Welcome to my Weblog February 6, 2008
Posted by John A. Davison in general.trackback
I will present my views on a variety of subjects. Chief among them is my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and my paper published in Rivista di Biologia is now available here for further discussion.
You will notice that I do not use the usual format of constantly introducing new threads. I find that six threads serve to satisfy both my interests and my purposes. This format serves to be a sort of Journal, continuing to record what I hope will be my legacy as a scientist and citizen. Like Frank Sinatra -
“I did it my way.”
I have strong convictions about internet communication so I will present them now. I have no respect for anonymous auhors unless there are sound reasons why they must remain unknown. Those reasons should be verified. All too often anonymity has proven to be license for vitriol and denigration. I further hope this blog can set a standard against which those blogs and forums that must ban their critics can be compared. We all know which blogs they are so I will not embarrass them and their sponsors by naming them. I will not delete any comment unless it is obscene or contributes nothing to the discussion. If I do respond, I will mention the author’s anonymity and ask why that should be necessary. I hope these conditions do not inhibit a free exchange of ideas which is the sole purpose of this weblog.
I have strong opinions on the subject of what has been called “global warming.” I regard the changes that are occurring on this planet as threatening our very existence as both a species and a civilization. I look forward to the opportunity to defend and promote that position.
I am also a great admirer of Albert Einstein and subscribe without reservation to his determinism -
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
As far as I can determine we are all victims in a determined, “prescribed” cosmic scenario. Some of us have been luckier than others.
I hope this brief introduction will serve to set the stage for what to expect from me on ” John A. Davison’s Weblog.”
Congradulations on the $250,000 you have recieved from Creation Science Evangelisim by showing your undeniable proof for past macroevolution. Oh that is right no-one has ever shown undeniable proof for anything but microevolution (minor changes in a species). All proof of macro evolution (changces from one species to another) ever put forward have long since been proven wrong or a hoax.
My question is simple. Why is it that those who choose to believe the Bible, a book that has never been proven wrong, are called religious, and those who choose to believe evolution, a theory that has never gotten one thing right, are scientific?
Everything that evolutionist use to promote thier theory is based on circular reasoning, the rocks date the age of the fossils and the fossils date the age of the rocks. Could it be that they are willingly ignorant, (Dumb on purpose).
The truth is if it were not for the government paying the teachers to support and promote the teaching of the evolutionary religion it would have been dead long ago. Unlike religions based on the support of those who choose to fallow them evolution has to be forced on the innocent
billikent, whoever that is.
Thank you very much for your thoughtful comments. I really don’t know how to respond.
http://www.antievolution.org/cgi-bin/ikonboard/ikonboard.cgi?s=476edfd548c26076;act=ST;f=14;t=5333
Note that this blog has been noticed by the folks over at “Panda’s Thumb” at least at Wesley Elsberry’s “inner sanctum,” “After The Bar Closes.”
Some there seem concerned that they have to register before they can comment here. I wonder why that should inhibit anyone from presenting their views here or on any other forum. I give my word that nothing will be deleted or edited unless it is obscene. I might even let a little obscenity stand if it helps characterize the messenger. My goal with this venture is to set a new standard for open dialogue on important and often contentious issues. Those who are unwilling to register honestly must have their reasons. Everyone knows that there are ways of circumventing that requirement anyway so feel free to express yourselves by whatever means you may find necessary. I hope someone will pass on this invitation to P.Z. Myers, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski and forum sponsors elsewhere in the magical world of cyberdumb.
“I ‘m an old campaigner and I love a good fight.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
As for this blog – If you aren’t 100% satisfied, we will give you your money back. WE WILL GIVE YOU YOUR MONEY BACK!!
I have decided for the time being at least to continue the registration requirement. This is to separate the “men from the boys” as it were. If someone is fearful of providing his email address, he probably has little to offer anyway. I am also not in the least interested in becoming popular or having a “fan club” as have Richard Dawkins, P.Z. Myers and so many other “personalities” in the wonderful world of the internet.
I will be eighty in June so my primary purpose is to establish my convictions in what I hope will be the indelible venue of the world wide web. I hope that someday my published papers and the unpublished Manifesto will be published as a collection of my evolutionary views and convictions.
Most important is the resurrection of the great evolutionary scientists of the past that have served to provide me with the raw materials for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis as well as everything else I have ever published on the great mystery of organic evolution.
“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle
Actually there is virtue in being unpopular as Konrad Adenauer once explained as the key to his own success -
“First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously.”
The first I have aready managed to achieve as my history on internet blogs and forums will surely testify. Whether others will ever take me seriously remains to be seen.
Arnold Toynbee said much the same thing with his celebrated -
“The virtues of adversity.”
So also did Winston Churchill -
“I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents.”
So far I am doing famously and so, as my “sun sets slowly in the west,” -
SOCKITTOME!
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I also plan for the time being to limit the threads to those now in place. All too often forum leaders introduce new threads only to see them disappear into oblivion as new ones are added. P.Z Myers has presented as many as ten in one day! I have presented what I regard as the most significant issues we now confront. I hope others will offer their opinions, pro or con, on these threads as I have offered mine.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
As part on my welcome to this, my fifth venture into “blogging,” I feel it is important for all to have the opportunity to examine my earlier attempts to communicate my views and especially the way in which they were received by those who responded.
In chronological order:
Prescribed Evolution November 2005 prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/ 883 messages
New Prescribed Evolution March 2006 newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/ 654 messages
The End Of Evolution August 2006 theendofevolution.blogspot.com/ 43 messages
Evolution Is Finished March 2007 evolutionisfinished.blogspot.com/ 41 messages
Only after viewing these glorious demonstrations of unrestriained vitriol and verbal abuse can one really appreciate the way in which I have been received by those who dominate the intellectual life of internet communication. These blogs, which I wouldn’t deam of erasing, have served my purposes perfectly by illustrating how very firmly the Darwinian fairy tale is still entrenched. They are still available for those who need to gratify themselves by ridiculing others.
“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the spider to the fly;
“‘Tis the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.”
Mary Howitt
What happens on the internet stays on the internet. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was “prescribed” to be.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
Incidentally I am currently still participating at Ben Stein’s blog -
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/09/28/come-on-guys%e2%80%a6you-can-do-better-than-that/
as well as at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum where I am carrying on a virtual monologue!
Sometme on the night of January 1 we cracked 100 on the visitor list!
Speaking of blog visitation, participation and popularity, P.Z. Myers’ Pharyngula has to top the all time list in popularity. A thread he introduced yesterday afternoon Jan 1 has, as of 6:AM today, Jan 2, produced 81 comments! That will give you some idea of what we are up against. These are the folks that subscribe to his quest for world wide atheism. Pharyngula without question is the most popular science blog of all time.
The question I ask is what does this mean? My answer is that we are losing our moral and ethical values to erosion by the forces of evil. This man, and I must assume his followers, has only one goal which is to destroy the Judeo-Christian ethic on which this great country was founded. He is so consumed with hate that the subject of evolution is no longer even discussed. With fellow atheists Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins they have become a powerful triumvirate of intellectual terrorists denigrating all that dare question their godless credos. Myers proudly describes himself as a “godless liberal.” Long before Myers, another Darwinian, Ernst Mayr, described himself as -
“a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian like myself.”
The Growth of Biological Thought, page 132
The simple truth is that there is absolutely nothing in the whole Darwinian house of cards that ever had anything to do with the causes of evolution. So desperate have they become, knowing full well their paradigm is a disaster, they are now resorting to the only means left to them, the destruction of the only conceivable alternative, an evolution which was planned, an evolution that could never have taken place without an Intelligence far beyond our capacity even to imagine.
It is not just the Islamo-fascist terrorists who are trying to destroy our society. We face an internal enemy just as dangerous typified by the atheist Triumvirate of Myers, Hitchens and Dawkins, all three of whom have completely abandoned any semblance of science to become nothing but evangelists of hate toward all those who recognize a purposeful universe and a God or Gods without which such a universe could never have existed.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/14/AR2007091402199.html
Here is more evidence for the rising of organized atheism in America. We now have our first declared atheist congressman, charter schools based on humanist (atheist) principles, overnight camps for atheist kids, and even a political action committee, the Godless American PAC.
The most significant part of the editorial is the first sentence -
“A legion of the godless is rising up against the forces of religiosity in American society,”
a legion led by P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens and Richard Dawkins.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
The result of Wilson and Dawkins reasoning is an absurd concept of “gene’s eye view”. Using “gene’s eye view”
behavioral sociobiologists try to explain humanity and evolution of it. I would say the concept of selfish gene
is the last and the final outcome of the neodarwinian reasoning. Those who consired random mutation and natural
selection as base for evolution are beyond any help. Discussion with thm is almost impossible.
John, you are right with doctor Myers and all his sycophants. I don’t know if the doctor still writes his articles every two hours as he used to – unless he sleeps four hours of course. His sycophants need to be permanently
heated up. In other case they could try to use their own brain more deeply. And it is not desirable. Also atheistic
leaders are trying to attract as more atheists to their blogs as possible. No wonder there is so frantic traffic. They comment everything. When the doctor of darwinism teach his students btw?
Thank you Martin. You have always been one of my most valued sources and supporters. It is sad what is happening to our society. Apparently there is little that can be done as it seems it was “prescribed” like everything else.
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/09/28/come-on-guys%e2%80%a6you-can-do-better-than-that/
I recommend this link where I am carrying on an interesting dialogue concerning Free Will. My latest comment is #495.
You may note that I have reservations about Free Will. So did Albert Einstein -
“Everything is determined…by forces over which we have no control.”
and
“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.”
my emphasis.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
With respect to Martin’s message #12, I can say without reservation that NOTHING Richard Dawkins has ever written on the subject of evolution ever had anything to do with the origin of species or of any other taxonomic category. Now he has abandoned science completely to dedicate all his energies to the promotion of world wide atheism. It is sad that someone with such literary gifts should prove to be so out of touch with reality.
Just curious, John. Have you read any of Dawkin’s publications. It is a little out of date, now, but “The Extended Phenotype” has quite a bit to say on evolutionary biology.
What has atheism to do with biology, by the way?
Alan, I am afraid Richard Dawkins’ selfish gene as well as his extended phenotype are only just stories.
Our grandchildren would study these nonsenses as we study nowadays Darwin or Haeckel thoughts as history or sometimes as curiosities. Of course Haeckel did many damages to German society with his thinking. The same is with Dawkins, Wilson etc… These guys think they are making science. In fact they are making obscure, mystical philosophy of evolution and life. Dawkins “Selfish gene” is the latest fashion. But you know how unstable fashion is.
Alan
I have read enough of Dawkins to come to the same conclusion as that reached by Cyrus Noe -
“I read as little of Dawkins as possible.”
Dawkins is a gifted writer with a congenital atheist agenda which has completely blinded him to the realization that life could never have arisen by chance or evolved in that way. He has not only rejected theism entirely, he, like P.Z. Myers, his New World surrogate, has now abandoned any pretense of science to dedicate all his energies to the cause of Universal Atheism. Go to P.Z. Myers’ Pharyngula and click on the red A and see the real Richard Dawkins, a man who, no longer a scientist, if he ever was one, has become an evangelizing atheist.
His many books, each more bizarre than its predesssor, contribute nothing of substance to our understanding of the two great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. Like Myers and Hitchens he has become a pathetic demonstration of Einstein’s lifelong determination, a determination I share with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
“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.”
Albert Einstein
The Dawkins/Myers/Hitchens Triumvirate are living proof for congenital atheism, a condition fully supported by studies on separated identical twins. Those three suffer from a particular virulent form of that condition. As for atheistic Darwinism generally -
“To insist, even with Olympian assurance, that life appeared quite by chance and evolved in this fashion, is an unfounded supposition which I believe to be wrong and not in accordance with the facts.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107.
Martin says:
“The Extended Phenotype” is what I was asking about. Have you read it? Or, indeed, have you read any of Dawkins’ scientific publications. “Phenotype” is full of references to the primary literature. I once made an offer to Daniel Smith that I would read a book he nominated, (Schindewolfe) if he would read “The Ancestor’s Tale”. I’ll get and read a book you recommend and write a review if you get, read and write a review of “The Extended Phenotype”. Deal?
John, re your comment 18, you do seem to dismiss Dawkins’ output rather glibly. Have you really read anything substantial by him?
You also may have missed my other query; what does atheism have to do with biology?
Alan Fox
Richard Dawkins has contributed absolutely nothing to the only matter which has ever been in question – the mechanism of organic evolution. His many books are not scientific publications. They are inventions of his mind, a mind incapable of accepting order and purpose in the universe. His books, each progressively more bizarre than its predecessor, have been sold for profit for himself and his publisher and notoriety for himself and his devoted followers, atheists all. He lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction. He is truly a tragic figure, destined with P.Z. Myers and Christopher Hitchens to intellectual and scientific oblivion. Why that has not already taken place is beyond my comprehension. It certainly is not my fault! All three have abandoned any pretense at science to become full time proselytizers for Universal Atheism.
