A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

If my distinguished predecesors had not been such perfect gentlemen Darwinism and Fundamentalism would have both gone down the tubes long ago. I am no gentleman. Got that? And you did call Einstein a liar when you claimed he was an atheist. I don't sit still for liars and you have proved you are one. We are through communicating as I am with anyone else who refuses to address the subject of this thread. I have another paper to ready for publication and I don't have time to engage in this sort of deliberate mindless, Machiavellian evasion of the topic at hand.Now lets hear some answers to my challenges. Shall we or shall we not?

---

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

That is a cheap shot. I have never denied God and you would know that if you have read anything of my work. Neither did any of my sources including Einstein. I have postulated only that which was required which is that there HAD TO HAVE BEEN one or more Gods. That is all that is required by the PEH. Now you are degenerating into name calling and insult so I am through responding to you. Trust me. That goes for anyone else who practices similar tactics. If you are not prepared to talk about the substance of my PEH, stay out of the discussion as you are contributing absolutely nothing of value by your personal attacks on my integrity and honesty.That is exactly what DaveScot has been doing wherever he finds me. I have had a bellyfull of that kind of low class behavior. Frankly I think the adminstration should remove you from this thread but that is obviously their decision alone so I won't call for it. I really don't care that much anymore. Just as I and my sources do not exist so now you don't either. You have given me no other choice. Sorry about that!

---

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

Of course and I agree completely. Much more important, what does any of this have to do with the subject of this thread which is a new hypothesis for organic evolution? We are through Herepton whoever that really is. Got that? Write that down! Go peddle your metaphysical drivel on a blog for that purpose. I am a scientist not a bloody mystic.I am bored and any fool can see why!

---

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

Do you feel better now that you too have successfully avoided the subject of this forum? Who else wants to change the subject? I am still bored.

---

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

Good for you and just what has this to do with my challenges to the Darwinian position? Nothing of course, just more metaphysical drivel. I remain bored and disillusioned with the calibre of the responses here. Why was I invited here if not to criticize the facts as represented in my paper? So far they have yet to be even identified except by myself. I cannot defend that which is not being even mentioned.It is hard to believe isn't it?

---

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

Sorry but I have no comment because you have in no way addressed the substance of the PEH. Until you do I have nothing further to say to you or anyone else who chooses to engage in philosophical matters which have no place in science anyway. There is an enormous amount of evidence accumulating that phylogeny, like ontogeny has proceeded entirely from within. Apparently that offends you. That is unfortunate. Your comments fall on deaf ears. I also see no evidence for a living God. Maybe that offends you too. That is also completely beside the point.

---

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

Thank you. It is one of the virtues of not insisting on anonymity. Others should do the same!

---

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

I have already answered that question. I said the source was one or more intelligences far beyond our power to comprehend. Anything more than that is pure mysticism. There is absolutely no reason to postulate a personal intervening God and plenty of reason not to as that seems to be the source of the idiotic debate that continues to rage exactly as Einstein proclaimed long ago. It is actually much worse now than it was then as any one can see and as this forum testifies."The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
The New Quotable Einstein, page 203

---

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

Just what has Jesus got to do with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis? Isn't anyone going to address the substance of this thread?

---

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

Amen.

---

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

Perhaps I don't. I have no respect for Dawkins whatsoever. He is the quintessential atheist. He lives in a fantasy world entirely of his own construction . Each of his books is more bizarre than its predecessor. He is now into "weaving rainbows" if you can imagine such a fantasy. He has contributed absolutely nothing to our understanding of evolution. Quite the contrary, along with Ernst Mayr and Stephen J. Gould he has effectively greatly inhibited that understandng. I regard him as the last of the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary dogma.He has most recently erected Albert Einstein as his hero, apparently oblivious to what Einstein thought of the likes of him."Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."
The New Quotable Einstein, page 204.Why don't you do as I have suggested and invite Dawkins to appear here? I can assure you that I would dispose of him in short order and do it in his own words. Does anyone anywhere really believe in a Blind Watchmaker gamely climbing Mount Improbable or even in a Selfish Gene? Let them speak here and now. I need a good laugh. Dawkins is careful to hand pick fellow Darwinians like poor Ken Miller to pick on and does it not on the basis of science but on Miller's Christian beliefs! The man is a monumental joke. Like all lightweight ideologues he suffers from "limelight disease." William Dembski is his counterpart on the other side of the ideological fence. They are both nothing but cult-generating insecure publicity hounds. It is a scandal if you ask me. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if Dawkins were to do himself in. That is what another charlatan by the name of Paul Kammerer did once he was revealed."We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
MontaigneNot this old physiologist Michel!"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl MarxIt is hard to believe isn't it?

---

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

I request that Ray Martinez be banned from any further participation based on his terminal comment directed toward me.

---

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

It is not that I choose who will participate because I am prepared to deal with anyone who can remain reasonably civil. I am not prepared to absorb abuse from anyone anymore. That has been the story of my life on internet forums as anyone who is familiar with my history well knows. I am not even in good standing right here at EvC and probably never will be. Ray got abusive and I won't respond to him or anyone else who has to stoop to such methods. I didn't select those who post on this thread. Someone else did. I presume it was the posters themselves.

---

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

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."