A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Not that it matters much, John, but the reason I was suspended (not banned, according to Micah's email at least) was because you threatened to to leave the Brainstorms forum if they allowed me to continue posting there. I see that you are indeed giving a full and in-depth explanation of your ideas there. I also recommend anyone wishing to learn more about your PEH to have a look.

I am waiting for a ruling from the administration. Until that is forthcoming I have nothing further to offer here at
"showcase" either to you or anyone else with no credentials. If the best that EvC can muster is a long since B.S. in Biochemistry and a prematurely retired notoriously hostile, arrogant, condescending, ill informed and pontificating Dell computer engineer, I am certainly wasting my time here anyway. I would include Brad McFall too if I had any idea what his credentials were, assuming he had any of course.It is hard to believe isn't it?Now who is next?

---

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

You know, if all we're going to get in this topic is referrals to information and debate elsewhere, at least you could supply links to the other locations.Adminnemooseus

---

John -Things take time.
I do not consider it a waste.
I have gained some vital information from you that is definately helpful in showing that PEH is not simply a verbally false architeclonical discussion. Credentials are not needed. Ability to write beyond historical Darwinism and Lamarckianism is.Now that I know that you have no objection to a certain number of "front loadings" I will be able to make a guess. I have other things to do than monitor EVC, though. Please be patient. You need not bring up my name unless you desire me to comment. You have posted many responses to me and I have not had the free time to get to all of them. Edited by Brad McFall, : new subtitle

Sorry about not including links.
Try here for an example of the sort of posts that resulted in my suspension from ISCID.

BradIf you you are too busy to participate, don't. I still wait for SOMETHING, ANYTHING that relates to the substance of the PEH. I am faring far better at "brainstorms" than here. I suggest you and others include that as background for future commentary here. We do not live in an intellectual vacuum you know. At least I don't. There is already far too much ideological provincialism in the consideration of our origins. As far as I am concerned both the extremes, atheist Darwinism and Christian Fundamentalism are dead wrong and always have been. None of my sources ever identified with either of these firmly established "cults" and neither do I. I say a pox on both their houses and the devil take the hindmost!
Any forum that pits one of these against the other is doomed to certain disaster. If that shoe fits EvC, let EvC wear it."Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

---

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

quote:

---

I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome in a way comparable to the way in which the necessary information to produce a complete organism is contained within a single cell, the fertilized egg. Just as differentiation involves the ordered derepression of pre-existing information, so then I propose, did evolution proceed by a similar means. Viewed in this way, ontogeny and phylogeny become part of the same organic continuum utilizing similar mechanisms for their expression.

---

http:///DataDropsite/APrescribedEvolutionaryHypothesis.html
If a group of organisms change in a comparable way to that individuated by an organism’s processing through differentiation (no matter the topology) then an implication of PEH remands an effect for the contents of that neglected process in evolution titled “Niche Construction.”See http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/~seal/niche/index.htmlIf there is more than one event, there is no way for phylogeny to become part of “the same organic continuum” (even if ONLY utilizing “similar” mechanisms . ) without so said, “derepression” being heritably informed in an uncontroversial manner via

quote:

---

Second, when organisms inherit naturally selected genes. They are in effect, inheriting information molecularly encoded in the nucleotide sequences of DNA. Genetic information is, of course, noncognitive (See chapter 4). Nevertheless, it is information that is used to inform the expression of phenotypes in ontogenetic environments, relative to their local selective environments (J. Holland 1992, 1995; Eigen 1992). In contrast, when organisms inherit legacies of modified natural selection pressures they do not inherit information.”

---

quote:

---

page 15 Niche Construction

---

Else one is left with a philosophy of

quote:

---

OZ revisted
Let me highlight some of the central aspects of Oz-science. The criterion of success in Oz is not truth in every respect, but empirical adequacy. When a scientific theory is accepted, it is accepted as empirically adequate and not as true. Acceptance in Oz involves the belief that the theory has accomplished its aim, meets its criterion of success, i.e. is empirically adequate. Hence acceptance involves somebelief, but it is belief in empirical adequacy as distinct from (theoretical) truth. But acceptance in Oz involves more than belief: it involves what van Frassen has called ”commitment’: “a commitment to the further confrontation of the new phenomenon within the framework of that theory, a commitment to a research programme, and a wager that all relevant phenomena can be accounted for without giving up the theory’ (1980:88) . .Yet, in Oz, believing in the truth of the t-assertions, or even aiming at theoretical truth, is simply not part of the picture.