He has ignored the real pioneers of organic evolution, real scientists, not one of whom was either a religious fanatic or a congenital atheist like himself. The notion that it is intrinsic in the nature of matter to self-assemble into a living, evolving organism even once is absurd and flies in the face of everything being disclosed by experimental and descriptive science as well as the silent, undeniable testimony of the fossil record, a record that will never be reconciled with the Darwinian model.
Here are some of my sources, each one a strict determinist, presented in their own words.
Speaking of ontogeny and phylogeny -
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.
“Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245, the entire sentence in italics for emphasis.
“…the main features of the evolutionary trend were laid out right from the start with the abrupt, discontinuous production of the type, and with evolutionary potential being restricted right from the start to certain paths.”
Otto Schindewolf, Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 360, the entire sentence in italics for emphasis.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein
It should surprise no one that I, profoundly influenced by these four great scientists, am also a strict determinist and have offered an alternative view of the great mystery of organic evolution in the form of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, a deterministic hypothesis which I feel remains in complete accord with everything now being revealed by the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Quick before Myers deletes me -
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/kristol_youve_got_to_be_kiddin.php
messages 20-26.
Apparently Myers has difficulty banning dial up connections.
I love it so!
Three hours later and I am still commenting there. I am typically gone in twenty minutes! Don’t miss this open invitation for P.Z. Myers to come here. I predict he will not show.
P.Z. Myers finally woke up and removed every one of my messages. Nevertheless, the responses I evoked from his cronies still stand as proof that I had “penetrated his security,” another one of Myers’ many Freudian slips like his “random biological ejaculations” and his description of the President of the United States as “asshole-in-chief.” The thought that this man represents the University of Minnesota, my Doctoral alma mater, makes me sick to my stomach.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
It doesn’t get any better than this!
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Those aren’t Freudian slips. I mean, he meant to say each one of those. A Freudian slip is when you accidentally say something revealing, not on purpose–that’s why it’s called a “slip.”
To penetrate something does not always mean anal penetration, unless you’re in the fifth grade. “Random biological ejaculations” is meant to be funny and to point out the obvious sexual connotations, ergo not a slip. “Asshole-in-chief” is, well, an insult, and a common one. If what you get out of that is what a prepubescent boy gets, then I think the Freudian concerns lie with you. And, really, what’s the conclusion? That he’s obsessed with anal penetration? I don’t really think you made case here, and even if you ever did–what’s the point? Who cares? There’s nothing wrong with anal sex. Or is it just that’s your brand of humor?
And, c’mon, you trounced on a random thread, contributed absolutely nothing to the topic of discussion, and said nah nah boo boo, here I am. How do you expect to be received? Do you think that impresses anyone?
But there’s a sunny side. Notice how most people ignored you, and that after your comments were deleted–but not the responses from Brownian OM–everyone forgot about you and went on with the discussion.
How does it feel to be so irrelevant? And how big of a lie do you have to tell yourself to think that more than a few people actually pay attention to you?
Keep on yellin’ at the clouds, old man. It’s entertaining.
Oh, and be sure to do the cowardly thing and delete my comment, but leave any response you might have. Are you so fragile? I guess only you and I will know.
John, who’s this neodavenet? Some “knowledgeable evolutionist” from doctor Myers atheistic drunk Pharyngula party? The poor guy seem’s to be also influenced by doctor Freud. So he seeks his spiritual consolation reading atheistic articles written by both doctors. Perhaps you should tell some kind words to this unfortunate wreck beyond any help.
Aarggh! Yes, we all be drunk atheistic pirates where I come from, VMartin! And we all like the Freudian anal sex!
But, uh, why would anyone seek “spiritual consolation” by consulting “atheistic articles”? Where I come from atheist isn’t a bad word, and we don’t need “spiritual consolation”. We do need, or at least prefer, coherent thoughts and correct grammar.
You should brush up on the proper use of the apostrophe. Oh, I’m sorry, I mean “aarggh!”
Martin
My first guess is that neodavenet is DaveScot/David Springer and I will bet that the email he has given is a phony.
As for you neodavenet, whoever that is – Martin is a fine scholar and for you to criticize a man whose first language is not English labels you as a pompous boor.
I don’t think atheist is a bad word either. I think it is a “prescribed” genetic malaise over which one has very little control. It certainly is not a position one can arrive at rationally.
neodavenet is the perfect example of what is wrong with internet communication, just one more cowardly, anonymous, unfulfilled sociopath.
Thanks for exposing yourself neodavenet, whoever that is. Never fear neodavenet. I wouldn’t delete you for the world!
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
neodavenet sure isn’t DaveScot/David Springer. Since neodavenet is up to date on my recent “penetration” of P.Z. Myers’ hate blog, he most likely is one of Myers’ faithful sycophants, perhaps even P.Z himself! There is no way to be certain with cowardly anonymous blowhards. His email is valid and I thanked him for his participation.
I love it so!
As I used to say over at EvC until Percy, whoever that is, couldn’t stand it any more and banned me -
WHO IS NEXT?
I love it so!
http://expelledthemovie.com/blog/2007/09/28/come-on-guys%e2%80%a6you-can-do-better-than-that/
As one can see I am also raling against anonymity at Ben Stein’s blog. I call your attention in particular to my exchanges with Shel S, whoever that is. My latest message is #514, which is still awaiting approval.
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000370-p-75.html
I refer all to my comment 14:05 January 9 where I am also discussing anonymity.
Comment #514 above (#31), has become #516 after approval. I am afraid I am like a dog with a bone about anonymity. Pharyngula, After The Bar Closes (Panda’sThumb) and Uncommon Descent all have about the same anonymity index (the ratio of anonymous comments to comments by known authors) of around 7 to 1. I sure hope we can do better than that here. So far we have.
Quick before P.Z. deletes it (#34)
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2008/01/baker_county_florida.php
It didn’t last long so here it is verbatim.
Ode To Atheism, to be sung to the tune of PepsiCola hits the spot.
“Atheism hits the spot,
Three apostles, that’s a lot,
P.Z., Chris and Dickie too,
Atheism is the one for you.”
I love it so!
Mr. Davison, I was examining your website for when you ran for governor. You mentioned “…have recently purchased a ten acre lot on the shores of Lake Champlain on which I plan to build an energy efficient home to include a composting toilet.”
Did you ever build that home and the toilet?
beancan5000, whoever that is.
No. I changed my mind and stayed in town and now rent an apartment. By the way, it is Dr. Davison and has been for 54 years and I don’t build toilets.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
I love it so!
Dr. Davison (I meant no disrespect) I read your proposals for what you would implement if governor
and thought it was interesting, that’s all.
I also read your situation at the university and found that to be sad but not surprising. Evolution is considered a “done deal” in academia (but not in the real world of course) so you knocked up against the entrenched
Darwin Mafia.
beancan5000 is just a name I picked out of the blue.
I am amazed that you were banned online in so many places. I have the impression that, as a Dr. you
have always been able to demand respect, certainly in the university this respect is automatic.
You can walk into the classroom with superior knowledge compared to the yet-to-graduate
classroom masses.
Unfortunately, waltzing on to blogs demanding or insinuating this demand for respect rubs folks the
wrong way. It isn’t really an intelligence issue but more of charisma and humility.
Anyway, no big deal. You don’t have to prove anything to anyone: you have the degree and the papers
to show your command of the subject matter.
Could you elaborate on your term “I love it so!” Does this mean you love engaging in controversy? I have
never seen anyone post as you do.
beancan5000, whoever that is.
I have never been
“watzing on to blogs demanding or insinuating this demand for respect.”
That’s lot of crap. Quite the contrary, I have expected rejection and even encouraged it with SOCKITTOME. You see I have supreme confidence in my science and in the sources which made it possible.
It is far from automatic to be given respect in Universities. They are among our most hide bound institutions, with most of them dominated by political ultra-liberalism and Darwinian atheist mysticism.
I have been rejected by both sides of this idiotic debate for the same reason. It is called fear – fear that both sides are dead wrong and the truth lies elsewhere, where I and my predecessors have properly identified it to be, in an evolution for which there was never any role either for chance or for an intervening God.
“I love it so” is the last part of General Patton’s comment on war -
“War, God help me, I love it so!”
So do I, especially when I am waging war with cowardly, egomaniacal, “prescribed,” “born that way,” intellectual lightweights with which cyberdumb is so richly endowed. They are all welcome here even though they have banned me from their many “groupthinktanks.” The fact that they fail to show up pleases me enormously!
“The best defense is to be as offensive as possible.”
John A. Davison
I agree with Konrad Adenauer (der Alte) -
“First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously.”
The best evidence they are taking me seriously is their refusal to engage me here or anyplace else for that matter. Both sides of this idiotic debate are terrified of my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, the Fundamentalists because it is does not require a personal God, and the Darwinian atheists because it demands an intelligence and purpose far beyond our power to even comprehend. Both factions are ideologically dominated by congenital predispositions that render them impotent as rational observers of the natural world. Their arrogant leaders serve as magnets for like minded followers as is perfectly obvious to anyone with half a brain.
“Birds of a feather flock together.”
Cervantes
All any of the major forums do or have ever done is ban or ridicule their critics, often for the slightest of reasons. Some blogczars like DaveScot/David Springer revel in it!
That is what has prompted me to offer this blog. I wouldn’t dream of deleting or ridiculing anyone who can present a reasoned perspective no matter how far out it may seem. How many other forums and blogs can say as much? If nobody shows here it will mean only one thing. They are insecure about their presumed convictions. I am not insecure about mine or about anything else for that matter.
“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
“Let my enemies destroy each other.”
Salvador Dali
It doesn’t get any better than this.
” A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Dr. Davison,
Patton! Using a statement from him is appropriate in this current war of ideologies. I get the hint you are a
“take no prisoners, ‘Burn it Sherman!’ ” kind of guy.
I read part of your “Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information” and you make a valid point:
“that information does not arise de novo but must have a source. While that source has
yet to be identified…”
Since this seems a rather quiet place not bombarded by stupid one-liners and spammers I’ll give my reasoned perspective for what it is worth. It answers, in my mind, the source of information.
I am convinced that God, as set forth in the bible, did create all things. Matter (hydrogen, carbon etc.) had to come from somewhere. “Nothing exploding into existence” denies all logic and common sense. Either there is a God who has always existed who created matter and assembled it together in working order, or matter has always existed and assembled itself into working order. Either the light is on or the light is off.
To me (my opinion) it is a binary choice. I look at creation and see there is no possibility mindless, random processes could produce such intricate, fantastic designs like the maple seedling. It is aerodynamically designed to be dispersed by the wind. A blind, mindless tree can’t design an aerodynamic seedling neither can blind, mindless chance.
Also consider a spider. It can spin a web in total darkness not needing its eyes. For even a human to create such a web, certainly in darkness, would require much trial and error to get it right yet the spider does it correctly every time. At what point did the spider sit back and think, “Ahh, that’s good. I can now effectively trap my dinner on my doorstep.” When? How many millions of years? Billions? If I squeeze my sphincter and think, “make silk” all the days of my life will millions of years from now my descendants develop the ability to produce silk and spin webs to catch chickens? This is how silly the logic of random, mindless, processes producing information, order, and purpose-driven mechanisms appears to me.
Back to the spider: it dies before its offspring are born so the information for making a web can’t come from teaching so where did it learn to make a web? Is it in the DNA? Did random chance put that information there or did the spider program its genetic code the ability to weave webs when its brain does not seem to have the capacity for such a thing? I conclude God programmed the spider with the ability to weave webs because spinning a web requires specific information designed for a specific task and that requires intelligence to do. If it’s all random chance the spider may as well have developed tiny feathers to flap itself into the wind and use its web to catch squirrel dung to eat.
So that is my thinking on the matter, looking around taking in what my little brain can perceive and
put it together in a way that makes sense. This is the conclusion I have come to when honestly looking at the world.
Some people do think it all came about by chance and they have reams of tedious minutiae
attempting to explain it all to make sense to themselves. This is why most people ignore evolution because 1) it is irrelevant to most everyone except biologists and 2) just as most people don’t read warranties, legalese, and pages of fine print most people aren’t going to bother learning about evolution and will automatically accept or reject what the “experts” say about it. The “expert” that is chosen to be the final authority seems to depend on cultural factors, mainly accepting what the parents and schools have taught achild, hence, the fierce contestation of the school systems on what to teach the children.
Both sides furiously declare they are correct. Both sides have institutions and establishments teaching their point of view. The conflict that has arisen is about which view the government will endorse which would change the dominant culture by forcing /brainwashing/indoctrinating everyone to accept a certain viewpoint.
