwnian convictions? What other blog invites crticism, even insult to the extent this blog does? I know of none myself. I feel the silence indicates a deep insecurity on the part of the evolutionary community as well as those that support a Fundamentalist interpretation of the great mystery of phylogeny.
http://www.iscid.org/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=6&t=000370&p=106#001593
Message Febuary 6, 2009 , 23:27 by Christopher D. Beling. I welcome Dr. Beling’s critique of the Darwinian myth and have invited him to comment here.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7875657.stm
This drivel makes even my hair hurt.
It is hard to believe isn’t it
Regarding John’s essay about Mivart – the book can be downloaded here:
http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/20818
As we can see from the essay there are various concepts regarding evolution. The natural selection fantasy is obviously sufficent explanation only for those who do not seek deeper. I agree that evolution is over and so to determine evolutionary forces of the past is almost impossible today.
Thank you Martin. If you believe that evolution is over, then there are only the two of us as far as I can tell.
It is true that we can’t reconstruct the past, but we can eliminate any system that relies on chance. There is absolutely nothing in the neoDarwinian hypothesis that ever had anything to do with the origin of species or of any other taxonomic category. Once that is accepted, there remains only one alternative. The whole sequence was planned from the beginning to the end which is any time now as far as I can tell. It is a perfectly valid procedure to arrive at a conclusion through the elimination of all possible alternatives. It is common practice in the Law where it is called the “exhaustion of remedies.” That is all that we are doing with the great mystery of phylogeny. It is not a popular position these days. That does not mean that it is wrong .
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/someone-please-send-barbara-forrest-a-thesaurus/#comments
Apparently, David “I love being right” Springer feels that there is no mystery in the origin and evolution of life, that there is no role for the supernatural.
Supernatural – of or relating to existence outside the natural world.
American Heritage Dictionary.
He must believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of inanimate matter not only spontaneously to become alive an indefinite number of times, but also then to evolve in several independent ascending sequences all without guidance or initial plan. How does that differ from the Darwinism he continually ridicules? I see no difference whatsoever.
You can’t have it both ways Dave. First causes persist and must never be denied. I am inclined to agree with Barbara Forrest. That which is not natural is indeed supernatural.
It doesn’t trouble me in the least to recognize a role for one or more intelligences far beyond our present capacity to even imagine. Do you really not believe that one or more “supernatural” entities must have once existed? After all, that is all that is necessary for a “prescribed” evolution. That is all that I postulated when I introduced my one and only thread on richarddawkwins.net forum -
“God or Gods are now dead but must have once existed.”
That title evoked twelve pages of heated response, all negative, 60,000 views, probably a forum record, and my permanent banishment from that pathetic bastion of atheist, Darwinian mysticism.
Have you joined the Darwinians in their quest for an evolution without a Plan, a word Robert Broom capitalized? Have you suddenly abandoned front loading? Do you believe it is an illusion? Programs require programmers Dave. I thought everybody knew that.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I have downloaded and will read and distribute among the masses.
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/science-deprived-whackaloon-creationist-writings-from-down-under/#comments
The above is a thread introduced by David Springer concerning a very interesting paper written by Australian Creationist Alex Williams. Note the way that Springer introduces the author and his paper in derogatory terms. Apparently others at Uncommon Descent do not share Springer’s stated appraisal of Williams’ scholarship. Alex Williams is a controversal and brilliant Creationist scientist who has also criticized the “Big Bang” theory with his book “Dismantling the Big Bang.”
I add that we are accumulating deleterious mutations at a rate in excess of our capacity to neutralize them. This is especially true now as modern medicine allows many genetic defectives to procreate. The accumulation of lethal and semi-lethal mutations has probably played a key role in extinction and may do the same for Homo sapiens, due primartily to the relaxation of natural selection which characterizes our modern society. The ONLY role for natural selection is now, as in the past, is to PREVENT change. The history of the fossil record suggests that has, with very few exceptions, always proven to be a losing strategy.
“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.
There are only few interesting works regarding evolution. Next to “Evolutionary Manifesto” I recommend also Richard Goldschmidt’s “Mimetic polymorphism, a controversial chapter of darwinism”. Reading such works is a great pleasure.
Goldschmidt’s interesting ideas on mimicry are to be found here:
http://www.jstor.org/pss/2808727
Almost every Uni has access to jstor.
Thank you Martin.
Personally, I don’t believe that many of the various wing patterns of Lepidoptera have any evolutionary or adaptive significance whatsoever. There are instances where the original and the presumed mimic live on different continents and are in different genera. It is questionable if butterflies are poisonous as well. The simplest explanation is that there are or were a limited number of possible preformed phenotypic “blueprints” available. With a limited number of phenotypes, similarities are to be expected. To ascribe adaptive significance to everything we see in nature is absurd. Yet that is exactly the Darwinian perspective.
There are exceptions such as the remarkable similarity certain butterflies bear to the plants in which they roost. I interpret this not as a gradual transformation through Darwnian selection but rather that the plant and the butterfly both shared the same reserve informational pool at the time those species appeared. A similar explanation can be put forth for the “leaf fishes” which closely resemble leaves as they drift down freshwater streams. In other words, a common “prescribed” informational pool was shared by the Plant and the Animal kingdoms.
I find it impossible to imagine such adaptations arising throuigh any sort of “natural selection.”
Leo Berg mentions the research of L.F. Henneguy on the leaf and stick insects (Orthoptera) which inlude our familiar walking sticks. This group, the Phasmoidea, includes the leaf insect Phyllium crurifolium which closely resembles the leaves of the plants, members of the Umbelliferae (relatives of carrots and parsley) with which it is associated. The eggs of the insect are scattered beneath the plant along with the seeds of the plant. Not only do the eggs closely resemble the seeds externally but internally as well. The microscopic internal structure of the chorion (egg shell) shows a remarkable similarity to the structure of plant parenchyma tissue.