---

p200 Scientific Realism by Stathis Psillos
http://www.amazon.com/...duct/041520819X/104-7561392-7025564
reference to OZparableonline
and further controversy and claims that one can believe AND commit to PEH. This is not a matter, John of ME having the time to post but of people new to the idea to perceive”” it. An exciting possibility for PEH is that it implies a completely unanticipated dynamics IN THE THEORETICAL STRUCTURE of models for niche construction through ecosystem engineering (specifically expanding points where the models all predict interpolation).John if you think it is a waste of time to try to find what is the thorn in the evolutionists’ indifference to alternatives then I can be of no help to you. I looked at Brainstorms and signed on but found the discussions there to be less scientific than here. To each his own.This may not be the full range of possible falsifiable and verifiable regions for PEH but it outlines an area plausibly actual for PEH, as I understand it.Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.Edited by Brad McFall, : 3 no reason links and this one to OZ

BradWhat you obviously fail to understand is that there is no such thing as "natural selected genes."The particulate gene never had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. It WAS the chromosome not the gene that was always the instrument of genetic change. Natural selection has always been conservative and never creative at any level. To maintain otherwise is without foundation and nothing more than standard Darwinian mythology based on the unwarranted assumption that evolution resulted form an exogenous cause. It never did you know. This immediately explains why all living systems are virtually identical at the allelic level. Ye Gods we are more than 50% identical with bananas! One of these decades or maybe centuries you Darwinians will wake up and hear the birdies sing. Get with the program. It is much later than you think!"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Natural Selection."
after Karl Marx, another atheist "prescribed" mystic.Who is next? Remember that phrase? That is the one that got me banned from EvC long ago. The way things are progressing it probably will again. Ideologues of whatever persuasion are all like that. In any event it no longer matters to me. Do what you have to do, what you were "prescribed" to do. I will soon retire from this charade unless something significant transpires which seems very unlikely or I am banned again, whichever comes first."Where all think alike no one thinks very much."
Walter Lippmann

---

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

A gene is a sequence of nucleotides (generally coding for a single enzyme) in a larger sequence of nucleotides which make up a chromosome. John's assertion therefore would appear to be a false dichotomy.

Your request for links sent me off down memory lane to find this PT thread, where I first encountered John in the flesh, so to speak. My first post is here. (I was posting as Alan)
John was later given his own thread where I asked a couple of questions. John's answers can be found there, too. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

I have no intention of replying to Alan Fox in any way except to say that the assertion that it was the chromosome, not the gene, that was the unit of evolutionary change was not mine at all but that of the greatest geneticist of his day, Richard B. Goldschmidt. If the administration is going to allow this unprincipled troublemaker to continue here in direct violation of its own rules of engagement, I am out of here. I will happily return to other forums where he is no longer welcome. Like DaveScot, Alan Fox has pursued me wherever I have posted with one purpose in mind which is to discredit me whatever it takes. Neither has ever published a word on the subject of evolution and probably never will. They are each nothing but one man good squads representing the interests of their respective masters, William Dembski and Wesley Elsberry. I have no respect whatsoever for either of them and no respect for an administration that would allow their shabby tactics to dominate in any way the subject of this thread which is a new hypothesis for organic evolution.I am amazed yet no longer surprised that the best EvC can come up with are the likes of these two intellectual lightweights. I thought there were real honest to God scientists in your membership here. Where are they and what do they have to say? Their silence speaks volumes concerning the validity of the Darwinian fairy tale.Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.It is hard to believe isn't it?On second thought I am afraid you will have to ban me once again to silence me. Why delay the inevitable? Show your true colors for all to see. "Groupthinks" are like that wherever one finds them. After all I have already been banned from Uncommon Descent, Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula and God only knows how many ther forums and blogs. I no longer keep track. Join with all the others, declare yourself victorius and return to the smug complacency in which I once again found you.The one thing we learn from history is that we do not learn from history." I have always felt that a politician is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."
Winston ChurchillDarwinism, like Fundamentalist Creationism, is pure unadulterated biopolitics and nothing more. I am delighted to have been able to so thoroughly alienate both camps. I have certainly not been alone and I am happy to join with some of the finest minds of two centuries.