I generally shy away from debating the issue of “God/No God therefore evolution” because it seems pointless. Everyone is certain they have the truth (myself included) so all arguments contrary to their conclusions is dismissed outright. No person knows what the earth was like 10,000 years ago. It’s all guess and conjecture mostly. For all we know the earth was larger or closer to the sun. We may have had 2 suns at one time and they converged. Who knows? We don’t. We will know more in the future so one can put faith in science that more answers will be found but it will be beyond one’s lifetime most likely.
Your paper of “the unknown source” put me in mind of the Athenians who worshipped an unknown god:
Acts 22:
Then Paul stood in the midst of Mars’ hill, and said, Ye men of Athens, I perceive that in all things ye are too superstitious. For as I passed by, and beheld your devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you:
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; Neither is worshipped with men’s hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; And hath made of one blood all nations of men for to dwell on all the face of the earth, and hath determined the times before appointed, and the bounds of their habitation; That they should seek the Lord, if haply they might feel after him, and find him, though he be not far from every one of us: For in him we live, and move, and have our being…
Beancan5000, whoever that is.
I see you believe in God as set forth in the Bible. I don’t regard the Bible as a scientific source. It presents a great ethic and that is all. No one has the foggiest idea about God, how many there were or any other aspect of their presumed reality. All that can be established beyond any question is that one or more such entities must have once existed. Nothing more need be assumed to account for what we now know for certain.
Thanks for commenting.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
This is for Sal Cordova.
I would like to be able to contribute to your blog -
http://www.youngcosmos.com/blog/
but am unable to register. Perhaps you could supply me with a valid user name and password.
Thanks
It is now the end of the first month for this blog.
Let me remind all that visit here that although I am banned from participation at ARN, RichardDawkins.net, Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent, Panda’s Thumb including After The Bar Closes, EvC and several other blogs and forums, that no one is now or ever will be banned from participation here. I reserve only the responsibility to delete obscene or defamatory comments, and that only after they have been properly aired. It is my hope to offer a forum for honest intercourse, a venue virtually unknown in the cybersphere of evolutionary science. So you see there is absolutely no excuse for failing to respond to my invitation to comment here.
Those that refuse to participate here will fail to appear for one reason only. It is fear- a fear to express and defend ones convictions (assuming they exist) concerning the great mystery of organic evolution. I especially welcome my declared enemies, those that have banned me from their “groupthink” circles, P.Z. Myers, Wesley Elsberry, Richard Dawklns, William Dembski and their loyal lieutenants like DaveScot /David Springer, Glen Davidson, Richard Hughes, and those several anonymous cowards that are so commonplace in the wonderful world of cyberspace. They are all welcome to present their views confident that their words will stand as long as this blog exists. It is long past time for a departure from the polarization, banishment, and paranoid insecurity that characterizes so much of internet communication, features that do nothing to further the pursuit of the irrefutable, absolute truth that has always been the goal of all real science and all real scientists.
“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.”
Gaileo
“We have nothing to fear but fear itself.”
Franklin Delano Roosevelt
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
The question I now ask is why is there so little interest in this blog? Here is my answer.
It is because it is tolerant and invites the views of all, guaranteeing that no one will be deleted or baned from participation.
You see one of the most remarkable characteristics of the human animal is the requirement to loathe something or someone. That explains why the most popular blogs are those that practice loathing the most effectively.
Pharyngula unquestionably leads the pack in loathing. P.Z. Myers is homozygous at the “loathe organized religion locus.” He is consumed by it as are Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens as well. That is all that they talk about. I have already explained why they must behave this way. They realize that the Darwinian model is a total disaster but being unwilling to accept the only alternative, a guided evolution, they now are forced, probably genetically, to attack those that do. It is well established that whether one believes in a Creator or not has a heritable basis and these three have a particularly virulent form of this genetic disease.
Loathing is rampant on internet blogs generally. P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula has a special category for those he “loathes the most.” He calls it his “kill file” and I am proud to be one of its earliest members.
Wesley Elsberry has another device for dealing with those he “loathes the most.” He places their comments, no matter where they originated, in what he calls “The Bathroom Wall.” Those that end up in the Bathroom Wall often end up being permanently baned. Wesley instituted a special device to permanently eliminate me from Panda’s Thumb, the “final solution to the Davison problem.” He created a special thread just for me called “Davison’s Soap Box.” Like all threads at Panda’s Thumb it disappeared south off the bottom of the page and with it any further participation by me at Panda’s Thumb.
EvC had a similar mechanism for dealing with those they “loathed the most.” They confined us to what they called “Boot Camp” where we were supposed to learn “how to debate,” a gift I have never mastered. I believe I was the first inhabitant of that cell which was preliminary to banishment. It seems if you can’t “debate properly” there is no place for you at EvC. I still have no idea who runs EvC or I would identify him or them.
At Uncommon Descent loathing takes the form of summary banishment, often for the slightest of reasons. No one dares challenge the pronunciamentos of UD’s chief blogzar, DaveScot/David Springer. I know all about it as I have been banned twice as have my several papers. Banishment has become common at Uncommon Descent, serving to select for compliance and uniformity, a feature of most internet blogs. One thing I like about Ben Stein’s blogs is that no one that I know of has ever been banned although some comments may have been deleted. That is my goal here.
So you see I can’t expect much success here with this blog because it is much too tolerant to ever appeal to those for whom loathing is so very important. It is pretty hard to loathe someone who accepts all views irrespective of their bias, a person who adheres to a deterministic philosophy which proclaims with Einstein that -
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control,”
a philosophy in which there is no place for hate because people are not responsible for their genetically “prescribed” biases and behavior. In that sense the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis presents a beautiful ethic for human behavior or at least I like to think so.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I’m guessing the reason no one is arguing with Mr. Davison is that they don’t want to bother with the onerous registration process.
Perhaps if you opened up the comments to anyone, people might be more likely to discuss your theory.
Woot, the anonymous wise old owl I presume.
Apparently from your comment you are not willing to discuss what you call my “theory?” It is an hypothesis, not a theory and, unlike the Darwinism you represent, remains in complete accord with both the fossil record and the revelations of experimental and descriptive science.
You registered didn’t you? It wasn’t too onerous for you was it?
This blog is not only open to anyone, it is open to everyone, even anonymous chronic troublemakers such as you have proven to be. Who has been denied a voice here? Name one or hold your piece!
Incidentaliy, it is Dr. Davison and has been for 54 years.
Thanks for commenting. I will now thank you personally with the email address you had to reveal.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable”
Woot’s email address is thirty-seven (37) characters in length but oddly has not bounced.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Loathing is rampant on internet blogs generally. P.Z. Myers at Pharyngula has a special category for those he “loathes the most.” He calls it his “kill file” and I am proud to be one of its earliest members.
Mr. Davison,
I submit that by requiring registration, you’ve effectively created an opt-out killfile for the entire Internet community, and in doing so have stifled debate on this important topic in far more severe of a fashion than Dr. Myers has.
Woot, whoever that is,
Your submission has been duly noted and rejected. Any person who cannot sign his real name and a valid email address to his public comments has nothing of significance to offer anyway. It didn’t stop you did it?
Furthermore, there is little to debate on the only matter which has ever been in question, the mechanism of a long past evolution. I have presented my summary of that mechanism and now await others to do the same. Debate is for lawyers and politicians, not scientists. Those who refuse my invitation will do it for one reason only. They have no confidence in their own position. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was “prescribed” to be.
Perhaps Woot would like to be the first to respond to my invitation. I am betting he won’t!
I note that you persist in addressing me as Mr. Davison in the same message that you refer to Dr. Myers, the second biggest bully on the history of internet communication. The first of course remains DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent. Thanks for exposing yourself. Don’t worry Woot. I won’t delete you no matter how crass you continue to be. Now don’t disappoint me.
By the way, how and why did you ever come up with an email address 37 characters long?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I’d say nine times eight is 72, Mr. Davison.
I’d also suggest that evidence shows that evolution is not “long past,” but in fact continues to this day through the mechanism of natural selection.
I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by suggesting that.
Toot, whoever that is.
Well thanks for proving that your 37 character long email address is valid.
You are very definitely out on a limb by claiming that “natural selectuon” ever had anything to do with evolution except to prevent it for as long as possible. Your courage is laudable and so now I ask you to provide a single example of a recent, experimentally verified species, it’s immediate ancestor and the cytogenetic mechanism by which it was produced. Please do not present your answer here but on my “Evolution is Finished” thread where I have asked everyone to respond. Just think Toot, you will be the first to prove that I am dead wrong when I agree with Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse that creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past.
Registration wasn’t so “onerous” now was it?
Ask your hero P.Z. Myers to do the same. I predict he wouldn’t dream of appearing here any more than would Wesley Elsberry, Richard Dawkins, William Dembski, Denyse O’Leary or any other of the prominent spokespersons feverishly engaged in the “great debate.” Debate is for lawyers, philosophers, religious fanatics, congenital atheists, politicians and various other charlatans, never for real scientists. We prefer discovery and enlightenment to debate.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
P.S.
Is that thirty-seven character email address your only one? How do you remember it?
If you insist on continuing to address me as Mr. Davison, I may be forced to delete you on the grounds that you are contributing nothing of significance to this blog which so far you aren’t. Now I am sure you wouldn’t want that to happen or would you? Time will tell. It always does.
Thanks for commenting and, by so doing, exposing yourself as just another Darwinian worshipper of the Great God Chance.
I love it so!
Let me emphasize that natural selection never had anything to do with the generation of new species. All that has ever been demonstrated is the production of intraspecific varieties and subspecies, none of which are incipient species. Before I was born William Bateson properly identified Mendelian genetics and the selection of its alleles as blind alleys, having nothing to do with the origin of species or evolution generally.
“By 1924, Bateson had come to realize, and told his son in confidence, ‘that is was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution generally.’”
In 1940 Goldschmidt said the same thing even using similar language -
“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species.” Both quotes are from Davison, J. A., “Evolution as a self-limiting process,” Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220, 1998.
Not only has natural selection never had anything to do with creative evolution, it has prevented it by maintaining the status quo for as long as possible. New life forms emerged from within their ancestors on a predetermined schedule. Such creative events are no longer evident and I do not believe they will recur. All that remains is extinction.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species.” Both quotes are from Davison, J. A., “Evolution as a self-limiting process,” Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220, 1998.
I don’t think you can claim support for your argument by quoting yourself.
It’s the logical equivalent of saying, “X is true because I said X.”
Woot
Sorry but you are dead wrong. The quote was verbatim from Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution. Read message #52 again and this time comprehend it. You see I have sources for my science and I quote them chapter and verse. The 1998 paper I cite is also available at “brainstorms” forum. It is obvious that you never read it. I recommend you quit while you are behind and cease presenting yourself as an illiterate fool.
“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it.”
After the horse that wouldn’t drink.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
“Subspecies are actually, therefore, neither incipient species nor models for the origin of species. They are more or less diversified blind alleys within the species.” Both quotes are from Davison, J. A., “Evolution as a self-limiting process,” Rivista di Biologia 91: 199-220, 1998.
Emphasis mine.
If you had been more lucid in your earlier post, I’d have understood you. The statement above clearly implies that Davison, J.A. is the author of those quotes.
Toot, whoever that is and I am sure we will never know.
If you had been observant you would have noticed that I introduced both quotes by naming their authors. Now if you are going to offer anything of substance to this blog I suggest you get started because you are growing very tiresome. For starters respond to this -
A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
Don’t do it here. Do it on the “Evolution Is Finished” thread or not at all.
Got that? Write that down. Now do as you are told or I will ban you from any further comment.
Got that? Write that down. Now do as you are told or I will ban you from any further comment.
Check out your post #12 from the “Evolution is Finished” thread.
Blog Czars and Forum Sponsors that must ban their critics are obviously insecure. I am not insecure about anything and never have been.
Oooh, SNAP! John A. Davison in da HOUSE!!! zomg
We finally broke 500 with visitors. While I am disappointed, I am not surprised. Blogs that discourage abuse are rare.
Woot is now just asking to be banned but I prefer to let him parade himself as the crass, ignorant little snotbag that he really is. He is the perfect example of the typical, cowardly, anonymous blowhard so endemic to internet forums and blogs. Carry on Woot. It is music to my ancient ears.
In contrast with DaveScot/David Springer, the biggest bully in internet history -
“Woot is still with us.”
I love it so!
Dear Dr.Davison,
Big fan- only complaint- you should keep posting more material often. Have you come across Charlie Wagner? Like you, he is one of the few who has the courage to confront Darwinists. He has a blog at http://charliewagner.blogspot.com/ and a website at http://www.charliewagner.net/
-Choo-Min
choominsook, whoever that is.
I am also holding forth at Ben Stein’s blog, Salvador Cordova’s Young Cosmos blog and ISCID’s “Brainstorms” forum. I cannot comment where I am baned. Any port in a storm as they say.