Nomogenesis, page 335.
Once again, I feel this may reflect a common universal genome which was simultaneously and instantly expressed when these forms first appeared. The Universal Genome Hypothesis (UGH) is compatible with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH). They both presume an enormous stockpile of information available from early on in the evolutionary sequence.
Leo Berg suggested such an evolutionary model long ago -
“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
So had William Bateson before him -
“Finally Bateson likewise (1914, p. 640) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as ‘an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present.’”
Nomogenesis, page 359.
It is unfortunte that these early pioneers have been ignored not only by the Darwinians but by their critics as well. Neither Goldschmidt, Schindewolf nor Grasse mention Leo Berg’s Nomogenesis in their books. Like Ernst Mayr, Grasse lists Nomogenesis in his Bibliography but makes no mention of him in the text. That is a form of insult if you ask me. Gould doesn’t even list Nomogenesis in the Bibliography of his ponderous “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory,” but lists himself ninety-five (95) times! Furthermore, Gould makes no reference to Schindewolf’s great book, ” Basic Questions in Paleontology,” for which he, Gould, wrote the Foreword, in which he described Schindewolf’s evolutionary views as “spectacularly flawed!” Such arrogance is unacceptable by any standard. The most revealing feature of ones ideological bigotry is given by what and who is NOT mentioned in the text of ones books and papers.
One gets the sense that nationalism has played a role in much of the evolutionary literature. That may explain why Grasse didn’t think much of the Russian Leo Berg, the Germans Richard B. Goldschmidt and Otto Schindewolf, and the Englishman William Bateson, since all three nations have humiliated France. By way of contrast, Leo Berg always recognized those with whom he disagreed and wrote highly of Darwin as a naturalist while disagreeing with every aspect of Darwin’s science, but always without rancor or bias. I predict that one day we will speak of Bergian evolution and recognize that the Darwinian hypothesis has never been anything but the product of an overactive Victorian imagination, reminiscent of Mary Shelley’s “Frankenstein.”
I am also still convinced with Robert Broom and Julian Huxley that -
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
By the way Martin, if you do not agree with my ideas, say so. The truth of the matter is that very little is known with certainty about the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny.
It is no fun for me to present my heterodoxy without being challenged. That has always been the Darwinian way however. They still pretend that they have no valid critics and never did have. If they were so certain about their precious “natural selection” wouldn’t you expect them to jump all over those of us who regard it as of little consequence? Their silence speaks volumes as to their insecurity.
Natural selection, now as in the past, has always had the same role – to PREVENT creative evolutionary change for as long as possible, a process which, for the vast majority of all the creatures that ever lived, terminated with their extinction. Apparently that is the only event still occurring.
Leo Berg claimed natural selection “maintained the standard” and I agree. Can any statement be more anti-Darwinian than that?
John, we probably still know very little about control of gene expression. Richard Goldschmidt held opinion that Punnet’s explanation of mimicry must be updated and it is not the same genes that are resposible for mimicry. Goldschmidt’s proposed the same pathways in which any mutation of dirrerent genes are constrained. Having the same color patterns at the beginning would mean that such patterns will mutate in the same “prescribed” way. And he agreed with Punnet that new wing patterns appears by saltus, in one step. So the result is the same by either way. Goldshmidt mentioned different pigments or even scales refraction by which the same color effect is attained. He supposed different genes behind them. On the other hand (considering Hox genes etc…) I would’t be surprised if processes were really controlled by the same control genes in different butterflies species.
Martin
Oh sure. Everything is controlled by genes. I don’t believe that allelic mutation ever played a significant role in organic evolution. Such mutations are nearly always deleterious and probably played a significant role only in extinction.
The problem is where did the information come from in the first place. My contention is that information did not “evolve” but was present from the onset. I feel the same is true for all the complex metabolic machinery. That did not evolve either. There is not a shred of evidence that the flagellum ever had a simpler ancestor which “became” a flagellum though time. The same can be said of every other cellular organelle. This is the exact opposite of Darwinian gradualism. It is Creationism pure and simple.
The whole notion of evolution has to be revised to accommodate the indisputable facts that transitional structures simply never existed. Schindewolf put it this way -
“We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed… The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
R.B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 395.
Viewed in this way, the only unifying feature of the evolutionary sequence is reproductive continuity which cannot be denied. Even there however, we have no idea how many times life may have been independently created or, alternatively, once created, been redirected. Without further explaining what he meant, Leo Berg claimed -
“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
There is nothing in the fossil record in conflct with that statement and much in its support. It is no wonder that the Darwinians still pretend that Berg and Schindewolf never existed.
We also have to redefine what the word Creationist means. It is not necessarily a synonym for “religious fanatic” as the Darwinians would like everyone to believe. A Creationist can be a person who agrees with William Bateson, Leo Berg, Robert Broom and Otto Schindewolf that evolution was a phenomenon in which chance played no role whatsoever. In other words, evolution was planned.
It is interesting that the word evolution derives from the Latin word “evolvo” meaning to unfold, like the pages of a book. I believe that the book of evolution is now finished with the present biota being the last that will ever appear.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I’ve just asked a German moron on rd.net a question:
“It is a hard job – to be a German and defend Darwin, isn’t it? Goethe, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Wilhelm Troll, Heinke, Suffert, Hans Driesch, Oto Schindewolf, Adolf Portman – all dismissed Darwin. And you are still a supporter of Dawkins? Why?”
http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=40293&p=1759985#p1759985
Thank you Martin. Unfortunately, I cannot read your link. I am not one of the privileged few.
