A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Hello Dr. DavisonBefore we get started I want to remind you that I have chosen not to use my real name here and I ask that you honor the rules you agreed to when you registered here and not invade my privacy by revealing my real name.In case you didn't read the registration agreement here is the relevant portion:EvC Forum: Information Are you willing to abide by this?

Could you describe what's special about a frog heterozygous for chromosome reorganization and how exactly does one identify such a frog?Edited by DaveScot, : No reason given.

You only used the word "loop" one time in the manifesto and no mention was made that it is how to identify the test animals. Shortly thereafter and finally It appears we have two imaginary, unproven means of speciation at issue in the above; semi-meiosis and Darwinian. You seem to have declared that to settle the matter the Darwinians have to prove theirs works and if they cannot then yours must be the truth by default. That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your challenge. Please explain.You are the expert on the manifesto. It's helpful when you refer to your own work you would quote a page and paragraph and drop the snide remarks about classes I should take.At any rate, you didn't define any methodology for finding these frogs that are heterozygous for chromosome reorganization. You say they can be identified by a loop structure evident during meiosis. So to find these frogs does one have to watch frog germ cells being created under a microscope with enough resolution to see this loop structure? And then what, when one of those germ cells is identified somehow take it off the slide and grow it into an adult frog?Verification of this hypothesis necessarily requires someone to perform some work in a laboratory. I'm trying to determine what the work is and how it is to be performed. There's a reason no one has done this experimental work. I want to know if difficulty or impossibility is the reason. I don't believe for a New York minute that fear of exposing the Darwinian hoax is why no one has done this experimental work. The scientist who successfully disproves the modern synthesis and demonstrates the real mechanism of organic evolution would become rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. That's something to covet not fear.Edited by DaveScot, : Minor spelling corrections.

Thank you for the clear answer. Here are some further questions:Could you describe the procedure for observing a frog germ cell being created under sufficient resolution to identify it as heterozygous for a chromosome reorganization? Please provide enough detail so I can get an idea of the time and effort required per observation.After finding one of the above, is there a way to recover it from the microscope stage and grow it into an adult frog? Again, if you could, provide enough detail so I can get an idea of the time and effort required.Finally, do you have an estimate of how many observations might be necessary in order to find the one required? No we have not. The most I've gotten in the past is a description of the animal you needed and couldn't locate. Perhaps you discussed this further with someone else. If so I'd be happy to read that account of it and save you the trouble of repeating yourself. If you could be so kind as to give me a direct link to where this is recorded I shall go read it forthwith. I have never seen a detailed description of the experimental work including equipment, procedures, and estimates of the manpower required. I don't know about labs in academia but I spent decades in commercial research labs and writing up your experimental program before embarking on it is standard operating procedure just like a business plan is SOP before starting up a new line of business. Is it done differently in university laboratories?It seems to me you're being rather evasive about this. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that the semi-meiotic hypothesis has merit that warrants testing it. That appears to be more generous than most people are willing to be with it. I'm merely trying to determine what it would cost to test it. Research has to be paid for, Doctor Davison, and the people writing the checks to cover it usually want some idea of the cost and anticipated range of results before underwriting the program. I'm rather surprised you have never written up a detailed experimental program to submit to various sources for funding.

You ask me to apologize for suggesting you're being evasive and then went on to avoid each and every question I asked. I'm sorry I suggested you were being evasive.Here are the questions again.

No need to ask me to leave. Doctor Davision has refused, as always, to provide details on an experimental program to test the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis and instead responds with hostility and evasion when asked. I have as a result come to the conclusion that it is simply another untestable narrative no better or worse than the Darwinian narrative of chance and necessity.I might be naive about post-doctoral frog dissection but I'm certainly not naive about funding research for new ideas. In my professional career I participated in the evaluation of nearly a thousand requests in a $40 billion/year computer company to spend corporate money on research and development of patent abstracts and as a result I can smell a lame duck a mile away.If anyone thinks I might be wrong just see if you can get Davison to describe an experimental program in enough detail so that someone with money and interest might be willing to fund it. Good luck and good bye.

Alrighty then. I was persuaded to endeavour to persevere.Gynogenetic diploid amphibians are a standard research animal. You pulled a classic moving of the goalpost, Doctor Davison. We were talking about frogs heterozygous for chromosome rearrangment. That is the animal you said you needed and was not able to acquire. I was perfectly aware all along that frog eggs could be activated by piercing with a fine needle or using irradiated sperm to produce gynogenetic normal diploid adults. I'm not stupid and I read the manifesto more than once. These are not the same thing as heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement.Now please could you describe with a modicum of detail how a frog heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement can be found? Before you lost the plot and went off on the gynogenetic tangent we were at the point where you said meiosis would have be observed under a microscope looking for a loop structure to confirm heterozygosity for chromosome rearrangement.My questions then were (for the third time): In answer to your question about what is meant by recovering it from a microscope stage: I presume you need live adult animals to work with. When it has been confirmed under the microscope that there was a loop structure during meiosis I had assumed you must then use that particular germ cell to produce an adult animal which will then be heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement. I was wondering how one recovers the cell from a microscope slide and raises it into an adult animal. The act of mounting it on a slide and illuminating it with a hot sub-stage light, possibly needing to stain it so you could see the detail, would kill it and make it impossible to then grow that particular germ cell into an adult. I'm not an expert at that kind of work so I'd asked you, the expert, politely and in straightforward manner how this would be done. Maybe I've got the procedure all wrong. I'm forced to guess at it because you're being uncooperative for some reason.I take it that acquiring a frog heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement isn't easy or you would have done it yourself sometime since 1984. I am trying to determine how difficult a task it is and a ballpark cost. You seem determined to not provide me with the detail I'm requesting.

Well then, if the mechanism of evolution isn't what you want to talk about I fail to see what there is to discuss. Billions of people reject the Darwinian narrative. You're just one more and given your hideous personality not exactly the top choice to discuss it with. The only thing different about you is that you have proposed an alternate mechanism. Since you don't want to talk about how that mechanism can be tested you're worse than useless. You're a liability to anyone who associates themselves with you because of your stinking rotten personality. See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

Doctor DavisonI'm as torn as ever between admiration/agreement with your published work and disgust/loathing of its author.You've said on several occasions that your work speaks for itself. Sadly this is not true. You still speak for it. I'd like nothing more than to put your work back on Uncommon Descent and refer to it if it could somehow be dissociated with your foul living personality on the internet. As I indicated before, as great as your detective work and sound conclusions regarding the mystery of organic evolution, it becomes a liability to promote it as long as you are around to provide running commentary.So here's what I'm going to do. I will restore your work at Uncommon Descent in memoriam if it is within my power at the time. Then it will truly be able to speak for itself. You told me many times that you'd have to die before your work is recognized. I didn't believe you at the time. Now I do. But how was I to know it was a self-fulfilling prophecy you were giving me.{DaveScot's posting permissions in this forum have been terminated. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.