Thanks for the comment.
john.a,davison.free.fr/
Congrats on your new blog. I am looking forward to reading it!
chapman55k
We just cracked 1000 visitors since December 28. This has to be one of the least visited weblogs in cyberdumb. I am sure Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent and Panda’s Thumb each have that many visits each day!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I think I will borrow a page from Oprah Winfrey and use this thread to recommend what I feel every thinking person should read. The first I have already mentioned elsewhere on the global warming thread -
“The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery,
the second -
“Day of reckoning” by Patrick J. Buchanan.
They both present frightening scenarios for our future, each from a distinguished scholar in his area of expertise.
I welcome any response to these endorsements. Perhaps others have books they would like to recommend. Here is your opportunity.
“No sadder proof can be given by a man of his own littleness than disbelief in great men.”
Thomas Carlyle
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.theotherrussia.org/
I also recommend the above for what is really going on inside Putin’s Russia. The Russian people will not put up with it much longer.
Buchanan, an astute student of history, remains an isolationist. His book is very interesting but I wonder if he had been president when the twin towers fell, would his response have been different from that by George Bush? I would like to think it would have been the same.
John, thank you for your response to my email, and for the link to this site. As I suggested in my email, I suspect that self-organization might be able to account for the front-loading of genetic information better than an intelligent designer. You said you do not believe in self-organization. I would love to discuss this further. I could not see a way to start a new thread – one devoted to self-organization – but I would like to see this discussed in its own thread, if you would be willing to create one. I think I can show some very good reasons for thinking that self-organization plays a key role in almost every natural process, and certainly could play a key role in evolution.
Gaylen Moore
I do not believe that it is intrinsic in the nature of organic matter to assemble itself into a living creature. More important, I know of no demonstrations of such a phenomenon. While it is true that certain molecules once synthesized can become larger aggregates, it is the origin of such basic units that requires an original intelligence of some sort. There is no need for a new thread. I am trying to keep the number of topics to a minimum here. If you can produce concrete evidence for your ideas, do it right here. Present your thesis with the evidence for it and, if it proves to be convincing, we will open a thread for it.
Here is some good news. While it took a month to break 500 visitors we now stand at over 2600. As I predicted, the majority of contributors have proven to be anonymous blowhards. That is par for the course on internet forums and weblogs. None of the “big guns” have shown their cowardly selves which I also predicted. They prefer to launch their vitriol from their bastions of hate like Pharyngula, and After The Bar Closes, supported by their wildly cheering entourages of mindless sycophants, safe from any response from the targets of their uncontrolled passions. It is gloriously revealing of the bankruptcy of the atheist mindset. The poor bastards are simply “born that way,” “prescribed” losers, born to lose!
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.”
Concrete evidence is a wonderful thing, but in many cases we need to start with a reasonably good theory before we can even figure out how to go about looking for concrete evidence. In the case of self-organization, we clearly know that complex dynamic patterns can arise from fairly simple initial conditions and rules, so I will start with the assumption that your primary concern is to see whether the principles of self-organization are powerful enough to account for a transition from non-living matter to living organisms. I suspect that we will eventually be able to build models for such transitions, but practical investigations into the principles of self-organization are only a few decades old, and the computer power to model such systems is barely two decades old, so I wouldn’t expect any full, satisfying models to be developed for at least another decade or so. Once we have models that work, the next step will be to show that the models are realistic, given what we can reasonably assume about conditions on the early earth, and given what we know about the chemical properties of matter.
Luckily for me, my proposal was not meant to explain the total transition from non-living to living matter. My proposal was focused on just one small piece of that larger puzzle. For the sake of anyone else reading this, I will paste a here a portion of my original email to you, so that people can see what my proposal is:
I have been thinking about possible naturalist mechanisms for of the origin of the preexisting genetic information posited by your theory. Is it likely that the pre-oxygen conditions on the early earth somehow led to the self-organization of vast libraries of chromosomal raw material? I’m curious to know if anyone is pursuing this particular sort of self-organization modeling. We would need to model conditions under which huge arrays of nucleic acids (or some sort of molecular pre-cursors?) could spontaneously assemble into protected libraries of molecular patterns that primitive cells could have incorporated. The genetic info probably would not have any meaning to the initial cells (which might not even be living cells – just organic sacks floating around). These primitive cells would have then been like a genetic arsenal just waiting to go off like fireworks, so to speak, once the environmental conditions became favorable, and once some primitive organisms discovered some survival or reproductive benefit in using the genetic info. Obviously the idea is very vague at this point, but is it outlandish? Do you happen to know if anyone is researching anything along these lines?
As I mentioned in my email, I am a philosopher, not a scientist, and I certainly don’t have the expertise to propose a detailed scientific theory on this at the moment. I was in inquiry mode – hoping to find out if other people (more scientifically savvy that I) were pursing this line of investigation. I thought you might know about any such efforts, since self-organization of this sort, if it could be demonstrated, could provide a naturalistic explanation for the huge hole (from a naturalistic perspective) in your theory, namely, the mechanism for front-loading of genetic information. You accept evolution as a process of information loss from an initial stock of genetic information, and I am (no doubt naively) testing the waters to see if there is a way to explain the genetic front-loading without simply saying that some intelligent agent must have purposefully designed it.
So the only challenge that I would accept (assuming I am ever scientifically competent enough to accept any such challenge at all) would be to show that there could be some realistic natural environment within which nucleic acids (or some precursors) could form and stick together in such a way that, once some sort of primitive self-reproducing organic systems appeared on the scene, these libraries of nucleic acid patterns could become the front-loaded genetic information required by your theory. This is a loooong way from explaining the origins of life, but in the context of an overall more powerful theory of biogenesis, this bit of the puzzle could provide a key argument for accepting your views of subsequent evolution, rather than simply following the standard Darwinian account (which I would agree with you, seems a bit thin when it comes to explaining the vast numbers of species and the punctuated nature of the fossil record). As I see it, except for the intelligent design part, my rough sketch of a theory supports yours.
Now the question is (forgetting about deeper the origins of life issue), can I show that nucleic acids, along with, perhaps, some sort of protective sack-building molecules, can self-organize into some form that might later work as the front-loaded genetic libraries predicted by your theory? Keep in mind I’m not trying to defend a theory at this point, I’m just trying to figure out if I even have the initial spark that could prompt a competent theoretician into creating an actually theory. I’m basically looking for whatever help I can find in thinking this through. If you, and/or anyone else can help me, then that is great. If not, I will keep searching for someone who can help. (The reason I had asked for a new thread was that I was afraid that hardly anyone would even know we were talking about this here in this thread).
Given my initial impression of you and your theory, I thought you might be a natural ally in this effort, so I started here first. If you need me to explain the basic principles of self-organization, I guess I could do that, although the Wikipedia entry on self-organization already says most of what I could say, so if a basic tutorial is needed, I would ask that we start from there, paying special attention to the subsections on “Self-organization in physics” and “Self-organization in chemistry.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-organization ) Another good place to look is “Molecular self-assembly” ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_self-assembly )
By the way, a lot of my enthusiasm for self-organization can be traced back to Stephen Wolfram’s “A New Kind of Science” as well as these books:
Myrna Estep (2003), A Theory of Immediate Awareness: Self-Organization and Adaptation in Natural Intelligence, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Myrna L. Estep (2006), Self-Organizing Natural Intelligence: Issues of Knowing, Meaning, and Complexity, Springer-Verlag.
Steven Johnson (2001), Emergence: The Connected Lives of Ants, Brains, Cities and Software.
Stuart Kauffman (1995), At Home in the Universe, Oxford University Press.
J. A. Scott Kelso (1995), Dynamic Patterns: The self-organization of brain and behavior, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Thank you Gaylen.
Unfortunately, I am able only to accept concrete evidence. The problem we are faced with is the origin of the information that was necessary for all of evolution to take place. We have exactly the same problem with the origin of the information that permits a single cell, the egg, to develop into an adult organism. That egg does not even need to be fertilized. All the necessary instructions are contained within a single cell. The notion that the environment was involved directly in any way with that highly specific information is foreign to my sensibilities. The defect is apparently mine because the Darwinians devoutly believe that ontogeny and phylogeny have both been shaped by environmental factors. I do not and never will. None of my distinguished sources ever believed the Darwinian reconstruction either. It has failed every experimental test. It is without foundation. It is wrong and always will be. What then is the alternative? It is Creationism!
I am a Creationist, the most hideous category imaginable to the atheist Darwinian mentality. They loathe Creationists as every one of their blogs testifies. My brand of Creationism does not require a living, intervening, personal God, which makes my Creationism unacceptable to the Fundamentalists as well as the atheist Darwinians. I live in the best of all possible worlds, beholden to no faction and feared by both. Why else am I persona non grata? When a published scientist is baned from virtually every forum, what is the only possible explanation? You don’t ban bufoons, you welcome them to ridicule them. That is what I have always done and will continue to do here. It is great sport. The only explanation I can offer for this remarkable state of affairs is summarized in the four letter word FEAR. It is not fear of John A, Davison. Their terror is of my sources, among the finest minds of the post Darwinian era, not one of whom was either a religious fanatic or an atheist mystic. If my adversaries gave me any credence at all they would open a Pandora’s Box of Troubles that would surely destroy both factions in this mindless debate, a debate which has no place in science. That they dare not do! They are intellectual cowards, lurking in their ghettos, surrounded by adoring like minded fans, pretending that they have never had any adversaries.
“Davison is the Darwinians’ worst nightmare.”
Terry Trainor
Thank you Terry.
It has become increasingly clear to me that we humans are not free to reach conclusions rationally. We now know that every aspect of each human’s condition has a strong heritable basis. I can no longer accept the notion of Free Will. If we had Free Will, the atheist Darwinian model could never possibly have survived. Its survival has depended on a very simple reality which has now been verified through the carefully controlled studies on separated identical twins, reared in often drastically different environments. Whether one believes in a Creator or not has a demonstrated heritable basis which, while the mode of transmission is still not understood, is clearly congenital and fundamental to the way the individual interprets all his surroundings including his origin.
Darwinian atheism is clearly linked to permissive political and ethical liberalism which denies all fundamental restrictions on human intellectual behavior. I believe they both are pleiotropic manifestations of the same congenital condition, a genetic malaise which denies any role for a Creator in the affairs of the natural world. I believe we are all victims of a completely determined scenario. I said as much in the opening of this thread and I repeat it again here. Some of us have been more fortunate than others.
I am certainly not the first to question our objectivity.
“Our actions should be 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.”
Albert Einstein
Even before Einstein, Gilbert and Sullivan said much the same thing.
Every boy and every girl
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little liberal
Or else a little conservative.
Iolanthe, 1873
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Hi John,
I think you are using the term “creationism” in a way that is a bit unusual for me, so I like to make sure I understand. Typically I think of a distinction between Creationism and Intelligent Design (ID). Most creationists I’ve known have been fundamentalists pushing for a literal interpretation of the Bible – so they are “young earthers”. Apparently you are not in this camp, so can I assume that you accept the earth being billions of years old? And when would you say the front-loading of genetic info took place? Millions of years ago? Or just a few thousand years ago? Or perhaps you think we have no idea? If you don’t mind talking about your spiritual beliefs, I would be interested in hearing more about your sense of “the big picture” and the role of humanity within it. What are your intuitions (or theories, if you have any) about the nature of the intelligence responsible for our genetic info? Why would a creator design conscious beings who are, if I understand your point, genetically predetermined to not believe in the creator? Could the creator be a prankster or malicious in some way? Or do you think the creator is basically good?
I know you probably won’t have time or interest in this, but for whatever it may be worth, I would invite you to take a look at my MySpace page, read a few of my blogs, and leave some comments, if you want. http://www.myspace.com/gaylenwoof
Gaylen Moore
I am not a creationist in the traditional sense and certainly not a Fundamentalist. I don’t even know how many Gods there were, although I prefer that there were two, one benevolent the other malevolent. How else could we understand humanity? I see no evidence for Gods at present and see no need for them to exist. I have said all this elsewhere and here as well so there is no need to repeat myself. Any person who can deny one or more past intelligences operating in the universe is a congenital damn fool. There are thousands of such poor souls and there is nothing that can be done for them as their condition is genetic and beyond their control just as Einstein proclaimed.
“Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
and
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Albert Einstein, my emphasis
I will be happy to look at your weblog.
Thanks for commenting.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/02/080213-bat-fossil_2.html
This is an exciting discovery. I note that like the first birds, this primitive bat still has a long tail, a feature largely missing in modern birds and bats. I am of the opinion that it was capable of full flight. I am surprised that such a fragile animal could be preserved in the fossil record. I hope it doesn’t turn out to be a hoax! Pardon my cynicism.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Recently this blog has experienced a series of bizarre events. I have been unable to open it only to be able to do so later, I have been informed by WordPress that they can’t find this blog, yet here it is again apparently functional again. I naturally suspected that Alan Fox may have had something to do with it since he co-administers it with me. Pardon my paranoia which I feel is completely justified considering my history with internet comminication. Perhaps Alan could explain what has been going on as I don’t have a clue.