“A doctrine which is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with incalculable harm to human progress.”
Albert Einstein
So much for Pharyngula, richarddawkins.net, Panda’s Thumb, After The Bar Closes, ARN, EvC, Uncommon Descent or any other forum which banishes those with whom it disagrees.
Everyone is welcome here. They know what they say will remain. That is why they do not come. They are ashamed of themselves.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Last two days I reread Czech translation of “Metamorphosen im Insektenreich” written by Andreas Suchantke 1994. It is valuable introduction to non-darwinian (goethian) approach to the insect realm. The book itself – as well as the index – mentions and quotes many scientists heavily neglected by neodarwinian mainstream – like W.Schad (Geist in der Natur), F.Suffert, K.Henke, F.Heikertinger, F.Kipp, A.Portmann, H. Poppellbaum etc…
As far as I can judge the goethian approach is this one – the ideal insect “archetype” is a been. All insects are variation of this basic “bauplan”.
Theodor Eimer quoted Goethe at the beginning of each of his chapter of his voluminous “Orthogenesis schmetterlinge”. The same for professor Wilhelm Troll who posited an ideal plant or “Urpflanze” of which every plant is a variation. He often quoted Goethe as well. You need to read those work – and see pictures there – in order to underestand this approach. See also my previous post. Goethe himself appreciated his scientific work more than his literature.
Martin
I am in complete sympathy with Goethe’s evolutionary views. Furthermore, I believe they have now been fully realized with “The Horse,” “The Elephant,” “The Giraffe” and of course “Man.” All of evolution has been goal driven and orthogenetic in nature. The ideal body plans were always contained in the lineages that led to each of the terminal types that comprise the contemporary biota. At present we witness only extinction without a single species being replaced. I have presented the evidence for this in my published papers much of it provided by others, notably Robert Broom and Julian Huxley, only to see that evidence totally ignored by all evolutionary scholars.
In the past there were many side branches that failed to survive. Unfortunately that may prove to be true for all of the terminal biota as well, including Homo sapiens That is why I stick with my conviction that evolution is finished.
Unfortunately, such an interpretation is unacceptable to a congenital Darwinian atheist. Neither does it satisfy the Christian Fundamentalist. Neither faction can help it and I do not believe they ever will be able to manage to accept that which is very obvious to this investigator. In the meantime they remain too busy squabling with one another ever to consider the possibility that they might both be dead wrong which is my present position.
All of evolution was planned from beginning to end just as has been all of ontogeny in every organism that ever existed. They both proceeded by the unmasking of pre-existing information. The death of the individual organism is the perfect counterpart to the extinction of the species. Both are irreversible. I realize this is a pessimistic perspective but I see nothing in the organic world that does not point to that final scenario, an end we are in the process of observing right now.
The whole thing strikes me as a “Cosmic joke” perpetrated by an unknown number of “mentalities” far beyond our capacity to even imagine.
In short -
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
“I hate being right and pray I am wrong.”
http://www.nature.com/news/2009/090225/full/4571067a.html?s=news_rss
Chris Beling is one of my few supporters and has mentioned my papers in his lectures and symposium appearances. I have invited him to appear here but he is probably afraid it might cost him his job!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Like Hell it is!
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=90574
Some anonymous clown at Uncommon Descent is posing as Alfred Russel as in Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace, while he rejected the Darwinian model remained a convinced evolutionist all his life. Uncommon Descent is losing all credibility.
I copy here my latest post to rd.net which is invisible for non-participants. I was inspired by Fr.Heikertinger:
—-
Neodarwinian selectionists see mimicry and selection everywhere. They suppose that [i] P.Dardanus hippocoonides[/i] is mimicking [i] Amauris niavius [/i]. Also Fr. Nijhout wrote in his paper:
[i]
The form hippocoon is probably controlled by the same allele (h) as
hippocoonides. Hippocoon is more widespread than hippocoonides;
their distributions do not overlap because the two forms mimic different geographic races of Amauris niavius.
[/i]
http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout/images/Dardanus2003.pdf
Amarius niavius looks like this:
[img]http://www.kipepeo.org/butterfly-gallery/Amauris_niavius_Friar.jpg[/img]
Such wing patterns are to be found in many different butterflies species in Africa. Selectionists posit in such cases ad hoc “mimicry”.
The question is if also [i] Leptophobia cinerea [/i] is mimicking [i]Amauris niavius[/i]:
[i] Leptophobia cinerea [/i]:
[img]http://tbn1.google.com/images?q=tbn:13vVDmPVjsHuYM:http://pick5.pick.uga.edu/nh/tx/Insecta/Lepidoptera/Pieridae/Leptophobia/cinerea/images/UGCA196606_01.top.320.jpg[/img]
There is only a little problem. [i] Leptophobia cinerea [/i] lives in South America.
Thank you Martin but don’t expect that will convert anyone. Godless, purposeless Darwinism is an incurable, congenital defect.
I believe that there are a lmited number of “prescribed” butterfly patterns just as there are a lmited number of any other morphological expressions. That can explain why there can be both marsupial and placental saber-toothed cats, wolves, mice, squirrels, etc, etc. We find similar phenomena in the plant kingdom with distantly related plants exhibiting similar morphologies as well as chemically identical scents and flavors.
Similarity certainly does not prove mimicry or convergent evolution. The latter is pure fantasy on the part of the Darwinians. The notion of determinism is foreign to the atheist liberal mentality. They will go right on seeing adaptation and “evolution in action” everywhere they look.
