This site is for comments that do not fit in one of the six primary subjects (threads) which have always characterized this weblog. I realize that many do not approve of my methods, but I regard them as vastly superior to those weblogs which constantly bury earlier threads into what amounts to oblivion. This new Post also invites vitriol and insult just as all the others always have. The comments will remain even though the commenter may force me to banish him. Everyone knows the rules here.

I intend to do some house cleaning and will delete comments that did not belong in one of the six threads.

I hope everyone understands. Thank you for your patience.

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.”

Since I have not yet had to banish anyone from participation here, I have been thinking about why so many blogs and forum heads insist on banishing their adversaries. Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent, Panda’s Thumb and many other blogs and forums ban comments from adversaries and often erect barriers making it very difficult to register. P.Z. Myers of Pharyngula periodically complains about how his “security has been penetrated,” sounding more and more like Captain Queeg of the Caine Mutiny. He has another revealing tactic. He will allow comments to be sent from anyone but only he decides which will ever appear. None of mine have. I had to resort to subterfuge to comment on his blog only to see my comments disappear within minutes.

DaveScot/David Springer of Uncommon Descent lets dissenters speak only then typically to dismiss their author with “___ is no longer with us” or “you’re outta here Homo” or some other equally charming farewell. Then if things get dull he may let them back in again so he can enjoy expelling them for a second and in my case a third time. My first banishment from Uncommon Descent consisted of being unable to reregister. I  have no idea who was responsible for that one. Most probably it was Dembski. Of course banishment remains the responsibility of the blog owner or owners.

ARN and RichardDawkins.net have not only banished me but denied me viewing their proceedings from this computer.

Why do so many blogs and forums  find it necessary to engage in such tactics? That is the subject of this thread. What does this mean? What does it accomplish?  How can one properly respond to a critic if he cannot continue the dialogue to some sort of conclusion? Doesn’t it just promote resentment? Thankfully I have not yet had to delete a single comment or ban any user from this blog. Of course that may change. I look forward to the views of others on what I regard, with anonymity, as a very important issue. In the meantime -

“Will you walk into my parlour?” said the spider to the fly;

“T’is the prettiest little parlour that ever you did spy.”

Mary Howitt

* As of August 21, 2008 I am  also denied  viewing the proceedings of “After The Bar Closes.”

It doesn’t get any better than this.

I thought it might be fun to have a thread where I and others can make predictions. After all, isn’t that what scientists often do? They examine the data, produce an hypothesis and as part of the verification procedure they make predictions. If the predictions prove to be accurate, the hypothesis receives support, and with enough support it will be elevated to the status of a true theory. That is precisely how all scientific hypotheses are verified. Actually I feel the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis has already reached the status of theory, but that is just me!

I hope that others will offer their predictions and I do not mean to limit our predictions to only evolutionary matters. One can make predictions on  any subject one chooses.

Let me start the ball rolling with a couple of my own.

1. Before the end of this decade those who deny an anthropogenic global warming will be scarce as hen’s teeth.

2. Al Gore will be the Democratic nominee for the 2008 election and he will probably win! Now I am really out on a limb with this one but I am trying to evoke a little more interest in this blog!

Now let’s hear from others what their predictions are. You don’t even have to use your right names but it would be nice if you did. How else can you be rewarded for being right?

 ”A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

In 2004 I published a paper “Is Evolution Finished?” Rivista di Biologia/Biology Forum 97: 111-116. I now rearrange the words and offer it as a challenge to those who claim otherwise. 

It is my conviction that creative evolution is a phenomenon of the distant past. Just as ontogeny is a self-limiting process terminating in the adult organism and its subsequent death,  phylogeny has had a similar history resulting in the current biota. I see no evidence for the emergence of any new life forms, only trivial variations in existing species. In the distant past creative evolution and extinction were occurring simultaneously.  That is no longer evident. This idea is not original with me and has been suggested by such distinguished scientists as Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse. I have simply extended their conclusions to include true speciation. Stated another way, there is no longer a balance between creative evolution and extinction. Related to this sequence is the evidence that Homo sapiens seems to be the youngest mammal ever to appear which suggests a goal directed process, now complete. Extinction is rampant as fragile habitats are being destroyed by human activity and with them all those species restricted to those habitats. The exact number of known species is unknown with estimates ranging from one to ten million, but that tens of thousands of them have become and are becoming extinct cannot be denied. I know of not a single  replacement. If others think they do, please use this opportunity to identify it along with its immediate ancestor and the cytogenetic mechansim by which it was produced.

I realize this perspective is in marked contrast to the Darwinian model. I present it confident that the Darwinians will ignore this opportunity to defend their paradigm in open discussion. The atheist Darwinian establishment has traditionally pretended that they had no critics and I offer this challenge primarily to demonstrate to the scientific community that little has changed in the century and a half since the publication of Darwin’s “Origin of Species,” a book which offers, in my opinion, absolutely nothing of substance relating to its title. 

The reason that this challenge will not be met is because the “establishment” now realizes that their model is a dismal failure. Rather than admit that they have dedicated their professional lives to a phantom, they have chosen to lash out blindly at all that recognize that chance could never have had anything to do with the origin or the susequent history of either ontogeny or phylogeny.

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.”

Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134.

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.

MERRY CHRISTMAS

I regard the future of our civilization to be in great jeopardy.

As a physiologist I regard man as a chemical machine obtaining energy through the oxidation of fuel just as other chemical machines do. Machines are rated in horse power; one horsepower is 746 watts. A 70 kilogram human at rest is producing heat, CO2, and H2O through the oxidation of  food stuffs at a rate of about a tenth of a horsepower (80 watts). Accordingly,  a human, when driving a typical automobile rated at 200 horsepower, is producing CO2 and H2O at a rate 2000 times greater than himself.

 No other animal has the energy requirement of Homo sapiens. It is all due to the industrial society we have created. Everything we do produces CO2 far beyond that needed for our physiological maintenance as an animal. Coupled with this, we are by far the most numerous mammal on earth, approaching 7 billions – 7,000,000,000. No other mammal even comes close. There may be an equal number of chickens which contribute a substantial fraction of our animal food.  These mind boggling numbers have led me to question if it is possible to sustain a civilization with such requirements.  My intuitive, knee jerk, reaction, and that is all that it is, is a definite NO!

What I find amazing is the polarization that surrounds this issue. It is demonstated in the rallying cry of the skeptics invading  the Bali Conference, shouting – “Have the courage to say no.” What could possibly ever be accomplished by such an attitude?

I recently discovered the book, “The Weather Makers” by Tim Flannery, an Australian climatologist and naturalist. Like myself, he has reached what  can only be described as a doomsday forecast. While my concern is only intuitive, Flannery presents solid evidence that the changes we see taking place right now have already proceeded too far to be reversed.  I recommend his book for all those interested in the future of the  earth which, as far as we know, is the only planet in the universe supporting life in any form. The way things are progressing, Homo sapiens, the youngest and apparently last mammal species that will, in my opinion, ever appear may also prove to be the one with the shortest life span.

The only solution I can offer involves the reduction of our numbers by at least two orders of magnitude to around 70 million, or very roughly the world’s population prior to the industrial revolution a mere two centuries ago. It was that revolution that produced this result. Never in the history of the planet have such great changes taken place over such a short period of time.

I consider pandemic disease to be the most likely means by which this reduction will occur. 

I realize this is a pessimistic forecast and with that in mind, I welcome the views of others.

“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”

The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PDF download requires Adobe or similar viewer)