“Even a paranoid can have enemies.”
Henry Kissinger
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I think we have a bandwidth problem. As you know, this site is hosted on a French server, and it is a free option included in my internet subscription. The French have come late ( it would be off-topic to discuss the forerunner to the internet, “Minitel”) but enthusiastically to the internet and Sunday evening is the boom time for traffic. I was certainly unable to connect most of yesterday evening, but there is absolutely no problem now. I suspect the only solution to Sunday evening lack of connectivity would be to subscribe to another host and pay for more bandwidth.
Thank you Alan and pardon my paranoia. It is the product of long experience. What troubled me the most was when I was notified by WordPress that they “couldn’t find my blog!”
“Even a paranoid can have enemies.”
Henry Kissinger
http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/02/19/number-of-billionaires-in-russia-shoots-past-100/
Here is an interesting commentary on the corruption of Putin’s Russia. Greed wil destroy Russia just as it will eventually destroy the United States. Both nations have lost their ethical and moral compass and are on the road to oblivion. The only question is whether the physical destruction of the earth will preceed or follow our moral demise. I am inclined toward the former.
“Mankind fiddles while earth burns” will soon be come “Mankind fiddled while earth burned.”
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Let me say that I am disappointed in the failure of this weblog to attract either critics or supporters to any substantial degree. It certainly is not due to any restrictions that I have posed. What other venue invites all to comment promising that whatever they present will become a matter of record?
You know what I think? Of course you don’t so I am going to tell you!
It is BECAUSE whatever they say here will become a matter of record. Most weblogs and forums rigorously control what is allowed and ban or delete commenters who challenge the cherished beliefs of their sponsors. Some delete whole threads when they become embarrassing or bury them in the Archives. To date I have baned two users, Woot and Rob, and both for the same reason. They refused to conform to the simplest of demands – to refrain from insult and personal defamation. That they were unable to do. Their personal attacks and denigrations remain as permanent reminders to them and others of their inability to remain civilized when confronted with opinions at variance with their own. It is also significant that they both are anonymous as near as I can tell which supports my conviction that honest, sincere persons would never resort to such tactics.
I am not here to defend my views. My scientific contributions have been published and are for all time. Whether they have been cited or not means nothing to me. To the extent that they have not is a matter of record and there is nothing I can or would do about it if I could.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
My primary reason for this blog is to call attention to the pathetic state of affairs that exists concerning the way in which the great mystery of our origins is being treated with such mindless, compulsive, congenital, loathing by opposing factions in a debate that has no place in science and never did have. There is no place for a personal God in science just as there is no place for Atheism. The God or Gods that must have once existed no longer intervene in the natural world, but that they once did cannot be denied by any rational student of that natural world, at least not by this one. Those that insist otherwise are fools and it is my Providence, my “prescribed” fate to so inform them, a responsibilty I greatly enjoy.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/collected-evolutionary-papers-of-john-a-davison/
I am pleased to report that my papers are once again available at Uncommon Descent.
http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/02/24/todays-russia-after-putin%e2%80%99s-years-in-office/
I mentioned this link before in comment #65.
The current article I find quite alarming as apparently the authors, from within Russia, are calling for the Russian people to topple the Putin Government in what sounds like a call for revolution!
“The present state of Russian affairs can only change in one case, if Russians take the fate of the country into their own hands.”
That is pretty scary stuff if you ask me. It could have broad implications if it should occur.
What think others?
Mr. Davison,
I have read your papers and I find them very interesting. I have also noticed that you pull no punches “around the web” as you discuss the topics of Darwinian evolution. I have seen alot of people make fun of you on the internet but what I haven’t seen is anyone try and scientifically refute your information. Have you found anyone that has been willing to scientifically discuss the theories that you postulated? And if so, has anyone found any problems or made you readjust your thinking regarding these theories? Thanks in advance, and great job on the papers you have written. It’s rare to find any scientists these days that think outside-the-box.
Shader
Thank you very much. I have a few supporters, one very significant one, Phillip Engle, author of “Far From Equilibrium,” which I recommend. He is coming out with a new book soon. I understand it will include a photograph of me. Horrors, there goes my credibility!
As I explained in previous comments on this thread, I am either ignored, denigrated, isolated or baned on most internet forums and blogs, a distinction I share with many of my distinguished sources, among the finest minds of the post-Darwinian era. The Darwinians continue to pretend they never have had any critics, while other factions pretend that they were the originators of what has become known as “The Intelligent Design Movement.” This has led to the silly debate which still rages on the internet. There is no place for “debate” in science and never has been. There is only discovery and its disclosure.
Long before Darwin, William Paley dispensed with Intelligent Design with the eight words -
“Where there is design there is a designer.”
I would only substitute “was” for “is” as I have explained elsewhere.
You ask -
“And if so, has anyone found any problems or made you readjust your thinking regarding these theories?”
I believe I can honestly answer no to that question. If anything, I have become more convinced with time that there was never a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.
Internet “personalities” and their loyal followers, with few exceptions, are too busy lampooning or baning me to ever take me seriously. They are mostly engaged in trying to see who can attract the biggest following.
I have done my level best to follow Konrad Adenauer’s suggestion -
“First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously.”
I can only report that it doesn’t work for me. However, that will never stop me from trying.
Actually, I am quite content with things as they are. I have published my hypotheses and ignoring or denigrating them or me will never render them invalid. The longer they endure, the better. I regard this weblog, as I did my earlier ones, as an opportunuty to establish a legacy that will endure long after I am gone which will happen soon enough.
“What happens on the web stays on the web.”
Speaking of the web -
“Walk into my parlour said the spider to the fly.”
Mary Howitt
That, my adversaries seem unwilling to do, which pleases me very much!
Meanwhile, real scientists continue to discover features of living systems that will never be reconciled with the most infantile hypothesis ever generated by the human imagination, an evolution driven by chance, an evolution, in my opinion, now finished.
Thank you very much for your kind words.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Today is a sad day in the intellectual world as William F. Buckley has died at 82. He revived the conservative movement in the 1950’s with The National Revue. He will be sorely missed by those of us who believe there is a purpose in the universe, something woefully lacking in the atheist world of Darwinian mysticism and ultra-liberalism generally. I will always remember him for his comment -
“The only true liberal is the true conservative.”
I suspect that P.Z. Myers will be celebrating his death as Buckley was a devout Catholic.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable”
http://www.theotherrussia.org/
Once again I refer to the Other Russia blog. March 3, the day after the Russian elections, demonstrations are scheduled to take place all over Russia. It will be interesting to see how Putin responds. I wonder how many arrests will be made, how many dissenters imprisoned or worse. In my opinion Russia is a powder keg.
Professor Wilhelm Troll (1897-1978) is sometimes considered as the most prominent proponent of German idealistic morphology.
Far from being able to judge if such judgment is correct or not I would say that Wilhelm Troll dismissed darwinian teaching in botany unequivocally. According his opinion forms of plants are only variation of the original form of so-called “Ur-pflanze”. In his textbook 1954 Praktische Einführung in die Pflanzenmorphologie he gave numerous examples of it.
So I would add his name to the great assembly of those antidarwinian scientists who dismissed “natural selection” and “random mutation” as real evolutionary forces.
Oddly enough probably none of his work has been translated into English.
Thank you Martin.
The Darwinian “ruling establishment” has never been interested in translating the works of its critics. It took 43 years before Schindewolf’s Grundfragen der Palaontologie was translated into Basic Questions in Paleontology. In the Foreword, written by Stephen Jay Gould, he trashed Schindewolf’s views, describing them as “spectacularly flawed.”
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page xi.
I have never forgiven Gould for that cheap shot and I published that response on the internet before he died. I hope he read it.
We many critics of the Darwinan hoax have never been allowed to exist in their literature, a literature which still dominates the “evolutionary establishment,” thanks to the efforts of congenital, ultra-liberal atheists like Ernst Mayr, Stephen Jay Gould, P.Z. Myers, Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins and their thousands of loyal followers. They really can’t help themselves as they were “born that way,” – “prescribed” to be losers!
It is the Darwinian hoax which is “spectacularly flawed.” There is nothing in it that ever had anything to do with creative evolution, a goal-directed phenomenon, in my opinion, no longer in progress.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
The plant Divisions, the equivelant of the animal Phyla, are even more discontinuous than their animal counterparts, suggesting separate origins. The entire history of life is a history of profound discontinuities for which very little evidence exists for reproductive continuity above the Order level. Below that level, reproductive continuity cannot be denied as it is supported by powerful evidence.
Until those gaps can be explained and filled, we must take seriously Leo Berg’s declaration -
“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
Personally, I don’t think those gaps will ever be filled. The origin of life is a miracle and tens of thousands of miracles are no more miraculous than one. I have never understood why the Darwinians insist on a monophyletic evolution when so much evidence pleads to the contrary. I think it must have to do with their congenital atheism.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
You ar right John.
It is also hard to imagine what darwinian force have led to different development of epigeal and hypogeal cotyledon of plants living next to each other. Not to speak about different shapes of their leaves. One has to be devoted neodarwinian to see there “survival advantage”.
Darwinism is the biggest joke in the history of science and should be ridiculed constantly. That I am pleased to do. The Darwinians are fully aware of its failure, which is why they are desperately trying to change the subject by denigrating any world view that involves or involved any role for a Creator, the only conceivable alternative to the Darwinian hoax. They don’t even test the Darwinian model any more. They have chosen to ignore Winston Churchill’s advice -
“No matter how beautiful the strategy, occasionally you must check the results.”
The scary part is the enormous following that their arrogant leaders, Dawkins, Hitchens and Myers, have generated. The numbers continue to grow.
As I have predicted, these people will be nothing but footnotes by next February if not before.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Meanwhile, the number of visits per day to this weblog has undergone a further drop to an average of 16 per day.
“How sweet it is!”
Jackie Gleason
“How to win friends and influence people.”
Dale Carnegie
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable”
John A.,Davison
I saw Expelled, Ben Stein’s documentary, and was impressed with it with a single reservation. He was much too gentle with Dawkins, Myers and Darwnians generally. The only way to deal with Darwinians is to ridicule them constantly as I do. They are helpless, feckless bufoons, incompetent to defend their position. That is why they must attack religion in every form. That is all that they now do.
The sad part of it is that they are trapped by their predestined fate to be what they are just as we all are. Atheism in any form can never be defended rationally. We are each a victim of our position in the infinite scheme of things. To attempt to convert an atheist is like trying to convince someone that he is not intellectually free. He isn’t of course. He just thinks he is! Don’t take my word for it.
“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.”
Albert Einstein.
“Of all the senseless babble I have ever had the occasion to read, the demonstrations of these philosophers who undertake to tell us all about the nature of God would be the worst, if they were not surpassed by the still greater absurdities of the philosophers who try to prove that there is no God.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
http://www.theotherrussia.org/2008/05/18/the-charter-of-the-russian-national-assembly/
The situation in Russia is growing critical as the dissenters have gathered to present a “Charter of the Russian National Assembly” with a Presidium of nine prominent Russians including Gary Kasparov. It will be interesting to see how Putin and his hand picked successor deal with this new development.
Russians are a great people who have contributed much to Western Civilization. It is pathetic to see the corruption that now plagues them. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised to see a revolution.
My latest rating indicates 10 visits per day. How is that for popularity?
“First make yourself unpopular, then people will take you seriously.”
Konrad Adenauer
I am doing my level best Konrad!
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
My site meter now tells me I am getting 9 visits per day. It can’t get much lower can it?
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Today we lost a wonderful newsperson and a thoroughly decent human being, Tony Snow.
Hi Professor Davison,
Hope this message finds you well. Just want to wish you a belated birthday. Congratulations and many more!
-chunk
Thank you very much.
This is my first message on my new blog. I have created, with the help of an anonymous benefactor, a new weblog here. It includes all the coments from the original one. I was uncertain about the future of Professor John A. Davison’s Weblog -
john.a.davison. free.fr/
I now encourage “my many fans” and “my many adversaries” to comment here. You will have to reregister but that is a simple enough procedure. As before, whatever you say will remain even if I have to ban you which will only occur if you refuse to be civil toward me and other users of the weblog. This will also not become a flame pit like so may others that grace the wonderful world of cyberdumb.
Welcome to John A Davison’s Weblog -
jadavison.wordpress.com
You may notice that on the side board I have identified what I regard as “Darwinian Sorcery. It is time to take off the gloves and launch into a cyberwar against the Darwinian establishment. They have gotten away with their foolishness long enough.
