Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 151 of 300 (321140)
06-13-2006 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 150 by John A. Davison
06-13-2006 12:49 PM


Re: PEH
What ever happened to posts 136 through 148?
I am seeing them. Are you having a problem?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 150 by John A. Davison, posted 06-13-2006 12:49 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 152 by John A. Davison, posted 06-13-2006 4:48 PM AdminNWR has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 152 of 300 (321190)
06-13-2006 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by AdminNWR
06-13-2006 1:59 PM


Re: PEH
Everything is OK. I don't know what the problem was. Just me I guess.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by AdminNWR, posted 06-13-2006 1:59 PM AdminNWR has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 153 of 300 (321202)
06-13-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by John A. Davison
06-11-2006 4:10 PM


Re: PEH as in phylogeny like ontogeny...
Have you ever thought explicitly about ontogenized phylogeny by differentiating growth and development?
Black racers for example develop from a spotted form to all-black but continue to grow till death. It seems to me that “accelerated” phylogeny if ”created’ (even at least via analogy to ontogeny)
quote:
examples of what he (Berg) called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature appearance of advanced features in primitive organisms.
(bold added) might posses ”higher’ order derivatives of position that physics disallows theoretically but may provide nonetheless a theoretical basis mathematically beyond the alternatives of Lamarck and Darwin ( from which you situated your notion)
quote:
Historically there have been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to be of advantage to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which evolution proceeded
such that a slight shift of the fulcrum between development and growth by PEH or some other alternative, could provide new and different correlations predictable allometrically?
Quotes@EVCDataDrop
Edited by Brad McFall, : quotes added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by John A. Davison, posted 06-11-2006 4:10 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by John A. Davison, posted 06-13-2006 9:27 PM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 157 by John A. Davison, posted 06-14-2006 6:53 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 154 of 300 (321210)
06-13-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by John A. Davison
06-08-2006 2:12 PM


Re: Lack of response to the PEH
Well simply ask me a question about any "word" and I will 'translate' it this time. Last time I was concerned about the SHAPE possibly implied by PEH but I was unable to to determine, back then, if it would be more like a branch or more like a bush. I can see a way, depeding on how you respond, that the PROBLEM I have with your alternative possibly being in the form of a "branch", need cause no worries. It did last time. This time you have said with Grasse, that allelic mutation play(s) "no part" in 'creative evolution.' I am not sure this is the best way to describe PEH but then again the extent of my intuition is not any better tha WKs. To you I must defer until I can understand better how the genomic information *is* ontogenized. I have been personally thinking somewhat generally like you for years. I have called it "phylogeny recapitulates ontogeny" if you care to search EVC.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John A. Davison, posted 06-08-2006 2:12 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by John A. Davison, posted 06-13-2006 9:02 PM Brad McFall has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 155 of 300 (321260)
06-13-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by Brad McFall
06-13-2006 5:58 PM


Re: Lack of response to the PEH
Brad
I have no idea how the preformed information was "ontogenized," to use your term and neither does anyone else. That it was seems to me inescapable. I repeat that I see no role whatever for allelic mutation in creative evolution at any level. In other words I agree with Grasse. It is part of the illusion that the atheist Darwinian mindset has invented and nothing more. Of course "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" goes all the way back to Haeckel who unfortunately found it necessary to present fictitious illustrations to support his German mysticism. Neverthelss Ernst Haeckel was an excellent zoologist just as was August Weismann. Both went overboard in their support of the Darwinian model. Darwin was primarily a Lamarckian himself. Someone once wisely observed:
"Darwin was more Lamarckian than Lamarck and Weismann was more Darwinian than Darwin."
There is little to any of it when the details are examined. There are enormous morphological and developmental gaps revealed by comparative embryology that render the Biogenetic Law meaningless, even naive. That is one of the reasons I feel there may have been more than one and perhaps several independent creations or front loadings. I remain convinced that chance has played no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny in complete agreement with Broom, Grasse and Berg. I regard it as established that there was a Plan, a word Broom capitalized and I am further convinced that the Plan has been realized and phylogeny is no longer in progress. That is the significance of my signature below.
Thanks for the response. I hope this helps.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by Brad McFall, posted 06-13-2006 5:58 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by Brad McFall, posted 06-14-2006 3:48 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 156 of 300 (321266)
06-13-2006 9:27 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Brad McFall
06-13-2006 5:49 PM