I first published this interpretation in my paper, Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information, Rivista di Biologia 93:513-524, 2000. That paper is available here under “Evolutionary Works” on the introductory page.
Thank you John. I suppose darwinists do not present their bizzare theory on plants – it is hard to see “adaptation” at shapes of leaves etc… The same for coloration of animals. Only part of it can be reduced to crypsis – aposematism. The main bulk of patterns have no “selective” or “adaptive” meaning at all.
It is harder to be a Darwinian when you are a botanist as there are no transitional forms between the plant Divisions.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=22102663&postID=6511160757446252817
Please note my challenge to Allen MacNeill to openly discuss the mechanism of organic evolution. As you can see, it died on the vine when he refused to continue the discussion by blocking any further messages from me. The remarkable reality is that Uncommon Descent is perfectly wlling to engage Darwinians but is unwilling to permit an ally like myself to speak.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. It is par for the protectionist, isolationist, insecure world of internet communication. I am getting fed up with the whole degenerate scene.
Gregor Mendel was no fool. He knew that he could never get his work published in the major botanical journals of his day. So what did he do? I’ll tell you what he did. He published his work in his own journal, “The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn.” (Austria) of which he was an Editor.
I think that is what I will do from now forward. This is my journal and this is where I will publish. The rest of the scientific world can go play with themselves as far as I am concerned. I am getting sick and tired of being ignored, denigrated, and treated with contempt by a bunch of unfulfilled, largely anonymous intellectual zeros most of whom have never published a word themselves bearing in any way on the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny.
Accordingy I am changing the name of this weblog to -
“The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of South Burlington.” (Vermont)
John A. Davison managing Editor and Editor in chief. We do not accept manuscripts from anonymous authors.
What self respecting journal would?
I have requested Anonymous Benefactor to make these changes.
I love it so!
My banishment at RD.net is imminent. Because one of my posts has been deleted without any explanation and because I am allowed to post only to from outside invisible “Debunking creationism” section I copy my latest (or – the last?) post here as well:
——
Fred. Nijhout has separated Papilio Dardanus into 3 groups (Polymorphic mimicry in Papilio dardanus: mosaic dominance,big effects, and origins 2003): hippocoon, cenea and planemoides. Such a division has been already done by Heikertinger 1944 (fig 28, 29, 30, 31). Heikertinger’s work hasn’t been mentioned in Fr. Nijhout paper.
Yet the very interesting thing is that there exist gradual “transitional forms” between the first and the third group.
We can derive race hipopocoon gradually from Papilio dardanus tibullus via P.dardanus antinorii (Haase 1893) – P.dardanus tibullus f. trimeni (Poulton 1906) P.dardanus polytrophus f. trimeni (Eltringham 1910) to P. dardanus hippocoon (Eltrigham 1910).
Those races had been described long before they have been described as “interracial crosses” mentioned in materials presented by Eversbane Wed Jun 18, 2008 4:06 pm:
Here we illustrate crosses using the ‘‘yellow’’ Hya allele (of the antinorii race from Ethiopia) and Hym allele (of
the meriones race from Madagascar).
Neodarwinian school insists on existence of “transitional” forms in evolution. Here we are facing viable transitional forms in the case of P.dardanus. Yet they are not mentioned in “peer-reviewed journals” in order to posit “mimicry”. Only few races are picked up from the fluent living sequences to posit “mimicry”. If we for instance see the same black wing patterns on white, yellow, orange, blue and brown colored backgroud in the same species there is no need to pick up the brown ones and present them as “mimics” because there is a similarity between this and other “unpalatable” species. We are just facing transitional – or Vavilov’s homologous – sequences in species. As Heikertinger (as well as the father of orthogenesis Eimer) recommended everyone reading about neodarwinian “mimicry” fancies- one has to check all races and species in butterflies atlases first. Then one can see that the whole concept of mimicry often rests upon neodarwinian pre-selected bombastic presentation of suitable races/species and neglecting of existence of transitional unsuitable ones . It is sad that such arguments are not adressed in the “peer-reviewed” journals. That such patterns are to be found in different continents is another argument refuting butterflies “mimicry”.
http://www.biologiezentrum.at/pdf_frei_ … 20heik.pdf
http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout/ima … us2003.pdf
Martin
I admire your willingness to try to convince the Darwinians that they are chasing a phantom that never existed. Of course they will banish you from their “groupthinktanks” just as they banished me.
You can’t reason with congenital ideologues who are unable to conceive of a purposeful universe. .
Why don’t you join me at Uncommon Descent where I am again allowed to expose the Darwinian fairy tale? I could use a little help there.
Incidentally, your two links do not function.
I’ve copied those links from my post, that is why they are malfunction.
Here they are again:
http://www.biologiezentrum.at/pdf_frei_remote/ZOEV_29_Tafel%20heik.pdf
http://www.biology.duke.edu/nijhout/images/Dardanus2003.pdf
It is just a year I’ve started a thread about mimicry on rd.net. There are almost 400 posts. Do you think I convinced anyone or anyone convinced me? I would guess no. The thread has been buried and all information are unavailbale from outside. One should ask – does it has any meaning to discuss any issue with darwinists?
Martin
Of course you cannot reason with ideologues of any persuasion.
Darwinians are congenital “prescribed, “dyed-in-the-wool, “born that way” losers.