There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian fairy tale that ever had anything to do with either the appearance of a new life form or its subsequent modification. Natural selection is anti-evolutionary and so is sexual reproduction. Neither can produce even a new species, not to mention a new Genus, Family, Order or Class. Evolution is finished and when it occurred it did not progress through the mechanisms we now see in operation. Like ontogeny, which terminates in the death of the individual, phylogeny terminates in the death of the species.
We are now in the terminal phase of the evolutionary sequence. Creative evolution no longer occurs and all we witness is extinction without a single replacement.
I have offered these challenges only to be ignored which is the best proof that my conclusions are valid.
It is time to stop arguing with these poor souls as they are congenitally incompetent to recognize a planned, purposeful evolution, now complete, even as everything indicates that is exactly the present situation.
The time has come to laugh at them, taunt them, dare them to confront the reality that they have dedicated their pathetic lives to a myth, a phantom for which not a shred of concrete evidence has ever existed.
That I am delighted to do.
War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstable.”
At present it is not possible for others to register and comment on this weblog. I am sorry for this delay. When that has been remedied I will make an anouncement. Thank you for your patience.
It is also possible that I will never be able to enable registration on this weblog. I did not create this website and I cannot entirely control it. If registration and commentary are blocked, it will not be my fault. Of that I can assure you.
There was my new post refuting “natural selection” at “Prescribed evolution” thread about mimicry. Now it has disappeared. There must be some problems.
Martin
How did you manage to register?
Ahah!
It seems that as your blog is hosted at wordpress.com, anyone with a wordpress account can log in and comment. So, I guess, anyone not already in possession of a wordpress account wanting to comment will need to register via http://wordpress.com/.
I see that.
I take it that you still reject a prescribed evolution in favor of the Darwinian myth?
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
AlanFox11
Where did you ever get the mistaken notion that I have rejected common origin? That won’t wash Alan. Also I have answered every critic either in my published papers or on internet blogs and you know it. I doubt if you have even read my papers or the contributions of my many sources, some of the finest minds of the post Darwinian era. Check the sideboard.
Furthermore, you hang out with Darwinian garbage which is all that really matters. Again, check the sideboard.
Now if you have something constructive to offer, do it now. It will be the first time. Otherwise –
“Hold your piece.”
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Fox already has a wordpress blog.
——————————————–
Hi John,
My comment was in regards to changing his nickname
Alan is again here, that’s fine. His arguments like “I happen to find the biochemical evidence for common descent with modification from a common ancetor quite persuasive.” are of great value. Alan also repeatedly challenged Leo Berg as relevant critique of neodarwinian theorizing. On the other hands your own atheist neodarwinian teaching rests upon shoulders of Darwin (former student of theology) , Mendel (Augustinian priest) and William Bateson who coined the term genetics.
Alan
This is not a flame pit like After The Bar Closes. Now go bitch about me at After The Bar Closes. I will be looking for it and it better be there. In the meantime, one more snotty remark from you and I will have to remove you from the user list. Your revealing drivel will remain.
Got that? Write that down.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Here is the link to Alan Fox’s blog which is now apparently defunct. He may have another one now.
http://alanfox.blogspot.com/
Once you get there, check out some of my threads and the way they were received by Alan Fox. I guarantee you will have a ball. I had forgotten how funny I can be! I had forgotten my old, rather childish, convention of converting the names of my adversaries as in David Springer becoming Spravid Dinger (or just Dinger for short) or Wesley Elsberry becoming Esley Welsberry or P. Z. Myers becoming M. P. Zeyers etc, etc. Those were the good old days before I became senile.
For an especially hilarious experience I recommend -
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=23603046&postID=4893672452352182516
with ninety-seven comments preserved for posterity.
ENJOY
“Those were the days.”
Archie Bunker
Actually it was quite decent of Alan to reprint a couple of my papers. He is not really a bad person -just a little slow. For example, he is still a fan of Richard Dawkins.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Alan
I believe that one is born to be either a liberal Darwinian atheist or an intellectually tolerant conservative, convinced that there was a purpose in the world. These are innate congenital features as the studies on separated identical twins have clearly demonstrated. It is transparent in Einstein’s proclamation -
“EVERTHING is determined…by forces over which we have no control.” Albert Einstein, my emphasis.
It was anticipated long before Einstein by Gilbert and Sullivan -
“Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or else a little conservative.”
Iolanthe, 1873, Courtesy of William Wright, Born That Way, page 262
That is why it was always useless to attempt to reason with Alan Fox, Wesley Elsberry, Christopher Hitchens, Paul Zachary Myers, Stephen J. Gould, Ernst Mayr, Richard Dawkins and the thousands of others who suffer from the malignant incurable genetic disease known as ultraliberal relativism, a condition that renders its hapless victims unable to recognize the obvious purposeful and ascending, goal directed history that has characterized the record of life on this planet.
These tragic victims of a “prescribed,” determined and now finished evolution have contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of the great mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. They cannot, because as Einstein explained -
“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 atheist Darwinian zealots will soon be nothing but tragic little footnores in the history of evolutionary science. So will those who demand a literal interpretation of the Holy Bible. I have predicted their demise by next February if not before.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
————————————————————————————————-
Alan Fox, John A. Davison has been repeating this time and time again. If you do not see this as clear evidence for a prescribed front-loaded evolution then I see no reason for your continuing participation.
Sincerely,
“anonymous benefactor”
Thank you “anonymous benefactor.” Maybe Alan Fox and other incurable Darwinian zealots will stay away and thus make it unnecessary for me to ban them, something I hate to have to do.
The “Darwinista,” like nearly all pure white cats, are stone deaf to what Pythagoras called “the harmony of the spheres” four centuries before Christ and which was echoed more than a half century ago by Albert Einstein who renamed it “the music of the spheres.”
“There is nothing new under the sun.”
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
As you all know this weblog was originally “Professor John A. Davison’s Weblog” –
john.a.davison.free.fr
At that time it had many users. Since it was transferred to this new site as “John A. Davison’s Weblog” -
jadavison.wordpress.com
reregistration is necessary. I am sorry to report that only one person has reregistered – my loyal supporter Martin. I hope others will register and participate. I suspect from past experience that if I drop the registration requirement I will be inundated with insult and denigration, so for the time being I will keep the registration requirement.
Hi Professor Davison,
Just wanted to to take the time to say hi, let you know I read your blog, and acknowledge your integrity in standing out for scientific truth regardless of the path it takes in implying life’s origin and development. I noticed your posts first on the expelledthemovie blog. Interesting to read your blog and see the rejection and attempted censorship you’ve received for just demanding honesty in science. I guess you’ve been expelled!
Not being a scientist I don’t really understand this apparent consensus that exists amongst the current establishment that science must be committed to a philosophy of methodological naturalism. Is that even rational approach in a world filled with currently unexplained phenomena in all scientific fields? This effectually limits science to the extent it becomes nothing more than the liturgy of secular humanism which is a religion. So in the end, the establishment which is so bent on keeping religion out, ends up harboring one.
The second question I have is, why in practice does it matter whether a scientist personally holds an axiom of creationism or naturalism? Biologists seem to advance uninhibited despite validation for chemical evolution and abiogenesis. I have yet to see how requiring either axiom matters and could it possibly be detrimental? Many organs were once thought to be vestigial and now years later are being found to have function.
Keep up the fight for objective truth,
Myles
mylesfichter
Thank you for the kind words.
I agree that ones personally held beliefs should have little to do with science and in general they don’t. I also agree that they can be detrimental. The atheist Darwinist is congenitally unable to imagine a goal directed evolution so he attacks all those who do not suffer from this genetic deficiency. Look at the offerings of Paul Zachary Meyers and Richard Dawkins. Neither of these men has ever published a word relating in any way to the only issue which has ever been at stake: the mechanism of organic evolution. They now expend all their energies attacking every institution based on the Christian ethic in a desperate but futile attempt to change the subject. Stated simply, they lack imagination!
The great French physiologist Claude Bernard put it as follows and I paraphrase because I can’t locate his exact words -
“It is the duty of the scientist to remove his cloak of imagination when he enters the laboratory but it is also his duty to don it again when he leaves.”
The congenital atheist cannot imagine a purposeful evolution even as everything around him pleads for just that. He is hamstrung and impotent, feckless and hostile. He is a “prescribed” victim of his fate to be an intellectual loser. There is nothing that can be done for him. Such types have never been great scientists. One of the most devout Christians was Louis Pasteur who took Communion daily. Being devout has never interfered with science but being an atheist definitely can. Regarded this way, atheism becomes a deficiency disease.
I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if the atheist syndrome might be detectable by a simple urinalysis and I suggest that a serious investigation be undertaken to explore this possibility. It might even prove to be curable through replacement therapy. In any event there is no longer any question that It has a heritable basis.
“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
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
I love it so!
I call your attention to certain of my essays which I am in the process of transferring to the ESSAYS link on the side bar. You will notice some symbolic gibberish in my essay “Darwinism as delusion.” I have no idea what that means but I don’t think it materially detracts from the substance of the essay. That version was offered by David Springer at Uncommon Descent where it can be found on the side bar there. So also is “Julian Huxley’s confession” as well as are several other of my published papers available there. These various essays presented here have not been published in a refereed professional journal or even offered as I am quite certain they would be found unacceptable by the present evolution journal establishment. That suits me just fine!
I have encountered some problems. I have three essays on my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis thread that I would like to transfer to the ESSAYS section on the sideboard. I am unable to manage this transfer. When I highlight them and then try to copy and paste them nothing happens. Perhaps one of my “thousands of fans” out there in cyberspace could provide me with the necessary information to make this transfer possible.
Thank you in advance.
HAPPY THANKSGIVING!
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
I have recently taken to editing some of my more inflammatory comments in an effort to improve them for the consumption of my “hundreds of cheering fans” and my “thousands of equally silent mortal enemies.”
So if you discover something you really loathe, you should check back later. I may have made it even more loathesome.
I love it so!
Please notice that I have no intention of replying to comments about either my ESSAYS or my interview with Jason Rennie. I will have the reply option removed from those threads by my webmaster. I have no intention of getting into a discussion about religion as that is a purely personal matter and is in no way related to the purposes of this weblog. I am sorry ablout any inconvenience this may have caused.
You will notice that there are two places where you can read my essays, Essays on the home page and Essays on the side bar. There are two essays available on the home page Essays button, “The Age of Denial” and “What is an atheist?” They are both fine. The “Age of Denial” essay on the side bar button is in defective format with many split words so for the time being ignore it. The other essays on the side bar are OK. I have spoken to my webmaster about the confusion but so far it has not been remedied. I would like to have all my essays in one location and I have a couple more in the works.
My essays are primarily position papers and I regard them as non-negotiable but if you want to challenge them just email me with your comments. I am easy to get along with but I don’t want to clutter up the weblog by defending my convictions here. I suspect it would prove to be non productive.
I hope you will understand. Thank you.
I have added a new post – “Miscellany”
I urge all my “hundreds of fans” and “thousands of mortal enemies” to use this new thread to offer comments that do not bear directly on one of the six to which this weblog has always been, and always will be, dedicated. I may now purge the blog of comments not addressed to those six basic topics with which my limited mind is so consumed. I will do this in the interest of streamlining this weblog of extraneous material. All may be encouraged also to use “Miscellany” for insult hurling, spleen venting and whatever else you may find useful in getting from one day to the next. I wish you would use your real names but experience tells me that few will.
Thank you very much.
God or Gods bless you and yours and HAPPY NEW YEAR!
“Every day above ground is a bonus.”
anonymous, I think. If not, I will be happy to take credit for it.
I love it so!
As you know I am a great admirer of Albert Einstein. I have been reading the book “Ideas and Opinions by Albert Einstein.” On page 22 I found a wonderful statement which can go a long way towards understanding the polarization that characterizes the present “debate” about our origins -
“Man has an intense desire for assured knowledge.”
That “assured knowledge” has been found and embraced on the one hand by the atheist Darwinians and on the other hand by the religious Fundamentalists.
Of course there is no “assured knowledge” in science and probably never will be.
This book is a compilation of much of Einstein’s writings and was very up to date having been published in 1954, the year before Einstein’s death, April 18, 1955.
On page 28 one will find one of the last public things Einstein ever had to say as it was published originally in May 23, 1953.
It consists of seven separate paragraphs exactly as I now present them -
“Man usually avoids attributing cleverness to somebody else – unless it is an enemy.”
“Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are even incapable of forming such opinons.”
“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyrany, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency.”
“In order to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.”
“The contrasts and contradictions that can permanently live side by side in a skull make all the systems of political optimists and pessimists illusory.”
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as a judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the Gods.”
“Joy in looking and comprehending is nature’s most beautiful gift.”
I hope these excerpts will help others understand my profound respect and admiration for probably the greatest mind of all time. I especially recommend this message for the several enemies I have been able to generate with my science and that of the sources on which my relatively minor contributions have been so firmly based.