Re: PEH as in phylogeny like ontogeny...
Sure as long as chance is not involved. I see no role for it in the past and there can be none in the future because evolution is finished as my signature indicates. I stand by my publications and those of my illustrious predecessors. I am certainly not the firt to claim that evolution is finished. I know this sounds very arbitrary but it reflects my certainty and nothing more. I will be happy to abandon the PEH when there is sufficient reason to do so, and not a moment before. So far it is only receiving support. I am content.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Brad McFall, posted 06-13-2006 5:49 PM Brad McFall has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 157 of 300 (321355)
06-14-2006 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 153 by Brad McFall
06-13-2006 5:49 PM


Re: PEH as in phylogeny like ontogeny...
Brad
I have thought about all the things you mention for the past quarter century and published my conclusions. Science is discovery and that is all it has ever been. Mathematics was always there, waiting to be discovered and it always existed independent of the human condition. I believe that to be true for all of science. The trouble came when some decided they knew the cause of both ontogeny and phylogeny and erected artificial, untenable hypotheses as explanations. There is now and never was a tangible identifiable cause for either ontogeny or phylogeny that can be identified with the environment in any way. Both have proceeded driven entirely from within those organisms capable of leaving offsring fundamentally different from themselves.
In my opinion such organisms no longer exist, an opinion I will hold until it is proven to be without foundation. That position is summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Brad McFall, posted 06-13-2006 5:49 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 158 of 300 (321499)
06-14-2006 3:48 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by John A. Davison
06-13-2006 9:02 PM