Austrian entomologist Franz Heikertinger summarized his life’s work – more than 30 years – regarding “mimicry” in his monography “Das Rätsel der Mimikry und seine Lösung” Jena 1954. Oddly enough it was published in East Germany – was it published the same year Soviets pulled their soldiers from Austria and let ti be? Neverthenless Richard Goldschmidt mentioned Heikertinger’s work but he thought that “mimicry” exist. But Richard Goldschmidt backed idea of R. Punnet that “natural selection” plays no role in “mimicry”. So or so I think that “mimicry” must be extablished first. I am also not sure if it exists. McAtee who published research done by US Agriculture department – 80.000 vivisected birds stomachs during 45 years –
concluded that birds do not care about insects “aposematism” and “mimicry” at all.
I think that positing polymorphic mimicry in the case of Papilo Dardanus is more than dubious. Also yellow-black stripes is so common in insect realm that it is very audacious to claim that all those species (hundreds of them) are mimicking wasps. The interesting counterargument are bees – they seems to be cryptic.
Uf sorry for my English, I’ve meant dissection, not vivisection.
Martin
Thanks.
I can’t remember the source but some investigator had his graduate students eating all kinds of butterflies and nobody got sick. I don’t believe any bird ever got sick either. The whole mimicry business is just one more Darwinian fantasy if you ask me. They love to dream!
My explanation is that there are a limited number of phenotypes that are available in the “prescribed genetic library” so it is only to be expected that some of them will be repeats. They may have no adaptive value whatsoever. Unrelated arthropds with black and yellow stripes are all over the place. So are mammals wuth spots, others with stripes. So what?
However the similarity between plants and tthe animals that are found associated together suggests to me that plant and animal may have been sharing the same “prescribed genetic library” when they evolved. I don’t see how else such relationships could have come to be.
Darwinism is absolutely useless as science. Apparently it persists simply because congenital atheists can’t accept the only conceivable alternative, a planned evolution. They are literally incompetent!
I love it so!
I just sent the following message to P.Z. Myers on Pharyngula. It was accepted but of course will never appear.
There are plenty of scientists living and dead who were evolutionists but certainly never Darwinists. Darwinism is dead P.Z. Get used to it as many other evolutionists already have. There is no longer any doubt that evolution WAS a guided process now finished.
I love it so!
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/a-spoonful-of-jesus-helps-darwin-go-down-by-jerry-coyne/comment-page-1/#comment-314618
#10
One of my better efforts to challenge the Darwinian fairy tale. I am confident it will be ignored.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
Why are trolls like “mauka” tolerated at UD? I’ve just commented there.
It is all part of the “new” Uncommon Descent. It is called “love thy enemy.”
Where can I find you at UD?
I think that the bizarre concept of “natural selection” as the driving force of evolution cannot be tested – and that is the reason why darwinism is not a real science but a myth. If you test selection in labs you either test “artificial selection” or “laboratory selection”. There is no way how to simulate complexity of “nature” artificially. So “natural selection” is untestable. I presented this opinion on rd.net. Waiting for replies – which – I suppose – will be just denigration as usually.
If your hypothesis is correct, advancements in analysing gene sequences can lead only to a strengthening of it, as the function of various chromosome sequences is worked out, and this could occur in our lifetime.
When all the data of the animal genomes is fed into a computer, the computer can try and arrange it by natural selection predictions, ie ‘a’ went to ‘b’ went to ‘c’, and fail, because however hard it tries, the data will never fit together. The computer will try and construct a tree pattern by looking for progression, and will end up failing. Then the computer will match the data to the deterioration and discarding hypothesis, and the data should match. ie, ‘This piece lasted this long here, and this long over there,’ etc.
Also, do you think it is possible that despite deterioration, some sequences are ‘extra stubborn’ so one day the blueprint for something indisputably a sabre tooth, for example, might turn up in a coral?
In your PEH you say macroevolution is no longer in process. At a rough guess there have been 20 billion births in the last century amongst humans, and no ‘next step’ has emerged, so if the trigger for each step is random, it should really have happened with 20 billion chances, bearing in mind that 20 billion births would have given enough evolution steps to account for about 4 million years worth of normal human evolution with a steady population of 100,000. Or 40 million with a steady population of 10,000. Therefore if your hypothesis is correct, this does suggest we really are at the end like you say. If we are at the end, does this imply that the goal which was aimed for has been reached? Was the goal self-awareness? And if so, was this God’s purpose? And why would he want to achieve this? Is he experiencing something through our awareness of our existence?
The difference between ourselves and apes is that we have reached the next level of intelligence, one level above theirs, so we can understand what we see in the physical world around us. They know a banana is tasty, but we are at the next level and we understand how the banana came to be on the tree, ie photosynthesis. But although in one sense we are just extra clever apes, by being at the next level we have been introduced to self-awareness, something which we cannot properly understand.
Is God at the next level higher than ours? Will humans ever have access to a higher level of understanding above our current one, and if so, will anyone on this planet ever reach it? Does it include an understanding of self-awareness? Or is there no such thing as the next level? Will our computers simulate our thinking processes and, with the benefit of having a brain like ten of Einstein’s, one day give us enlightenment? Or have we reached our limits, like the apes have reached theirs, even if a clever computer thinks extra hard for us?
By ’self-awareness’ I mean being aware that a body arrived some years ago and will depart some time in the future, and a unit of self-awareness is in that body. Why did your self-awareness end up in your particular body, and not in a different body or a different time? When we die our memories will vanish, but the self-awareness is not like decaying flesh. It has different properties, some of which we cannot understand.
Billyhippo, whoever that is.