I was very found of another scientist Professor, he wasn’t as popular as Einstein but was but no less great a thinker than he, I believe.
“No individual has any right to come into the world and go out of it without leaving behind him distinct and legitimate reasons for
having passed through it.” George Washington Carver
Einstein is silently loathed by the atheist Darwinian mystics because they cannot accept his lifelong determinism, a conviction I share without reservation.
I just deleted 10 messages that were held for moderation, not one of which came from a known source. If you choose to participate on this weblog you will fully identify yourself. I am tired of dealing with anonymous cowards. I have asked for all to be exposed and received not a single response. Accordingly, I will decide who is going to be heard here. It will be anyone, critic or supporter, who isn’t afraid to sign his real name and affiliation to his words. The only exceptions will be TRASH like Alan Fox who, through his tactics, proved beyond any doubt that he can contribute nothing of value to the purposes of this weblog.
Also, those who do not care for my methods and are too damn lazy to scan down to find current comments, please stop lecturing me on how to run my weblog. This blog is not to attract followers: it is to expose those who are followers.
Got that? Write that down!
“I did it my way.”
Frank Sinatra
This is for “tapecutter” aka “Wizard of Oz” aka God only knows who else. I blocked your insulting tirade. You may now go back to Real Climate and resume your shabby behavior there. This weblog is for those who have constructive ideas to offer. Got that? Write that down.
Note that I have changed the title of this weblog. It is now –
“The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of South Burlington (Vermont)”
I did this because I am tired of taking crap from a bunch of lightweights. The model for this new title is the journal in which Gregor Mendel published his 1866 paper -
“The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn (Austria).”
You see Mendel had the good sense to realize that his paper would never be accepted by the leading Botanical journals of the day so he wisely decided to publish ‘his” findings in “his” journal. He was the Editor of the Proceedings!
I am the Editor of this journal and so from now on I will publish “my” papers in “my” journal just as Mendel did.
Let me make it very clear that others may also submit manuscripts for publication in “my” journal. No insulting language will be tolerated and no manuscripts will be acccepted from anonymous authors. If you can’t fully identify yourself you can go peddle your cowardly schlock somewhere else.
There now, I feel somewhat better.
I love it so!
Hi JOHN and MARTIN,
Hey John please read my e-mail. You will like it.
I did and responded. Thank you.
AB, my webmaster, has now added “What is a creationist?” to the Essays available on the home page button. I regard the three essays there as of great significance in clarifying my position with respect to the twin mysteries of ontogeny and phylogeny. I hope one day to find a publisher for them along with my other evolutionary papers.
Mr Davison
I am but a fascinated newcomer here, but have you ever given thought to the possibility that what we (I?) perceive as the objective universe may be a computer simulation devised by some higher intelligence?
tonydodd
No I haven’t but that does not mean it isn’t true. No one knows anything about Gods. I am only convinced of their past existence and believe that is all that must be assumed. Anything more is conjecture.
Thanks for the comment.
By the way it is Dr. Davison and has been for 55 years. That does not mean that I am a snob. At least I use my real name which is more than I can say for the vast majority of forum junkies.
My views per day graph looks like a roller coaster with a high of 90 and a low of 7. I can’t make any sense out of it.
This is for no one in particular but everyone in general.
The proper way to address those who have earned the Doctor of Philosophy degree (Ph.D.) is Doctor or Professor. Doc would also be acceptable. Would you address your Dentist or your Medical Doctor as Mister? I doubt it. I sure never have. They too have earned higher degrees and that should be respected. I believe it is still true that the Ph.D. cannot be awarded honorarily. Doctor of Science can be and often is.
“I get no respect.”
Rodney Dangerfield
Incidentally, I adore being treated with contempt as it defines my adversaries perfectly.
sockittome
I love it so!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Fine Doctor. Will you respect and honour my achievements in life if I list them, Doctor?
Tony Dodd
Why, oh why, would you want to list your “achievements in life” here? I am not interested in your “achievements” unless they relate to the purposes of this weblog.
Let me explain what those purposes are. They are first, the exposure of the Darwinian hoax and all those who still support it. Second, and far more important, this blog serves to promote my evolutionary thesis, a thesis firmly based on the science of some of the greatest biologists of the post Darwinian era.
You are one of the few that have come here with a question, a question I immediately answered to the best of my ability. Why am I not deluged with questions and challenges to my evolutionary science? Let me tell you why. It is because both the atheist Darwinians and the religious zealots all fear me and my sources because none of us were atheists or religious fanatics. We are not allowed to exist on internet blogs just as we have never been allowed to exist in an evolutionary literature dominated by Darwinian bigotry. The religious zealots fear me because I have questioned monotheism and the Darwinians fear me because, with Leo Berg, I have questioned monophyleticism. Neither faction is prepared to support its own convictions, I believe, because they feel intellectualy insecure as well they should. So they simply pretend that they have no credible critics. That has been the history of evolutionary science now for exactly 1.5 centuries. Neither of these two entrenched factions has a leg to stand on in my opinion and I have here once again declared my position confident that I will be continue to be ignored as were my predecessors.
“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.”
Albert Einstein, Ideal and Opinions , page 28
What I find most revealing is the way so many internet “forum” leaders tolerate, even cultivate, transparent buffoons and use them as dart boards to gratify their own narrowly prejudiced egos. John A. Davison and his sources are conspicuously absent from those same “forums.”
You don’t ban bufoons. Everyone loves to ridicule fools. One banishes mortal enemies and pretend they have never existed.
Both the “Fundies” and the “Darwimps” believe they have all the answers to the great mystery of phylogeny.
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowlege is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods.”
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.
Please note the plural gods.
Precisely y point. I am interested in what you have to say now, not what exams you passed 55 years ago.
Sorry: “Precisely my point.”
Tony Dodd
Wrong again.
The Doctor of Philosophy is not given for the passage of exams at least not properly. It is awarded for independent scholarship which in my case, as was the practice then, was published under my name alone in a peer reviewed journal. In my case that journal was the still highly respected “Biological Bulletin.”
If you don’t know what I have to say now, you will never know because I have made my position indelibly clear. I doubt you have read my papers as you show no sign that you have. You seem more interested in antagonizing me than in being enlightened.
I answered your one question promptly and I will answer any more that you might pose but I am in no mood to engage further with the snotty, arrogant blowhard that you have proved yourself to be,.
Got that? Write that down.
Now if you have a question about my science or that of my predecessors, I will be happy to deal with it to the best of ability. Until you do just that, this exchange is terminated and any further snide comments from you will be deleted.
By the way Tony Dodd, are you the sponsor of
http://www.crowdedskies.com/tony_dodd_zone.htm
or are you related to the Tony Dodd who recently died or would you rather not identify yourself? The reason I ask is based on the question with which you presented yourself here. Now I am asking you a question and expect a civil answer such as I gave you.
Tony Dodd answered my query. He is not related to that Tony Dodd. Unfortunately, he then had to insult me again so I deleted him, hopefully for the last time. The man is incapable of civil exchange. Those who come here to display their insecurity by denigrating me, soon make their purposes plain enough. He is not the first and I am sure he will not be the last.
All that really matters is who is NOT coming here to denigrate me. Let me list a few: Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers, Wesley Elsberry and whoever runs EvC to name four of my more prominent mortal enemies, terrified cowards all. Not satisfied to ban me from their shabby ghettos, they send their mindless goons to do what they don’t have the guts to do themselves. You see, if they openly presented themselves here, they would be recognizing me as well as all my distinguished predecessors, real scientists and anti-Darwinians to a man. That they dare not do. They aren’t interested in suicide.
Let me remind all -
“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
I love it so!
Let the record show that I have called the atheist Darwinian mystics out into the street of open confrontation and have established beyond doubt that they are afraid to depart their bastions of bigotry because they know their days are numbered. They still clutch at the flotsam and jetsam of Darwin’s leaking frigate which Mivart sank a mere twelve years after it was launched and which has been sunk again and again by real scientists everyone of whom proved beyond doubt that phylogeny, like ontogeny could never have included a role for chance.
“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134
Darwinism in all its atheist trappings is still today what it has always been, the fantasy of the congenital atheist mindset, a malaise for which there will never be a cure.
“The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time.”
Albert Einstein
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Like hell it is!
*** ATTENTION DARWINIANS WHEREVER YOU MAY BE***
I offer my message #644 on the link -
http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-banishment/#comment-2349
as an open challenge to you all. Those who read this blog and have any respect for the truth will relay this message to every Darwinian blog in cyberspace, a pleasure the cowardly egomaniacs all denied me long ago.
I expect responses and, if they do not soon appear, I will become much more abrasive, bellicose and vindictive. I especially expect responses from the Myers/Dawkins dynamic duo on their turf or mine, or better yet, on a neutral venue with a huge audience. If that doesn’t ensue, it will mean only one thing, that they are cringing, cowardly, cheap, chicanerous charlatans, a conclusion I reached long ago anyway.
Surely you rabid devotees of the Dawkins/Myers biumvirate would love to see them embarrass me in a public display. So I expect to see signs that you are encouraging them to destroy me. This nonsense has gone on long enough. It is crunch time in Cyberdumb!
Got that? Write that down.
“War, God help me, I love it so!”
so do I General Patton.
It doesn’t get any better than this.
Edited from time to time.
I intend to keep the above challenge in a prominent position until I see some response.
“I will fight it out on this line if it takes all summer.”
General U.S. Grant
http://news.independentminds.livejournal.com/4134730.html
My provocative remarks still stand there without response. Maybe independentminds would be willing to sponsor a confrontation between John A. Davison and Richard Dawkins. Of course it takes two to tango and I love to tango myself.
Edit added October 14
I just successfully asked independent minds if they would be interested in arranging an exchange between Dawkins and myself. It will be interesting to see if this produces a response. Check out the link and comment there if you choose, however you might feel about my suggestion. So far I am carrying on a monologue!
I love it so!
Edit added October 15
Apparently my presence there is ignored. I am not sure the thread is even still active. Nothing surprises me any more. We critics of the Darwinian hoax are not allowed to exist. We never have been.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. It is a matter of record.
Those who have followed the history of this blog know that I was assisted by “anonymous benefactor” in setting it up here after he helped me to transfer the blog from the control of Alan Fox. Unfortunately “anonymous benefactor” now refuses to communicate with me so I can no longer regard him as a friend. Accordingly, I have asked him to relinquish his control of this blog, a request he refuses to honor. I have no idea who he is except that he is the same user who uses the handle “computerist” at Uncommon Descent.
I explained with an email that I would take this step if “anonymous benefactor”/”computerist” refused to comply with my request. He now pretends, like so many other of my adversaries, that I do not exist. That is unacceptable.
I mention this unfortunate situation so if anything happens to this weblog others will suspect who was responsible.
It is largely my own fault. I should have known from long experience that one cannot trust those who must hide their identity.
I ask him/her now publicly to please relinquish all control of this weblog as I can no longer regard “anonymous benefactor” as a friend to the purposes of this weblog. By refusing to communicate, “anonymous benefactor”/”computerist” has become my enemy. I already have enemies enough and need no more.
Of course I am not the first scientist to be denied existence by his adversaries. That has always been the Darwinian way and many of the Fundamentalists practice the same technique. By being ignored I join with some of the greatest biologists of the post Darwinian era. Among them in no particular order -
St. George Jackson Mivart
Henry Fairfield Osborn
William Bateson
Leo Berg
Robert Broom
Soren Lovtrup
Otto Schindewolf
Alexander Petrunkevitch
Pierre Grasse
Richard B. Goldschmidt
Reginald C. Punnett
not one of whom was an atheist or religious fanatic: in other words not one a Darwinian.
“Google” these scientists, discover their scholarship, their tremendous productivity and then ask yourself the question – do Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins even deserve mention in the company of these evolutionary scientists? I answer no, that Myers and Dawkins deserve nothing but contempt for deliberately relegating these scholars to their respective “dungeons,” their “kill files,” in their frantic attempt to preserve the Darwinian hoax, now in its 150th year of continuous mass hysteria, the most pathetic product of the human imagination in the history of science. You see it was not just John A. Davison that Myers has tried to eliminate by gleefully casting him into his “dungeon” to the undying applause of his thousands of equally perverted, congenitally disadvantaged, mostly anonymous parrots, the damnedest assortment of intellectual trash I have ever encountered. By placing me in his “kill file,” he has done the same to all my sources on whose work my own is firmly based.
Please note that both Myers and Dawkins continue to pretend that I have not challenged them to confrontation on their turf, on mine, or on neutral ground. I understand their position because they know that I will not debate as there is no place for debate in science. I will confront and expose them for who and what they are, the last spastic twitches of the “Darwinian delusion,” the most absurd proposal ever to escape the human imagination to find the printed page.
