Criticizing neo-Darwinism

According Davison there is no doubt, that evolution is a fact, but neodarwinism is incapable to account for it.I am much impressed by Davisons Evolutionary manifesto - one of the most concise critics of darwinism - which was in turn here very criticized.In discussions and threads here in EVC lot of opponents claim that Davison cited Grasse and much more older scientists, who are nowadays out of date.
Even there was a remark, that Grasse himself cited some outdated source from 1901!
And yet to cite Darwins teaching from midst of 19 c. is still
up to date and scientifically correct.It does not matter how old some resource is, because darwinist scientists ignore all facts that do not conform to the neodarwinistic schema. One of these phenomenons are mimicry. Mimetism (or mimicry) was studied very intesive before WW2, yet on
the talkorigins there are no mention of it. Davison cited for instance Punnet, who studied butterflies mimicry and came to the conclusion, that selection is no sufficient explanation to the phenomenon, and to the same conclusion came Heikertinger
(who wrotes plenty books on development of insects and whose corresponding with Erich Wasmann on mimicry was once followed by all biological community in Europe.
But just try to find something more about Heikertinger on internet. Btw, Heikertinger too dismissed darwinian selection, which according him just remove extremities.)There are plenty of books on mimicry, yet no relaible source of explanation of it.For instance: there are 14 females distinct morphs of African Mocker Swallowtail, Papilio dardanus (males look identical). Most of these female morphs represent Batesian mimicry
of distasteful species of Danidae and Acraeidae.Some of them are here:
Batesian mimicry in Papilio dardanusAccording to Nijhout (2003) these represents one of the most puzzling cases of evolution in animal world.What is most interesting is his - Nijhout - darwinian explanation of this phenomenon: big initial mutation and subsequent refinement of these mutations.
"Initial step in the evolution of mimicry is likely to have been due to a genetic effect of large magnitude".Does not sound this explanation like saltationism, macroevolution? Page not found | Department of Neurobiology and Behavior This is very good example, because there is no doubt of same colour patterns on wings of different species of butterfflies and neo-darwinists cannot claims that the likeness is "superficial" (as is the case in the likeness of skeleton (skull) of europian and marsupial wolves mentioned in Manifesto).There is no mention of Swallowtail on talkorigin and no satisfactory explanation of this phenomenon yet, even though the phenomenon is known and cited more than 150 years!******************
Post is now under new topic as "Mimicry and neodarwism", please
put any responses there.
Edited by MartinV, : There is new thread for this phenomenon - Mimicry and darwinism.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Hi AdminWounded,thank you - I put the message to proposed topics under name "Mimicry and neodarwinism". Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Criticizing darwinism is sometimes weird job. Thanks to administrators at EvC forum I was treated correctly and I was never denigrated here as is the case at ATBC forum. Yet it was me who was banned there. Reason: they considered me to be John Davison in disguise!Alan Fox wrote me: My response:

I don't know if this is the right place to ask the question but anyway: Is it not possible to readmit John Davison to present his views here or in some special thread? Personaly I consider his Manifesto for something that should be discussed as much as possible.Personaly I did not find yet any complex rebuttal of his claims from Manifesto and on the other hand I found many facts that supports his citations and views presented there (like that of Robert Broom's of end of evolution and R. Punnett's on saltationism in mimicry).I see - discussion with John Davison at EvC some times ago was turbulent one - but was the problem closed, is it really closed for good?Thank you.

It's a pity John has no full access. I have with John Davison correct experience at ISCID Brainstorm where he was abused in very coarse manner but he did't respond in the same way.I know myself how hard is it to be correct when you are alone against many - in ATBC forum I became crude at the end because of constatly primitive abuses there. Darwinists at AtBC banned me in the end by pretext I am John (knowing well it's a lie).Yet I admit gladly that moderation on EvC as far as concern me was correct.Neverthenless whether you fully readmit John Davison or not his Manifesto will remain in my eyes the most inspiring anti-darwinistic summary I have ever came across.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Jar,John Davison wrote me just now that the showcase thread is closed to him and he cannot post there or anywhere else at EvC.Can you check it please?(Btw I had probably the same or similar problem only a few days ago - I entered my name and correct password in login screen, the name and password were accepted, the login window disappeared and yet on the main window at the left corner was still message - you are not logged. I contacted admin, but problem somehow then disapeared.)Thank you.

I have been banned on Pharyngula forum by great darwinian "scientist" EZ Myers. He used there old darwinistic tactic (from ATBC - they even recommended him to do so) - he hold me for John Davison's sockpuppet. Again. These illiterate darwinistic atheists have never heard about directed evolution, orthogenesis etc. So they consider all proponets of the idea to be John Davison himself. They are even unable (no wonder, they are just darwinistic simpletons) to check my IP adress. They do not realize that it is from Europe. They are unable to chcek from IP its location.So no wonder we have to deal with darwinistic simpletons par excellence who use only coarse abuses and ban their oponents. That's all they know.Shame on "Pharyngula" darwinists.Page not found | ScienceBlogs Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

The point is not my English. The point is my opinions. They used my grasp of English only as pretext how to get me banned. Just look how they went into details what English I used. Yet some of them compared my posts and John's posts on Brainstorm and ATBC. They compared time etc... Some people there evidently suffer from paranoia. Might be they need that Pharyngula darwinistic thread only for themselves. Some kind of psycho-therapy for neodarwinism-obsessed, you know. They do not like to be disturbed while they are climbing mount of Dawkin's nonsenses improbable. Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

quote:

---

I followed your link. I read your comments. You deserved to be banned.

