Thankyou for directing me here from The Guardian blog.
I prefer reading books to the internet – which of your published works would you recommend to a non-biologist?
I have written no books and hope someday to have my evolutionary writings published as a collection. I recommend my “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change” for starters and the works of my sources on which my own science is largely based. It would help if you could digest basic biology especially mitosis and meiosis which are key to understanding my thesis. Actually I do this for you in the Manifesto. Meiosis is often erroneously presented in introductory textbooks. Don’t worry about technical matters, just read for the general picture which you will find to be thoroughly anti-Darwinian.
If you have further questions don’t hesitate to ask them.
John (if I may)
I have had a skim through a fair chunk of your work as recommended. I will need to go through it more carefully, when I have brushed up on the Biology in order to gain a fuller appreciation, but I find your ideas fascinating and compelling. I have no problem with the concepts of “design” and “purpose” as these accord with my reading and thoughts on Physics and Cosmology.
One naive question: does your model predict, (if that’s the right term to use about the past) a common ancestor for all life on earth, or does it require that different species came into being separately and at different times?
I am inclined to agree with Leo Berg who suggested that there were -
“Tens of thousands of prmary forms.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
Berg was right about so many things that I always take him seriously. Besides, the fossil record indicates the same thing. There is no more reason to believe in a monophyletic evolution than in a monotheistic God. Furthermore, there is no a priori reason to insist on a male God since the male species has always been anti-evolutionary as far as I can determine. Stated another way, it is my conviction that obligatory sexual reproduction is now and always was incompatible with creative evolution. If it were possible to evolve through bisexual means it would have been proved long ago. As a matter of fact it seems only to ensure ultimate extnction. I hope this may help you to understand why I am persona non grata with the Fundamentalists and the Darwinians alike. The truth lies elsewhere in the first meiotic division, a presexual cytogenetic event which is only effective in the female line.
As for a male God, they don’t call her Mother Nature for nothing!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
That does not mean it is wrong!
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
George Bernard Shaw
Thankyou for directing me here from The Guardian blog.
I prefer reading books to the internet – which of your published works would you recommend to a non-biologist?
tonydodd
I have written no books and hope someday to have my evolutionary writings published as a collection. I recommend my “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change” for starters and the works of my sources on which my own science is largely based. It would help if you could digest basic biology especially mitosis and meiosis which are key to understanding my thesis. Actually I do this for you in the Manifesto. Meiosis is often erroneously presented in introductory textbooks. Don’t worry about technical matters, just read for the general picture which you will find to be thoroughly anti-Darwinian.
If you have further questions don’t hesitate to ask them.
Thank you for your interest.
John (if I may)
I have had a skim through a fair chunk of your work as recommended. I will need to go through it more carefully, when I have brushed up on the Biology in order to gain a fuller appreciation, but I find your ideas fascinating and compelling. I have no problem with the concepts of “design” and “purpose” as these accord with my reading and thoughts on Physics and Cosmology.
One naive question: does your model predict, (if that’s the right term to use about the past) a common ancestor for all life on earth, or does it require that different species came into being separately and at different times?
Tony Dodd
Tony Dodd
I am inclined to agree with Leo Berg who suggested that there were -
“Tens of thousands of prmary forms.”
Nomogenesis, page 406.
Berg was right about so many things that I always take him seriously. Besides, the fossil record indicates the same thing. There is no more reason to believe in a monophyletic evolution than in a monotheistic God. Furthermore, there is no a priori reason to insist on a male God since the male species has always been anti-evolutionary as far as I can determine. Stated another way, it is my conviction that obligatory sexual reproduction is now and always was incompatible with creative evolution. If it were possible to evolve through bisexual means it would have been proved long ago. As a matter of fact it seems only to ensure ultimate extnction. I hope this may help you to understand why I am persona non grata with the Fundamentalists and the Darwinians alike. The truth lies elsewhere in the first meiotic division, a presexual cytogenetic event which is only effective in the female line.
As for a male God, they don’t call her Mother Nature for nothing!
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
That does not mean it is wrong!
“All great truths begin as blasphemies.”
George Bernard Shaw
That’s me, old blasphemous John A. Davison!
I love it so!
You may quote me. I wish someone would!