Thanks for showing up here. We already know that “blueprints” for the vertebrate nervous system are present in coelenterates (Cnidaria) as I mentioned in my 2005 paper. The place to look for prescribed sequences is in the embryos of developing forms, not in the adults. Notice that it is in the planula larva that “advanced” genes were found. All real evolution involved (past tense) a change in the early development of the individual where an alternative pathway could be pursued. Latent precocious genes are probably turned off in the adult but still demonstrable in the embryo. Ontogeny and Phylogeny are two aspects of the same organic continuum and should be studied simultaneously. I think the most convincing evidence for a “prescribed” evolution is given by the the remarkable similarity between the skulls of placental and marsupial saber-toothed cats which I pictured in that paper (reproduced from Schindewolf). There we have two drastically different mammalian taxa exhibiting virtually indentical phenotypes. Those cats were separated by millions of years in time and thousands of miles in locality. It is absurd to regard them as converging morphologies arrived at through selection.
I don’t believe the environment ever played ANY role beyond that of permitting the expression of what was preprogrammed to appear. I think Schindewolf believed the same.
I realize this seems like a radical view, yet I believe it is fully consistent with what we “really know” from both the fossil record and the experimental laboratory.
Thanks for the comment.
VMartin
If natural selection were a creative process the Darwinians would have proved it long ago. They don’t even attempt to test their own hypothesis because they know damn well it won’t work. That is why they are not scientists. They are hamstrung because it is inconceivable for the ultra-liberal atheist mentality to accept the only possible alternative which is a guided phylogeny. There is nothing that can be done for such poor souls except to laugh at them just as Adam Sedgwick laughed at his student Charles Darwin when Origin of Species first appeared one hundred and fifty years ago.
All that artificial selection has ever accomplished is a reduction in the vigor of the employed stocks which, if continued, leads to spontaneous extinction. Natural selection PREVENTS change and never promotes it just as Leo Berg insisted 87 years ago.
Besides, creative evolution is no longer going on anyway.
Billyhippo
I am not a philosopher any more than Einstein was. I have arrived at my conviction that evolution is now finished by looking to see it in progress and failing to see anything more than the trivial production of small variations. Grasse felt the same way as I have made very plain. I do not believe in the immortality of the soul and am quite content to die confident that I did my best to search for the truth. Of course if the soul is immortal that is fine too! The unknown is always fascinating isn’t it.
I am not very happy with what the facts demand but, not being a religious fanatic, that doesn’t disturb me much. I am quite content with my science and confident of its merit.
The whole business strikes me as a kind of cosmic joke.
“La commedia e finita.”
Pagliacci
billyhippo
I believe we have reached the limits of our potential. Every aspect of human activity has historically undergone a period of flowering followed by decay. It is especially obvious in music and in literature. I have discussed this matter at length in my Essay – “The Age of Denial,” available on my home page by pushing the Essays button.
I do not forsee an age which will succeed the Age of Technology. Like the contemporary biota, I regard the present age as the terminal one in a planned sequence. I believe man is hell bent on his own destruction and is succeeding admirably. I don’t believe it can be reversed.
I do not enjoy being pessimistic but I have a responsibility as a citizen and scientist to express my concern. I am not alone in painting a dismal picture of our future. I recommend Martin Rees’ “Our Final Century” for a similar perspective.
Aplogies if you have already mentioned this, but there was an interesting article in the Sunday Telegraph newspaper published in the UK recently, in which Christopher Booker doubts natural selection.
‘As an old hand at tangling with Darwinists, I was well aware that a howl of furious protests would greet my item last week describing their curious inability to recognise just how much of the story of evolution Darwin’s theory cannot explain…’
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/4623686/Why-do-people-think-Darwinism-is-a-perfect-creation.html
I do not find the Sunday Telegraph comments discussions very satisfactory, because contributions can take over a day to appear, or, in the case of many of mine when I used to send them, no appearance at all. I wrote to C.Booker regarding these problems, which kill off debate, but I received no reply, so I gave up submitting comments. Many major newspapers do not seem to realise the PR value of managing their comments feedback properly. I find the Spectator.co.uk puts comments up fairly quickly, so a proper debate can take place.
billyhippo
There is no place for “debate” in science and never has been. It was the IDists led by William Dembski who insisted on the debate format. That was a huge mistake. It only prolonged the demise of the Darwinian hoax. The only way to deal with Darwinists is to laugh at them, to ridicule them, to treat them with the naked contempt that they so richly deserve. That is exactly how Adam Sedgwick dealt with his student Charles Darwin in 1859. It is the only effective way to deal with any ideology of which Darwinism is but one example.
Natural selection is a very important part of the evolutionary sequence.
It does today what it has always done which is to PREVENT change. It is entirely conservative in nature exacty as Leo Berg characterized it in 1922. By preventing change it has ensured ultimate extinction without which evolution could never have taken place. It is not only a vacuum that Nature abhors. She abhors any kind of change.
I do not debate. I enlighten. Those that refuse my offerings and those of my sources are doomed to oblivion which suits me just fine.
It is an exercise in futility to attempt to reason with congenital bigots whether they be religious fanatics or atheist hate mongers like P.Z. Myers and Richard Dawkins. Neither faction has ever contributed anything of note to our understanding of the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. Quite the contrary, they have always inhibited the search for the truth.
It would be wonderful if we could obey Jesus’ plea to God -
“Forgive them Father for they know not what they do.”
Jesus knew then what we finally now know to be true. Atheism and religiosity are innate congenital features of the human condition. There is absolutely nothing that can be done for such poor souls except to laugh at them. They are born to lose, “born that way” losers.
I love it so!
I asked neodarwinists at rd.net to present some example of “natural selection”. I was presented “sickle cells and malaria”, the common neodarwinian bollocks from textbooks. So I checked it a little and I found this scientific article published 1955 that contradicts “natural selection” in the case:
” It is therefore apparent that, even
if the sickle-cell phenomenon and malaria were very closely associated, the attempt to relate the two from
data giving the rates for tribal groups as a whole would have little chance of success.