---

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

You omitted to mention that in the post I quoted. Does that mean that you don't agree with Goldschmidt?Edited by Alan Fox, : typo

No comment and no response to this man now or in the future. Got that? Write that down. He does not exist.Who is next?

---

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

BradI already know what is at the root of the indifference with which the establishment has greeted the PEH. Acordingly you need not worry about helping me. It is summarized in the single word "fear," fear that tens of thousands have dedicated their professional reputations to a phantom, an explanation without foundation, a monumental and totally unsubstantiated product of the human imagination and nothing more. That is precisely what the Darwinian myth has always been. Darwinians are intellectual cowards just as are their primary adversaries, all those who naively insist on an afterlife when there is no reason whatsoever for such a belief. All ideologies are built upon fear, the fear of absolute undeniable truth.You are wrong about ontogeny and phylogeny not being part and parcel of the same organic continuum. Of course they are and to suggest otherwise is inconceivable, yet that is exactly what you apparently have done. I have great difficulty understanding what you are saying and I'll bet I am not alone.Like Panda's Thumb, EvC has a long standing reputation as a stronghold of Godless, aimless, purposeless Darwinism yet, when confronted with an alternative hypothesis, not a single Darwinian partisan rises to defend his beliefs. That is exactly what happened at my blog when I sponsered The First Annual Tournament of Evolutionary Mechanisms. I naturally concluded that either no one had convictions or, more likely, were ashamed to present them. It seems that I can once again draw the same conclusion here at the "showcase" forum. Those who fail to show up at tournaments lose by default.By way of contrast I have presented my views in several papers and they now stand in perpetuity on the shelves of the world's libraries right along with the works of the six great biologists to whom I have dedicated my own efforts.As with every other forum where I have presented my convictions, I have been greeted with silence followed first by ridicule, next isolation, denigration of my references and finally bannishment. I, like every one of my distinguished sources, do not exist. We have not been allowed to exist by an atheist dominated establishment that dares not allow us to exist because we have collectively exposed and destroyed every feature of the Darwinian fairy tale and they know it! The only thing that Darwinism has ever achieved was the production of intraspecific varieties. It has been nothing but a century and a half of mass hysteria instigated and perpetuated by "prescribed" ultraliberal ethical relativists who are congenitally unable to recognize that there was a purpose in every aspect of both the animate and inanimate worlds. As for the Godless, meaningless Darwinian paradigm:"Never in the history of humankind have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston ChurchillAll great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard ShawThere now, I feel somewhat better.Now who is next?

---

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

Since this thread is experiencing a lull, let me take this opportunity to offer some tempting targets for those skeptical of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. One of its correlaries is that creative evolution is a thing of the past and what we see are the products of evolution, not evolution in action as the Darwinians continue to insist.1. Name any two species, living or fossil, and present convincing evidence that one is ancestral to the other.2. Name a younger mammal than Homo sapiens. Incidentally, for the Fundamentalists, Homo sapiens is definitely a mammal and he did have animal ancestors, despite the "inferences" suggested by the title of Dembski's forum - "Uncommon Descent."3. Name a new genus of plant or animal that can be proven to have originated in the last two million years.4. Present evidence that any organism "gradually" evolved into a new member of the same genus or of any other taxonomic category.Point 4 requires some further qualification. There is one place where gradual transformtion my have been involved and that is through very long periods of geologic time. One of the common features of many evoloutionary series is the tendency toward gigantism which with virtually no exceptions has always terminated with extinction. It characterizes the Ages of Amphibians, Dinosaurs and the mammalian Titanothores. It is unclear whether these orthogenetic transformations took place gradually or not. However the increase in size of the so called "horse series" most certainly did not take place gradually since every member of that "series" differs from every other to such a degree that each must be placed in its own genus. That is why it is virually impossible to establish a clear reproductive line. It is exactly what one would expect through chromosome restructuing since such events are likely to affect many anatomical features simultaneously.In any event I am interested in any responses that might be forthcoming to these four challenges to the gradualist evolutionary position.Have fun!

---

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