If there are others who seek the truth, join with me to force a public confrontation between the forces of intellectual bigotry as represented by the Myers/Dawkins coordinated attack on those of us who accept a purpose in the history of life, a purpose finally achieved to which they remain, apparently congenitally, completely unaware. They are tragic figures in the history of science, contributing nothing of value to its goals.
“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”
Thomas Henry Huxley
Slow but certain!
The desperate, spiteful tactics employed by the Myers/Dawkins atheist coalition reveal them as the mortal enemies of science itself, of every investigator who sought to discover the truth about the greatest mystery in all of biological science – the mechanism of a long ago terminated organic evolution.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
I just noticed a curious development. Yesterday only three people apparently visited my weblog and today no one yet has. Is it possible that someone has sabotaged the capacity of my weblog to be read or commented on by others? And who could have that capacity? At present there are three administrators of my weblog, myself, my friend Martin and “Anonymous benefactor”/”computerist.” This is a most remarkable recent development since prior to yesterday I have routinely had at least 20 visits daily with a recent maximum of 90 on October 15, 2009. Pardon my paranoia.
“Even a paranoid can have enemies.”
Henry Kissinger.
Tell me about it Henry. I have more enemies than Carter has little liver pills!
P.S. I have just been informed that a user has been “timed out,” which is certainly not my intent. If anyone can help me discover what is going on I would appreciate that information. Nothing surprises me any more.
“Pigs is pigs.”
anonymous
Hello Professor Davison,
I have been on your site many times so forgive me that I haven’t posted any remarks. Darwin’s biggest problem, didn’t come from experts in his own field, but from non-biological sciences. Darwin understood that the grand course of evolution requires hundreds of millions of years, but like Lord Kelvin’s calculations of the age of the earth and the sun — before anyone knew about nuclear physics — indicated that the earth and the sun were far younger than the eons Darwin required. Later discoveries showed that Kelvin, through no fault of his own, was exceedingly wrong, and that removed the greatest obstacle to acceptance of evolution. The concurrence of several independent lines of evidence is highly unlikely unless a theory is indeed an accurate explanation of the phenomena it addresses.
what do you think?
sam, whoever that is.
Darwin was dead wrong about the time course of evolution just as he was about everything else. Every evolutionary event was instantaneous, requiring only the time it takes for a single cytogenetic event to take place. Such events took place many times over millions of years, each one producing in a single step a new taxonomic category whether species, Genus, Order, Class or Phylum. That is why not a single gradual transformation can be found in the fossil record. Such transformations never took place.
Otto Schindewolf expressed his saltational view of evolution with -
“The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.”
The chicken exhibits this instantaneous transformation beautifully. The feather is homologous with the reptilian scale. Avian lower legs and feet remain reptilian while the anterior appendages are feathered throughout. If you examine the legs of a plucked chicken there is no zone of transformation evident. The lower leg is reptilian. There are mutant chickens however in which the leg is fully featheread rather than scaled. The transformation from scale to feather was an instaneous event for which an intermediate state is inconceivable. So much for Darwinian gradualism, a figment of their atheist, selectionist imagination. The feathers of Archaeopteryx are indistinguishable from the feather of a modern bird. When the feather appeared it was in its full blown modern form. The feather was obviously predesigned for flight. The gradualist, selectionist model of Darwinian mysticism is without merit. Why it still survives is living proof that an inability to recognize a planned phylogeny is a congenital deficiency for which a cure will probably never be found.
The first of the taxonomic categories to be produced were the Phyla and the Plant Divisions. They were all produced early in the temporal sequence and once present, no more were produced. Indeed some were slated for early extinction. The next were the Classes followed by the Orders after which came the Genera and finally the species. All these categories involved extinctions and when a category became extinct it was never restored. Today there is not a shred of credible evidence that creative evolution is any longer in progress. All ascertainable facts plead for a planned and now finished creative evolution which produced the present biota which, as far as I can determine, marks the end of what Robert Broom claimed was a Plan, a word he capitalized much to the distress of the Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance. I realize that this thesis is unacceptable to many but it is my conviction nevertheless.
“Here I stand. I can do no otherwise.”
Martin Luther
Thanks for the comment and giving me this opportuinity to respond.
http://tao.invisionzone.com/index.php?showtopic=119
Notice that my friend Terry Trainor has reproduced my message #150 on his blog. Thank you Terry. I challenge someone, anyone to place that message on the pages of Pharyngula, richarddawkins.net or Panda’s Thumb and After The Bar Closes, Wesley Elsberry’s “inner sanctum” where his special friends and supporters hold forth with their infantile drivel. I want to see my message #150 on this thread plastered all over cyberdumb as my personal insult to every deranged halfwit who is so out of touch with reality that he still believes in the aimless, purposeless philosophy which characterizes Darwinian mysticism.
Come on you lily livered blowhards. Spread my heresies and beg your champions to respond. You won’t of course because your heroes told you to ignore me. Spineless cowards are like that don’t you know!
It doesn’t get any better than this.
I love it so!
That’s fine. Link to your blog has appeared there as well. So everyone can get here without any troubles.
In your latest essay you wrote that you became a Catholic some years ago. Here in post #154 you quoted Martin Luther. I am from Catholic and Protestan origin and I wonder what is your opinion regarding these churches and what led you to Catholicism. Maybe it is too personal and feel free to delete my off-topic post unrelated to the problem of evolution.
Martin
I do not choose further to explain any aspect of my religious life. It is a personal matter and has no place on this weblog. I am happy that you asked and wouldn’t dream of deleting your comment. Just because I cite Martin Luther doesn’t mean I admire him. I just thought what he said adequately described my position, arbitrary, opinionated and intractable just as he often was. Luther was frightfully crude on occasion but then so am I. For example, Luther once proclaimed -
“When I pass wind in Wittenburg they can smell it in Rome.”
I might say -
“When I pass wind in South Burlington Vermont they can smell it in Oxford, Harvard and Cornell.”
As a matter of fact I believe I already said that somewhere.
I am also getting tired of pussyfooting around about anonymous personalities on the internet. They are parasites, feeding off others and giving nothing in return, hiding everything, even their identity. I say the hell with them all. Not one of them has ever contributed anything of significance to evolutionary or any other science. If they had anything original to offer they would be proud to display their real names. Internet so-called “forums” teem with these degenerate cowards. They are not welcome here. I am tired of being Mr. nice guy. I want satisfaction and revenge against those I regard as the forces of evil, in paticular their primary spokespersons, Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins.
“War, God help me, I love it so!”
General George S. Patton
Thank You Professor Davison, I must say I was hesitant posting as I heard from a lot of people on the internet about your approach to science. I find your logic most sound and even quite evident in the facts we are uncovering. I will continue to post as time permits. Thank you Professor.
I too have had post exchanges with Meyers and find his tactics the same as others of his caliber, childish and backed by emotion rather than evidence.
Good day.
sam, whoever that is.
Please read my policy about anonymity.
If you really want to be useful, you will reproduce my message #150 in every blog where you are allowed to speak. Don’t do it with only a link. Reproduce it verbatim. as Terry Trainor did. Then let me know where I can find it. That is the only way effectively to battle the forces of evil which is what Darwinism really is and always has been. That advice goes for everyone else who feels as I do. Don’t come back unless you at least identify yourself. Otherwise you will be deleted. I have lost all respect for anonymous lurkers. Their words mean absolutely nothing. Only action is meaningful and that only from real people.
“I won’t have cowards in my army.”
George S. Patton
I am sorry Proffesor I thought you would have rembered me, I am Samaritan Barns I work in the feild of forensics. I am very much hounded by people claiming ignorance in the way that Meyers and Dawkins openly have. I believe we have not even touched on the true understanding of origins and to boldly say we know with absolute assurance as Dawkins does is a idealogly and has no place in science. So I will join you and your companions in this battle if you would like a ally.
Well, that is much better Samaritan Barns.
It does no good only to complain here about Myers and Dawkins. These people command thousands of devoted followers just like Hitler did, like all tyrants have always done. We must expose them by confronting them, by challenging them to defend their shabby mythology. In a Democracy they would be voted out of office but the public arena is not a Democracy. I put message #150 together specifically so it could be transmitted to my enemies intact and verbatim by those who are willing to support that sentiment. I also expect that message to be delivered by real people with real names.
I have been banished from virtually every blog on both sides of this insane debate, a debate which should never have take place. That is why I am appealing to those who share my scientific views to join with me.
Furthermore, I don’t want to be stroked here or anywhere else. I want only to be feared by the ideologues on both sides of this stupid debate.
If Dawkins and Myers were really dedicated to the Darwinian fairy tale they would be delighted to defend it in a public forum. I am convinced they don’t believe a word of it! Neither of them even mention Natural Selection any more. The reason they continue to viciously assault our most treasured institutions is because they are unable to accept the only rational alternative to Darwin’s delusion which is a planned, scheduled, goal directed, and now terminated phylogeny. They suffer from acute, congenital, incurable, atheism, a condition now scientifically established to have a heritable basis.
One cannot communicate in conventional fashion with such poor souls as they are genetically immune to reason. There is only one way to deal with them which is to force them to display their tyranny by repeatedly challenging them by every means available. That is what I have been doing for years to no avail. Every “movement,” and that is what is involved, requires many followers. I am supremely confident that we can destroy their atheist inspired philosophy with hard cold science, a science in which a living, personal God is not required. I am further convinced that if a sufficient number share my confidence that we can destroy these purveyors of hate once and for all. This is not a task for an individual but for an army. The “movement” I represent is supported by the science of some of the finest minds of the post Darwinian era every one of whom had rejected Darwinism on purely empirical grounds, and not one of whom found it necessary to invoke a personal God. Only Pierre Grasse mentioned God and he did so only in a passing comment. There is no place for religion in science and Darwinism is very definitely a religion!
If someone does not share my purposes that is fine with me. If they do, I expect to see it in hard, cold, verbatim form delivered to the camps of a common adversary. Challenge the cowards until they are forced to respond. Embarrass them at every opportunity. Prove your support with actions. I am confident that sooner or later they will collapse into oblivion to become mere footnotes in the history of evolutionary science. As far as I am concerned they have already reached that pathetic state, yet they still dominate evolutionary dialogue with their atheist inspired ideology, an ideology that can never be reconciled with the testimony of either the fossil record or the experimental laboratory, the final umpires of undeniable truth.
“If you tell the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
Oscar Wilde
“If you deny the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out.”
John A. Davison
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
Your enemy is mine Professor, as we know the “establishment” has always been hostile to people like yourself. We do not fight to fight we expose the flaws of a ideology that has been outdated for a long time.Look at Dr. Barbara McClintock, one of the most influential geneticists of her time ( I hope you would agree)
But her ideas about transposable elements, were way ahead of her time an even though she was universally respected and won the Nobel Prize in Physiology the reaction of her latest and perhaps most profound discoveries and insights were attacked by the “establishment”. So as you are mocked and attacked by social scientist like the above mention ones know you are in good company.
Samaritan Barns
Being in “good company” is no longer sufficient. We are engaged in a war for the control of men’s souls. Degenerates like Dawkins and Myers have enormous influence and it continues to grow. I don’t want to be stroked. Unlike Myers, Dawkins and Elsberry, I neither want nor need a fan club. Show me a decent scientist who ever had one. You can’t and neither can anyone else. And look at the foul-mouthed, anonymous trash that comprise the fan clubs of Elsberry, Myers and Dawkins, the dregs of the intellectual world whose primary talent is playing “can you top this” with one another. They are living proof of my proposal that a huge fraction of humankind require something or someone to loathe in order to get from one day to the next. Such animals have never contributed anything positive to any field of human activity and they never will. Neither will the deranged leaders who inspire asnd encourage them!
I want supporters who are willing to invade the bastions of the enemy to destroy them with transparent truth. Are you able to speak on other blogs? Are you willing to transmit my challenge there? Are you willing to be banished as I have been? I want actions not words. If you share my evaluation of the enemy you will support it not here but where it matters, in the “groupthink” ghettos of the Darwinian mystics and anywhere else you are able to hold forth.
I have asked that message #150 on this thread be reprinted verbatim on as many internet websites as possible with the hope that the enemy will be forced to respond. So far, only Terry Trainor has complied with my request. If you are not willing to do what Trainor has done, it will soon become apparent. It is as simple as that. If you do as I ask, at least have the integrity to use your real name. Otherwise it will mean nothing, absolutely nothing. That goes for every other person who claims to share my evaluation of the Darwinian hoax. Anonymity is cowardice, the mortal enemy of honest discourse.
Re-edited November 2, 2009, 2:15 PM
Do not respond here as I want to keep this message terminal for a while. Respond on the “Why Banishment?” thread if you have anything to report.
I have lost “anonymous benefactor,” my webmaster and am seeking someone to help me manage some of my essays which I am unable to do myself. It will have to be someone sympathetic with my heresies of course, assuming that is conceivable. Any volunteers?