A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Yes, understood.Ray

Hi John,Participation here doesn't have to be limited to those who request it. If there's anyone you think would be a good participant for this thread, just make a request for them to participate over at the Showcase Forum Issues and Requests thread.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I prefer that others decide that. I am prepared to defend my work. If I were to choose a participant, it could be interpreted as a sign of weakness. I have complete confidence in my science and always have had. Otherwise I would never have published.

---

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

Maybe this will stimulate some sort of response. I am now convinced of the following:1. Evolution, including true speciation and the formation of any of the higher categories, is a thing of the past.2. Sexual reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary device. It is much too conservative to ever produce anything very different from what it already is and always was. It has been demonstrated only to be able to produce varieties and that only in certain forms. None of those varieties are incipient species.3. Population genetics never had anything to do with evolution beyond the distribution of Mendelian alleles in sexually reproducing populations, populations which can only undergo subspeciation. Subspecies are not incipient species either.4. Allelic mutations have played no role in creative evolution but have probably played a role in some but not all extinctions.5. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny, has been driven entirely from within with no role for the environment beyond that of acting as a stimulus or releaser of latent front-loaded specific information.6. The entire Darwinian model is an illusion based on the assumption that phylogeny HAD an extrinsic cause. Such cause cannot be demonstrated because it never existed.7. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.8. The number of times and the locations in the geological column when life was created are unknown as are the number of creators and their nature.

---

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

If the green disappears on this thread I might as well disappear with it as I am obviously wasting my time here.

---

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

Do I understand that I will continue to be banned from all future participation at EvC forums?

---

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

Consider me stimulated.I taking a chance here. I'm not specifically approved for this topic. But since you are looking for comments, I will provide some.Let me first state that I have some disagreements of my own with neo-Darwinism - see Criticizing neo-Darwinism. Like you, I agree that evolution has happened in the past. Unlike you, I expect evolution to continue.The main point of your thesis seems to be captured by the word "prescribed". Unlike you, I am not a determinist. But I won't argue that point. It seems to me that there is no possibility of empirical evidence that could distinguish between determinism and indeterminism. Roughly speaking, determinism says that if we could rewind the tape, and play the history of the universe a second time, it would turn out the same. Indeterminism says that it would probably turn out differently. We don't have the choice of rewinding the tape, so there is no certain way to distinguish between these two theses.You keep asking people to address the substance of PEH. I am having trouble finding what that substance is. Compare with neo-Darwinism. Even though I have my disagreements with neo-Darwinism, it does provide a useful heuristic for making predictions. I am unable to find anything comparable in your thesis. By saying that evolution is prescribed, you are denying any possibility of prediction unless the prescription is known. And you don't seem to have provided any insight into how we could find out what is prescribed for the future.If you are able to better explain the substance of PEH, in the form of what kind of testable empirical predictions it can make, that would be much appreciated.

I do not see how you could possibly make such a statement.I have already made several predictions and drawn firm conclusions. I just enumerated them in no uncertain terms. There is nothing in the PEH that can ever be reconciled with Darwinism. NeoDarwinism in all its trappings never had anything to do with organic evolution beyond the elaboration of varieties and in some few instances sub-species. Furthermore there is no reason whatsoever to believe that progressive evolution is even any longer in progress. If you cannot see that there is nothing I can do for you. Sorry."It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true."
Bertrand RussellI am still waitimg for a ruling from EvC as to my future status here. Am I to be readmitted with full membership or not? That has a great deal to do with whether or not I am willing to continue here as so far nothing of substance has been presented concerning my thesis. I grow weary of being treated as a second class citizen on internet forums. It has gone on long enough. I am banned at ARN, Uncommon Descent, Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula and, except for this "showcase" exception, here as well. I still don't know why I was invited to post here.

---

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

Well, I see the empirical basis of what John is talking about. We do have an observed mechanism for reproduction, and the neoDarwinian proposed addition to that is to claim random mutations and natural selection can produce macroevolution. However, we don't see the neodarwinian claim match up with the facts. They don't match the fossil record at all, for example. We see absolutely no evidence of such gradual (small changes added up over time) at all in the fossil record producing macroevolution. Nor do we see this in current biota, as John pointed out.He adds some other empirical observations as well that all add up to nullifying the claim mutations acted upon via natural selection could be the vehicle of organic evolution. Now, John like evos in general still holds to the fact that what we see here must be the result of some organic evolution. Admittedly, this is a weak assumption, but is no weaker in his theory than it is for evos in general.So he says, well, we know there is a process for descent, and we don't see a gradual process. So there must have been within organisms a latent reproductive ability to reproduce offspring that would be radically different; that within their genome existed a latent or prescribed design.Now, this is an inference from the evidence, but it at least matches much more the facts than mainstream evo models. Of course, neither can be fully tested and observed, and so perhaps both should always be considered a hypothesis, but neoDarwinianism an extremely unlikely hypothesis that contradicts the data we have.

Thank you randman.The fossil record is the final arbiter of any mechanism for evolution. There is absolutely nothing in it to suggest the gradual generation of any of the taxa and very litte that even indicates reproductive continuity. Nevertheless, I refuse to accept the notion of de novo creation and I don't feel it is necessary. Organic evolution can be understood without resorting to any form of intervention and the PEH presents a means by which that can have been achieved. The Darwinian model, resorting as it does to chance, cannot be sustained by either the fossil record or the experimental laboratory. It is completely without merit and always has been."We might as well stop looking for the missing links. They never existed."
after Otto Schindewolf"The frst bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
ibid

---

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

Ray...you have been asked not to participate in John's thread. Please respect that request. - The QueenContent hidden, do not replyRay Martinez Edited by AdminAsgara, : No reason given.Edited by AdminAsgara, : first edit to hide content - second edit to note this

I repeat my request of message 245.

---

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

Woops, that should be message 246.

---

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

I just discovered that I am not allowed to even see what is transpiring elsewhere on EvC forums. When did that go into effect and why?I can't believe this place. I am invited to particpate but only here. This is reminiscent of Boot Camp. You have now joined with ARN by not only banning me but denying me access to your secret discussions. God only knows what is going on there. I can only imagine.I will not post another comment until I am formally informed of my status here with some sort of explanation.I am sure there are some who can understand my position. If there are I would like to hear from them either at my blog or by email.

---

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

John, why do you immediately jump to some nefarious conclusion? There is no reason on our end why you shouldn't be able to read the board.You were invited back here to the Showcase forum to discuss your PEH. That not many wish to engage you is not our fault either.

---

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com