.
.
The possibility exists that all the above factors acting together might maintain gene frequency without any selective
advantage. Even if this is not so, the conclusion is that the effect of the selective advantages or disadvantageswould take hundreds of years to become appreciable.”
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1981318&pageindex=1#page
———————–
So my answer was this one:
A) Darwinians checked maps of malaria and sickle cells disease. Those maps somehow correlated and darwinians posited ad hoc their beloved “natural selection” as the source of maintanance of the higher occurence of sickle disease.
Just imagine such a proof anywhere else. For instance the higher occurence of alcoholism with areas where people vote for Bush/Obama. Claiming that alcoholics vote for Bush/Obama would be ridicullous. Not in the realm of
darwinism – in their realm such correlations equals bulletproof scientific proofs.
B) There is no consensus among biologists what is the protective mechanism of sickle cells against malaria as far as I can judge. Competing theories exist. Unless the mechanism is elucidated on the scientific basis, no one can posit “natural selection” as the force maintaining sickle cells. It is an utterly premature and unscientific conclusion serving only to back up neodarwinian aims.
C) And last but not least some “creationists quote-mining” from “Two Surveys to Investigate the Relation of Sickle-cell Trait and Malaria” by Henry Foy, W. Brass, R. A. Moore, G. L. Timms, Athena Kondi, and Timothy Oluoch, 1955:
see previous quotation.
——-
Darwinists there accuse me of pulling my arguments from my “arse”.
Oddly enough arguments from my “arse” are equal or even better than arguments from their heads.
In case anyne might be interested I have been trying to express myself on the thread below. I have not been particularly successful as the thread is dominated by those who would rather discuss philososphy rather than evolutionary science which is the nominal purpose of the thread. This is nothing new. Darwinians are masters of changing the subject when things get sticky for them.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/3587356/the-secular-inquisition.thtml#comments
HI John,
Is it not amazing how the Darwinbots come over to enlighten us about how Darwinian evolution works? Me John, I am no biologist, but it strikes a nerve when some Darwinbot comes to tell an experienced evolutionary biologist such as yourself about evolution. Actually, it pisses me off.
Langenton, we can still understand how the transistor (NPN/PNP) works and embed it into CMOS and TTL chips. If you read about the Von Neumann architecture you will much better understand how the computer functions then if you simply know the specs on your PC. Your crap about how those 50 year old and more sources are “outdated” compared to now is equivalent to saying Von Neumann and all those other important figures who were the sole drivers of the information age didn’t know what the hell they were talking about. These important figures and their ideas could have been dismissed with a hand wave, and while this wasn’t so much evident in computing, it is quite evident now that this was the case in the natural sciences. John A. Davison and his predecessors understand how evolution could work, they all came to the same conclusion that the fairytale of NS & RM had practically nothing to do with it.
If you think that a PC user who can surf the internet and empty the recycle bin can enlighten someone like Von Neumann about how the computer should work then you are sadly idiotic.
John A. Davison and his predessors know how the evolutionary architecture should work, you my friend and your bozo clowns at RD.net can’t even demonstrate a single example of a new component of a molecular machine coming about via RM & NS. You haven’t even demonstrated how a base 4 system (where is that ancestor base 2 system we should be looking for?) was utilized and without demonstrating that you have simply dismissed most of the already designed systems with a hand wave and have for all these 150 years of celebrating Darwin and his cooked up ideas merely explained nothing more then micro evolution which was self-evident thousands of years ago.
VMartin has merely embarrassed you clowns over at RD.net, don’t feel bad for thinking twice about the powers of natural selection, they are quite limited and you know it. Why else would you come here? Perhaps because for the first time VMartin has opened up your eyes from Darwinian mysticism.
PZ Meyers, Richard Dawkins etc… are “PC users” compared to Davison and his predecessors.
Get real!
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Hi John and VMartin, you might want to take a look at this:
http://cfpm.org/~majordom/memetics/2000/17882.html
“anonymous benefactor”
Hi John and Martin,
Been real busy and still working on that mater we discussed. Keep up the good work gentlemen!!!
“anonymous benefactor”
Would you please erase the duplicate copy of my global warming essay?
I don’t believe in “entanglement.” It reminds me of Rupert Sheldrake’s claims. I am especially suspicious since a staff of helpers was involved.
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=18568882&postID=113094610998517478
I call attenton to this earlier blog for further evidence of the inadequacy of the Darwnian fairy tale.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601124&sid=aj34pg5CLIn0
The Grants are getting a big prize for their work which not only has nothing to do with Darwinism but instead proves that natural selection is impotent as a device for evolution. What the review fails to mention is that spontaneous, genetically fit “hybrids” were observed by the Grants, an observation fatal to the whole notion of speciation through natural selection. When they are crossed, real species do not produce genetically fit “hybrids.” Their progeny are sterile. It is as simple as that..
One of these decades a student of evolution will test Darwin’s finches to find, I predict, that they are all mere varieties of a single species. That student will not be a brain washed Darwinian as both Grants so obviously are.
Once again we see ideology conquering reality and getting a half million in prize money in the process!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. It is a matter of record.
I suppose it was Dublin who asked me if there are any material about Wilhelm Troll on inet. I’ve found something.
http://aob.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/88/6/1153
I ‘ve made a short summary of this and other works in new entry “Wilhelm Troll and German Idealistic Morphology”.
http://cadra.wordpress.com/
Thank you Martin.
