A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Thank you,This answers my first question having to do with the statistical use or interpretation of "latency". I shall move on to a more substantive and thankfully more interesting line of questioning thanks to your response.Edited by Brad McFall, : grammer

I presume DaveScot can still view this forum. I just visited Uncommon Descent as I often do and my papers are still not there. While it was defninitely within his power to purge them from the Archives, it seems he lacks the power to restore them. I am not surprised. I will let others draw their own conclusions.Thanks for denying him any further participation on "Showcase."

---

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

I am certainly not the first scientist who had to die before his work was appreciated. That was the fate of every one of my sources as well as Gregor Mendel who is now one of the heroes of the Darwinians, although the sexually mediated genetics that now bears his name has now and never had anything whatever to do with creative evolution, just as William Bateson realized shortly before he died. Mendelian mechanisms produce only varieties and blind alleys."William Bateson, the father of modern genetics, confided to his son Gregory, 'that it ws a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general'" Davison, J.A., Rivista di Biologia 97: 111-116, 2004

---

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

I live this in memoriam line. Apparently DaveScot just can't wait for my demise.

---

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

That should be love not live and my papers have not been restored at Uncommon Descent. I am also not dead yet.

---

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

Brad, please do move on. The redline has turned to orange. It is typical, in my experience, for my heresies to "die on the vine" as it were and I find that bitterly disappointing.I am bored, I want action and I hope that Dawkins has received his invitation by now. Has he? How about inviting William Dembski, Jonathan Wells, Michael Ruse and Phillip Johnson as well? The more the merrier I say. Please do not invite Michael Behe. I respect him as he is a real honest-to-God published scientist. I wouldn't give a nickel for the others, not a scientist in the lot."I'm an old campaigner and I love a good fight."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

---

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

I am quite serious. EvC has the credentials to justify such invitations and to draw certain formal conclusions should those invitations be ignored. It was very much to EvC's credit that they were willing to allow me to reenter its membership even though on a limited basis and I appreciate it. Why not offer the same opportunity for others who claim to hold strong views on the great mystery of organic evolution? Find out what those views really are. I have never been able to do so. I feel it is an experiment well worth performing.Nothing ventured, nothing gained.

---

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

During this obvious lull let me return to my suggestion. EvC with 3403 active members is one of the oldest and most active forums dealing with the question of our origins. It could place itself in the enviable position of being the only forum willing to offer the leaders of the various sects the unique opportunity to "sell their products" to use Dawkins' phrase. I certainly do not see such an offer being made from some of the other prominent forums. My failed attempt in my little blog means little as they could always plead they didn't even know about it although I know better of course.There is a fundamental difference between blogs and forums. One of the things I like about this format is that statements once made stand for all time or at least I think that is so. Also I like the fact that active discussions remain in prominence and do not disappear off the bottom of the page as they do in so many formats. "Out of sight, out of mind" as the saying goes. I can't imagine such an initiative at Panda's Thumb, Pharyngula or Uncommon Descent, but your recent invitation to me represents a significant precedent, one I feel should be given serious further consideration.It might be interesting to poll the members on this suggestion. I feel it could elevate EvC to a position of prominence which, it seems to me, should be most desirable both for its membership and its administration.

---

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

I got it and agree with you there. Can't argue with that either, but am surprised no one from the mainstream evo side wants to take you up on this.

randmanI am used to being ignored just as were all my distinguished sources. I predict that this thread will die with very little further input. That has been my experience wherever I have introduced my evolutionary perspective. We several critics of the Darwinian model are not permitted to exist because, if we did, it would collapse in a millisecond. That must not and will not take place! When hard cold facts encounter blind ideology, ideology invariably carries the day. You may write that down.

---

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

Allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution beyond producing varieties. Neither did Mendelian, bisexual inheritance which is the instrument by which such mutations are transmitted to the next generation. The entire Darwinian model is a persistent, ideologically based illusion based on the assumption that an exogenous cause has produced phylogeny. That cause never existed which is why it cannot be demonstrated. Chance has played no role whatever in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Both were, in a word, -PRESCRIBED. Only ontogeny continues and, in my opinion, not for very much longer."Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134."Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert EinsteinAMEN

---

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

Maybe we can spin off topics one by one and talk about the lack of intermediates as a separate topic and so on with the other points critical of mainstream dogma?I will be fairly busy this week, but if these topics are not addressed, I may propose some threads dealing with them.

randmanOne cannot deal with what does not exist. There is absolutely nothing in the Darwinian paradigm that ever had anything to do with creative evolution - absolutely nothing. What is happening here is happening simultaneously at "brainstorms" where the PEH is also being studiously ignored. Just as the entire history of the universe was determined so were the mentalities and prejudices of its terminal products, Homo sapiens, meaning, curiously enough, wise man. What a taxonomic travesty that was! H.L. Mencken called the American variety Boobus americanus.We are all victims of our "prescribed" fates and there are substantial reasons to question the idea of Free Will. I abandoned the notion some time ago.Albert Einstein was acutely aware of this when he addressed the Spinoza Society of America, September 22, 1932."Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion."I recommend that all read William Wright's book "Born That Way." I learned a great deal from it."There are in every age, new errors to be rectified and new prejudices to be opposed."
Samuel Johnson"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw"Carry the battle to them. Don't let them bring it to you. And don't ever apologize for anything."
Harry Truman"War, God help me, I love it so!"
General George S. Patton"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor MendelThere now, I feel somewhat better.

---

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

Prokaryotes are not models for eukaryotic evolution.Reproductive isolation can only produce subspecies which are not incipient species but simply locally specialized dead ends exactly as Goldschmidt explained 66 years ago. Nothing in the intervening years pleads otherwise.Time played no role in creative evolution because every significant and progressive event WAS instantaneous and without transitional states both with respect to speciation and the formation of every one of the higher taxonomic categories. To claim otherwise is without justification.How much more defective can the Darwinian model possibly be? There is nothing in it of value. Depending, as it does on chance, it totally lacks any explanatory or predictive power, it cannot be verified experimentally and it flies in the face of everything revealed in the fossil record. Isn't that sufficient to scrap it? What more might be required?How some can still espouse it, as these comments so obviously reveal, escapes my sensibilities. That they still do boggles my ancient mind."Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry HuxeyThat aphorism from Huxley is the only frontispiece to Berg's "Nomogenesis Or Evolution Determined By Law," probably the most significant single book ever published dealing with the great mystery of organic evolution. One of these decades others will be discussing Bergian rather that Darwinian evolution. You may write that down as I already have.

---

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

What ever happened to posts 136 through 148?

---

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