---

Did I break any rule? Which one?
Is it forbidden to criticise darwinism on "Pharyngula"? Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

English is not easy for me. I do not use it in my everyday life. So I must focus on it in order to use more correctly its structures. If I don't concentrate I just transalate my thoughts like Babelfish, you know.Yesterday I posted there following post that was completely deleted subsequently. But as far as I can block Pharyngula cookies on my PC I don't see possibility how they can block me to re-post it whenever I like. Of course they can block arriving posts from IP of my inet-provider. But there are lot of available proxies nowadays.

quote:

---

I was banned under pretext to be John Davison. This pretext is very funny because owner of this blog should be able at least to check my IP address and find out the location of my provider. This is very simple and every student at high school know how to do it. Owner of this blog should know that my provider is in Slovakia and consequently I am not professor John Davison from Vermont in USA.

​

If the owner of this blog doesn't like my antidarwinistic opinions he should write it directly. He shouldn't use the same lies like morons on ATBC forum who banned me under the pretext that I am professor John Davison. I am not John Davison, that's the lie.

​

If the owner of this blog doen't like my antidarwinistic posts here he should express it clearly and ban me without using childish pretext.

​

But in that case owner of this blog shouldn't call himself "liberal". Such proceedings like here have nothing common with liberal approach at all.

---

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by AdminPD, : Warning

Audio interview with evolutionist and strong critic of darwinism professor John Davison is available on:Interview with John A. Davison : Jason Rennie : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archivewith a direct link to the mp3 file athttp://www.archive.org/...Interview/JohnDavisonInterview.mp3

I wouldn't believe it but it happens to me either. After Doctor Myers publicised an article on Pharyngula where he criticised with coarse abuses Davison and me (both of us are banned there, we cannot response and defend ourselves there) Doctor Myers somehow managed to shield his pharygula even from browsing. I don't know what dirty tricks he used - I deleted and forbade cookies from scienceblog and even using proxy doesn't help.Anyway thanks Quetzal and other contributors who confirmed that I am not Davison and banning me under this pretext is false fabrication.Why are darwinists so afraid of theory of orthogenesis (Eimer) or Nomogenesis (Berg) that they have more sympathy to protestant fundamentalist as to those proponents of theories of governed evolution?You can see I haven't abused anybody here as well as there. That's psychological puzzle for me. Btw. many years ago Broom was treated same way as Davison now by both parties.But professor Davison critized in above mentioned radio-interview Pharyngula and people can convince themselves where the true is now.
Maybe this is reason why Doctor Myers is so anger.
Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

Atheist Nietzsche apparently ridiculed contemporary darwinism in his last work
Die Gtzen-Dmmerung - Twilight of the Idolshttp://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html

quote:

---

Anti-Darwin. ” As for the famous "struggle for existence," so far it seems to me to be asserted rather than proved. It occurs, but as an exception; the total appearance of life is not the extremity, not starvation, but rather riches, profusion, even absurd squandering ” and where there is struggle, it is a struggle for power. One should not mistake Malthus for nature.
Assuming, however, that there is such a struggle for existence ” and, indeed, it occurs ” its result is unfortunately the opposite of what Darwin's school desires, and of what one might perhaps desire with them ” namely, in favor of the strong, the privileged, the fortunate exceptions. The species do not grow in perfection: the weak prevail over the strong again and again, for they are the great majority ” and they are also more intelligent. Darwin forgot the spirit (that is English!); the weak have more spirit. One must need spirit to acquire spirit; one loses it when one no longer needs it. Whoever has strength dispenses with the spirit ("Let it go!" they think in Germany today; "the Reich must still remain to us"). It will be noted that by "spirit" I mean care, patience, cunning, simulation, great self-control, and everything that is mimicry (the latter includes a great deal of so-called virtue).

---

Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

And what does a graduated theologist Darwin's opinion on biology matter?----In his finals in January 1831, Darwin performed well in theology and, having scraped through in classics, mathematics and physics, came tenth out of a pass list of 178.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.

quote:

---

In 1828 he (Darwin) entered Cambridge University to study theology getting a degree in 1831.

---

http://users.hol.gr/~dilos/prehis/prerm2.htm

quote:

---

He (Darwin) then went to Cambridge University to study theology.

---

Discover | Natural History Museum

quote:

---

It would surprise many to know that Charles Darwin, the founder of modern evolutionary theory, was not a scientist but a theologian. Darwin only had a divinity degree and no formal training in the sciences.

---

http://www.theconservativevoice.com/article/24422.htmlI don't see why you appreciate more biological opininion of gratuated theologist from mid 19 century more than opinion of prominent linguist and philosopher from the same period. Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.Edited by MartinV, : No reason given.