Would you care to reply to the points brought up by Damian Poirier in comment number 16?
zenzeddmore
I assume you are using an alias which is a no no here.
The message to which you refer is from Feb 10, 2008. Apparently Damien Poirier questioned the reversibility of point mutations. There is no question that allelic mutations are freely reversible. Otherwise I have no idea to what you refer.
Allelic mutations have nothing to do with organic evolution and never did have. They serve only to produce intraspecific varieties and subspecies none of which are incipient species.
I hope that helps.
Fortunatelly the problems with my computer are over…
.
.
Darwinists are also trying to explain “evolution” of human languages. They even established nonsense under the name “evolutionary psychology”.
I wonder how much time it will take until there will be something like “evolutionary philology”.
Martin
There is nothing that can be done either with or for them. They are slated for oblivion and I say all the more power to them!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/09/08/the-creation-of-charles-darwin/
Martin called my attention to this piece from the New York Times. In it Darwin’s Origin of Species is described as “a masterpiece.” It is hard for me to believe that such a comment could still be made about a book which contains absolutely nothing relating to its title. Darwin and his thousands of disciples have perpetrated and still perpetuate the greatest hoax in the history of civilization.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. There it is in black and white in none other than the most rabidly liberal, the most anti-intellectual newspaper in the history of human communication. It is no wonder that it is going bankrupt.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
Hey John,
Why is Dawkins becoming so Christian friendly now? Dawkins himself collaborated with the Bishop of Oxford (now, Lord Harries) in it he claims that evolution (Darwin) is fact! and it goes perfectly with Christianity? I guess you kicked his butt so much in the forums he forgot what side he’s on.
Qoute”Nowadays there is nothing to debate. Evolution is a fact and, from a Christian perspective, one of the greatest of God’s works.”
http://atheismisdead.blogspot.com/2009/08/richard-dawkins-new-book-evolution.html
Dublin
Like all godless liberals Darwins is as slippery as an eel and completely lacking in principle, just like Paul Zachary Myers and Barack Obama. Dawkins is wrong. Evolution is not a fact. Evolution WAS a fact.
http://www.facebook.com/inbox/readmessage.php?t=1076826535463
As you can see I have entered the realm of Facebook.
Dr. Davison, I’d like to view the FaceBook exchange. Unfortunately, it appears as though you may have entered the wrong URL. I appears to be a link from your inbox, and when I click on it, it takes me to my inbox and gives me some sort of an error message.
I just searched the groups for evolution, Darwinism, and Intelligent Design. My goodness, so much to choose from. I think I’ll head for one of the groups mocking I.D.
The link works for me. There is no “exchange” at least not yet.
It works for you because it’s a link to your own private inbox, something which you and only you have access to.
Take a closer look at the URL: http://www.facebook.com/inbox/readmessage.php?t=1076826535463
If you’re posting a link to a FaceBook group discussion topic, it should look like this (for the record, this is for a topic entitled “How is genetic material added?”): http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=2209122774&topic=10273
Sorry, I botched that last post a little bit…..
This guy’s good Dr. Davison. No offense, but he might just have your number. If you’d like to give it a shot (I’d love to see the exchange, as I’m sure others would), I’ve provided the link.
The Misconceptions of Evolution
The same guy (Clive Boorman) had this to say in another topic on the same FaceBook group discussion:
For those that believe in ID
Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, anyone?
For the record Dr. Davison, I’m on “your side”. I despise the Darwinists as much as anyone. My problem is, I’m not yet educated enough to challenge the top-tier (probably not even the middle-tier) Darwinists, like this Clive Boorman appears to be. It’s very frustrating. I will say this, whenever someone mentions the lack of any testable alternative to Darwinism, as this clown did, I always make sure to mention, and link to, the P.E.H..
Thank you Jared.
Boorman makes the same mistrake that Myers and Dawkins keep making. The designer does not have to exist. William Paley made the same error when he wrote -
“Where there is design there is a designer.”
He should have substituted was for the second is.
All that is required is the creation of the design. Henry Ford invented the assembly line. Ford is dead. The assembly line lives on.
I am convinced that there had to have been (past tense) a minimum of two Creators, one benevolent, the other malevolent. I do not have to identify which one is responsible for Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and the present occupant of the Oval Office, rabid atheists all.
Furthermore, while it is true that a living God cannot be demonstrated scientifically, that certainly does not prove that God does does not exist.
You may quote me, hopefully verbatim, which is the only way to quote any source.
In the meantime I will visit the link you have provided and see what I can contribute there.
Jared
I went to the link and tried to send a message. Apparently I am unable to contribute on facebook so I will rely on you or others to present my comments verbatim. Please advise me when you have done so.
Facebook is a communication nightmare. They gave me a password and now they won’t recognize it. I say the hell with them!
Incidentally Jared, if you think someone “has my number,” you are not “on my side.”
“I won’t have cowards in my army.”
George S. Patton
Do me a favor and dare the Darwinians to come to my webpage to defend their silly credo.
Dr. Davison, I mentioned your Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and linked to this blog entry. I also mentioned similar ideas from Mike Gene and a guy named Perry Marshall.
The second guy, Perry Marshall, has some ideas that seem similar to your own:
Testable Hypothesis for Intelligent Design, Pt. 1
Testable Hypothesis for Intelligent Design, Pt. 2
Testable Hypothesis for Intelligent Design, Pt. 3
Sample:
Jared
What do you make of Facebook? Do you think they are they in bed with the Darwinians? Wikipedia sure is and as far as I can tell so is Google. Which internet venues are not is the question we should be asking.
I agree with the substance of your links except that I don’t believe creative evolution is any longer going on. If there was ever a time in the history of the earth when one