Broom's plan
Well here is a bit of a puzzle then.
Broom is R. Broom of:
quote:
Ghost lineages and “mammalness”: assessing the temporal pattern of ...
... of new characters in the course of the origin of a major new Bauplan.” ... Broom, R., 1932. The mammal-like reptiles of South Africa and the origin of ...www.psjournals.org/.../?request=get-document& issn=0094-8373&volume=024&issue=02&page=0254 - Similar pages
And
quote:
Mimicry & Evolution
Broom, R. (1930): The Origin of the Human Skeleton: An Introduction to Human Osteology ... Broom, R. (1933b): The Coming of Man - Was it Accident or Design? ...www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm - 106k - Cached - Similar pages
Broom is pictured as an admirer of the work of Richard Owen, as a lifelong and thorough student of the Bible, as an evolutionist who believed in the disembodied existence of spirits as well as in transcendental spiritual force who guided his research activities and discoveries. Broom's evolutionary theory is based on the existence of some sort of 'intelligent spiritual agency' of two types: a) the lower agency, present in animals and plants, of limited vision and limited power, and b) that of a much higher type which has planned and directed evolution (via directing from time to time the former, inferior agencies). Broom pointed to the presence of an uncountable multitude of convergences which cannot be explained satisfactorily by lamarckism or by darwinism. Broom announced that evolution is practically finished, that the physical evolution has stopped but the process continues on a higher, spiritual plane. Relation of Broom's evolutionary theory to the standard British metaphysics is discussed and compared with related ideas of other great British scientists (including e.g. Isaac Newton, Arthur C. Clarke, Julian Huxley) and some present-day conceptions (e.g., darwinism and scientific
http://www.natur.cuni.cz/~vpetr/Broom.htm
???????????????????????right?
Also, the PLAN is the “bauplan”, yes??
If so then it would be necessary to distinguish Woodger’s use (relying on Bertrand Russell and Whiteheads’ “Principia Mathematica”) as further discussed by Gould and the standardbearers of all that was past evolution from a larger logical compass your notions seem to behold in more than one place. This can be done. Is there some other notion of “plan” involved???
Unremarked Quotes from GOOGLE.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by John A. Davison, posted 06-13-2006 9:02 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by John A. Davison, posted 06-14-2006 8:56 PM Brad McFall has replied
 Message 160 by John A. Davison, posted 06-15-2006 8:06 AM Brad McFall has not replied
 Message 161 by John A. Davison, posted 06-15-2006 2:48 PM Brad McFall has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 159 of 300 (321601)
06-14-2006 8:56 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brad McFall
06-14-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Brad
I have the greatest admiration for all of my several sources including Robert Broom. His personal idiosyncracies, some of which you mention, have nothing to do with his stature as a great paleontologist, and I am surprised you would even bring them up. I had the pleasure of hearing Robert Broom lecture when I was a sophomore at the University of Wisconsin in 1948. It was obvious even then that we were in the presence of a great mind. I also found it very interesting that you would bring up Julian Huxley who, more than any other scholar of his day, cast serious even devastating doubt on the notion that evolution was even any longer occurring, "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis," page 571. He got those ideas which he presented in crystalline form from Robert Broom as I documented in my Manifesto. As for the other intellectuals you mention, they were not biologists and so have no credentials with respect to the the subject of evolution.
I also fail to see what your post has to do with the PEH. It should be obvious that I have rejected both the Darwinian and the Lamarckian paradigms in favor of what seems to me the only remaining explanation. Evolution was predetermined from beginning to end with no role for the environment beyond that of acting as a trigger or releaser for latent contained creative potential. Otto Schindewolf said as much as well as I documented in my recent paper. I also agree with Julian Huxley, Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse that creative evolution is a thing of the past as my signature continues to claim. I have published as much and see no reason to alter my convictions.
If our shared conclusions are in error they should be exposed as such. So far that has not happened and in my opinion is quite impossible. I repeat there is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian model of significance beyond the elaboration of intraspecific varieties and subspecies which are blind alleys and certainly not incipient species exactly as maintained by Richard B. Goldschmidt 66 long years ago.
"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein
"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 sentence is in italics for emphasis).
That is precisely what the PEH does.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brad McFall, posted 06-14-2006 3:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by Brad McFall, posted 06-15-2006 5:41 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 160 of 300 (321760)
06-15-2006 8:06 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brad McFall
06-14-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Eldredge and Gould contributed nothing to our understanding of organic evolution beyond emphasizing that which had been known for a very long time, namely that evolution occurred in spurts. I owe absolutely nothing to them or to Dawkins, Mayr or Provine or to any other Darwinian mystic for that matter.
What we are dealing with here are genetically predetermined (prescribed) world views that are deep seated in the human condition as has been so very obviously revealed by the studies on separated homozygotic (geneticaly identical) twins. They prove to be more similar when raised separately than when raised together because when together they establish differences so that others can tell them apart!
Imagine Gould comparing evolution to a drunk reeeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door in a book entitled, of all things, "Full House." Or claiming with a straight face that "Intelligence was an evolutionary accident." Or how about Dawkins across the pond with his Blind Watchmaker gamely climbing Mount Improbable or Ernst Mayr describing himself as a dyed-in-the wool Darwinian, "The Growth of Biological Thought," page 134? Ye God's, how any rational observer can accept any of this ideologically constrained drivel completely escapes me. Am I alone here at EvC with my heresies? If I am I might as well fold my PEH tent and present my thesis elsewhere if I can find a forum that will allow me that is. I sure can't do it at Uncommon Descent, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb or FringeSciences. Those forums won't even mention my name because if they do they will open a can of worms that will destroy them. And DaveScot has not returned my papers to Uncommon Descent because William Dembski will not allow it. We are dealing with two or more armed camps each bent on the other's destruction and all horribly mistaken about everything they each hold dear. Each of the various factions has its own self-proclaimed egomaniacal leader not one of whom qualifies as a real scientist. Dawkins, Mayr, Provine and Gould all retired prematurely to their endowed chairs where they began a continuous supply of science fiction for the consumption of like-minded predisposed (prescribed)mentalities. Dembski has presented Intelligent Design as nothing more than an "inference" and has attempted to "prove mathematically" that which was obvious to every one my sources.
As I say so many times on my blog - It is hard to believe isn't it?
"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne
Not all of us Michel!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brad McFall, posted 06-14-2006 3:48 PM Brad McFall has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 300 (321943)
06-15-2006 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 158 by Brad McFall
06-14-2006 3:48 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Brad
Since you insist on bringing up Bertrand Russell:
"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no reason whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Or better yet, this one from Boris Ephrussi who proved that all mitochondria come from mitochondria:
"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
So much for Darwinism in all it trappings, the most thoroughly failed, ideologically conceived, perpetuated and useless hypothesis in the history of science. That some could still believe any aspect of it boggles my mind.
There now, I feel somewhat better.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by Brad McFall, posted 06-14-2006 3:48 PM Brad McFall has not replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 162 of 300 (321991)
06-15-2006 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 159 by John A. Davison
06-14-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Well,
I guess I thought it was obvious what it had to do with PEH.
You mentioned that no one can know whether there has been ONE or more than one origin"" to life. Indeed, but as to "the plan" that binds forms together, whether by some spiritual force or some material tracing of reality, it does matter if the PLAN refers to a or a plural amount of different forms (no matter the number of origins)as logic )may( work(s) differently, depending on how the ordination of the cardinality of these formations format.
This is why I was wondering if the capitlized on plan you mentioned prior was restricted to the bauplan"" that had sedimented into contempory evolutionary theory (sustained with the what I would indeed call restricted logic that PEH would need to purge in the general biological community to win further acceptance, coming from Russel but maintained in the standarized accounting of academic biology); if Broom's "bauplan" was plural via PEH or if the position remained singular in effect only as to the actuality of PEH.
If that did not make sense I will rephrase it. You answered my first question as to reality behind any statistical interpreptation of data bearing on or at PEH but I do not yet see if the forms (no matter whether a "bush" or a "branch" in theoretical shape, at this point in the discussion)are divided by PEH or rather if PEH maintains simply "oversight". I assumed simply from bringing back, the Broom you swept up, that this MUST be plural, if my sense of PEH had any weight.
Now that you question the relevance of Broom's plan to PEH, I wonder...Feel free to continue to divaricate darwinism within any or every sentence because although I am not of your generation the sense of Darwinism passed down to me from my Grandfather is, and of that I am fairly acutely aware. I got to listen to Gould, Mayr, Stebbins, D.S. Wilson, Lewotin and Provine instead. There *is* a generational issue within Darwinism but you are correct that ^this^ should not show it's tail in the heading nor body of this thread. As to OTHER alternatives than Darwinism and Lamarckianism, there ARE... Croizatism is one. I have not tried to see how acceleration or decelearion of evolutionary rates is related to specific geographies. That would need to be done if other alternatives were to be contrasted with PEH. I am not at that place just yet, in this (our errorless) conversation.
If I can clear up the logical issues I may not have with PEH perhaps your wondering what else might be behind what I am questioning can be revealed. I have not secret here.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by John A. Davison, posted 06-14-2006 8:56 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 163 by John A. Davison, posted 06-15-2006 6:48 PM Brad McFall has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 163 of 300 (322019)
06-15-2006 6:48 PM
Reply to: Message 162 by Brad McFall
06-15-2006 5:41 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Brad
I have great difficulty following your line of thought.
I am waiting for a challenge to the substance of the PEH. None has yet appeared. What Broom meant or believed means nothing now. The simple truth is that the Darwinian model is without substance.
What I do not understand is why I was selected to appear in this limited format in the first place. Was it to expose me as a charlatan and fool? It certainly was not to refute my thesis as I see no evidence of that. Instead I see all sorts of diversions none of which have anything to do with the substance of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I have made my position indelibly clear. I have rejected Darwinism entirely and substituted an alternative which seems to me to be in complete accord with everything we really know about organic evolution, especially the revelations of the last half century none of which can ever be reconciled with the notion that evolution was an undirected accident.
Now if no one is willing to address the substance of my thesis, let that become evident by continuing to avoid the crux of the matter which is that there was never a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. That is my conclusion as it was that of Mivart, Broom, Grasse, Berg, Bateson, Punnett, Osborn and Schindewolf, a veritable honor role of the finest minds of two centuries. It is they not I who are being dismissed here. I am but their spokesperson who managed to formalize their conclusions and present them in the form of the PEH.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 162 by Brad McFall, posted 06-15-2006 5:41 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 164 by Brad McFall, posted 06-15-2006 9:16 PM John A. Davison has replied
 Message 165 by Alan Fox, posted 06-16-2006 4:09 AM John A. Davison has replied

Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5023 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 164 of 300 (322051)
06-15-2006 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by John A. Davison
06-15-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Pay no attention to the structure of the means to communicate nor the negative chatter (on EVC). It never bothers me.
You wrote
quote:
The simplest explanation is that the information was present in a latent state and simply revealed or derepressed when the chromosome segments were placed in a new configuration (Davison, 1993).
http:///DataDropsite/APrescribedEvolutionaryHypothesis.html
I would like to understand if this implies, per simpliciter, One or More Than one EVENT(evolution). That is the extent of my questioning in the last post.
I have not axe to grind against alternatives to Lamarck or Darwin, so in this sense you will find no challenge in that from me.
Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by John A. Davison, posted 06-15-2006 6:48 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 166 by John A. Davison, posted 06-16-2006 5:43 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Alan Fox
Member (Idle past 1972 days)
Posts: 32
From: France
Joined: 06-14-2006


Message 165 of 300 (322112)
06-16-2006 4:09 AM
Reply to: Message 163 by John A. Davison
06-15-2006 6:48 PM


Re: Broom's plan
Hi John
Would you be interested in replying to a few questions from me?
Regards
Alan Fox

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by John A. Davison, posted 06-15-2006 6:48 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 167 by John A. Davison, posted 06-16-2006 6:16 AM Alan Fox has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024