A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

You talk somewhere about performing semi-meiotic experiments on frogs. Performing experiments on living beings to produce macro-evolutionary saltationist changes. Tell me, what distinguishes your attitude in this matter from a smalltime Dr. Frankenstein?Perhaps if you found the belief in free behaviour, to respect free will of creatures such as the frogs, and respect God as the spiritual owner of their choices and yours in His final judgement, perhaps then you might come to new insights about your theory. Just get with the attitudes of the population in general about free behaviour, and not listen to scientists in general who obviously are ignorant about free behaviour.It's the context of your consistent denial of any kind of free behaviour that matters here. Sure one can be dismissive somewhat of the value of the life of a frog when other things are more important. But it is this consistency in dismissing any kind of free behaviour anywhere that takes it to a darker level.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

Thank you, sir! May I have another?TTFN,WK

John, what the heck?In case you didn't notice, I was largely agreeing with you here.

You folks just don't get it do you. I am finished trying to communucate with any of you here at EvC. When you must isolate a published scientist from your proceedings you do not deserve any more responses from me. Instead I will expose you."Showcase" is just a reincarnation of "Boot Camp," the perfect counterpart to Panda Thumb's "Bathroom Wall." There is not one of the major internet forums that has ever contributed a scintilla to our underatnding of organic evolution. They are all populated by a bunch of like minded, unfulfilled, unpublished blowhards most of whom never had an original idea in their lives. They follow like lemmings their self-anointed leaders, publicity crazed ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Wesley Eslberry, P.Z. Meyers, Phillip Johnson, Jonathan Wells and William Dembski, not a scientist in the lot.Now since I have not been banned yet, let me take this opportunity to expose you to some real scientists. First to Leo Berg undoubtedly the greatest Russian biologist of his generation and in my opinion the greatest evolutionist of all time."The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."and -"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existimng rudiments."
Nomogenesis page 406Again I wish only that he had used the past tense as my signature proclaims.Try this one on from Boris Ephrussi who proved that all mitochondria came from mitochondria -"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."So much for Darwinism, the biggest hoax ever perpetrated in the history of science.And so to bed.

---

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

I can honestly say that I have not the foggiest idea what you are talking about. Sorry.

---

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

We will be closing the thread around the 300 message mark as we do with all threads. If you wish to continue the discussion beyond that point you can start a new thread.

Indeed, you seem to have multiple layers of denail about free behaviour.It means that even if you were succesful with your hypothesis in successfully transforming a frog, you would become known as Doctor Frankenfrog, and would become a symbolfigure to every creationist about all that is wrong with science.regards,
Mohammad Nur Syamsu

I think Jonathan Slack might already have the title of Dr. Frankenfrog for his generation of headless frog embryos and he subsequent media speculation about headless cloned humans.TTFN,WK

How convenient. I didn't start this thread. EvC did. Obviously once this thread is closed so is any further participation on my part as this is the only place I am allowed to post. You might as well close it right now as I have no intention of engaging with anyone else here now or in the future. Have nice cozy "groupthinks." That is all you have ever had here at EvC, with Panda's Thumb, the last surviving bastions of Darwinian mysticism, the terminal Alamos of the most ridiculous hypothesis in the history of science.It is hard to believe isn't it?"Never in the history of mankind have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston Churchill"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World."
William Golding"Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness."
George Orwell, 1984"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."
Albert Einstein"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."
ibidIn another word - "PRESCRIBED"

---

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

Just remember John, if you don't know how to start a thread one of us will be glad to do that for you. We are happy to provide you this opportunity to discuss or defend your theories.

Director adminjar whoever that really is of course. Even the administrators of this blog insist on anonymity! I love it so!Judging from some of your policies I can understand why. You don't seem to understand that I want nothing further to do with a forum that treats a published scientist the way you have always treated me at the same time that you allow everyone else to post freely, the vast majority of whom have never published a word on the mechanism of organic evolution. In fact I doubt very much if there is a soul posting here who ever published anything of note concerning the great mystery of organic evolution. If they did they would direct me to their papers and thereby blow their precious cowardly anonymity. Any fool can figure that one out and I am no fool, in spite of all your pathetic attempts to treat me as such. You have disgraced your own forum with your mindless ideologically dominated treatment of anyone with whom you disagree. Apparently you are so taken with your policies that you have completely lost sight of reality. That is exactly what has happened to Richard Dawkins who also, like you people, now lives in his own private world, oblivious to what is going on in the laboratories of the world.EvC has become nothing but a highly institutionalized "Groupthink" exactly like its sister forum - Panda's Thumb. You both even use exactly the same devices to isolate and denigrate your adversaries. Only the names are different. You have "showcase" and you used to have "Boot Camp," the only two places where I was allowed to post. Panda's Thumb had "The Bathroom Wall" and then "Davison's soap box" with exactly the same restrictions. Both were designed to run out and with it my ability to post. These two forums are caricatures of one another, each mimicing the other and for all I know not even realizing it. It is wonderful!God it is so gloriously revealing isn't it?EvC and Panda's Thumb are the last outposts of the biggest hoax ever perpetrated on a gullible, naive, atheistically predisposed public in the history of the Western World. I am delighted to have this opportunity to expose them both for what they really are and always have been, nothing but magnets for intellectual lightweights and congenital "prescribed," unfulfilled, unpublished losers.War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton, like Albert Einstein and myself, a convinced determinist.You people (I don't know how else to describe them) are living in a private world of your own design, utterly oblivious to the fact that Darwinian mysticism is dead as a hammer. There is not a dimes worth of difference between EvC and Panda's Thumb. They are both infested with many of the same anonymous intellectual nothings spending most of their time congratulating one another on the way they imagine they are disposing of those with whom they disagree. Thank you again for giving me this wonderful opportunity to once again expose you for the world of cyberdom to savor and enjoy.It is hard to believe isn't it?"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
MontaigneNot this old physiologist Michel!

---

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

I don't have theories. I have a published hypothesis which is receiving support every day with the findings of molecular biology and chromosome structure and function. It is already verified with the testimony of the fossil record. Neither Darwinism nor Lamarckism ever reached the status of theory because neither has survived experimental verification. Theories are verified hypotheses and neither qualifies. Lamarckism at least qualifies as an hypothesis. Darwinism conveniently can't even manage that. It is gloriously inadequate.Incidentally, natural selection never had anything to do with evolution because all it ever did was maintain the status quo. In so doing it ensured extinction, the only thing it was ever good for, without which there could never have been any evolution at all! Thank God for natural selection. What would we ever have done without it? Why we wouldn't even be here. Think about it - if you can that is.How wrong can an hypothesis possibly be?It's hard to believe isn't it?God but I am having a good time!I love it so!

---

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

Hello Dr. Davison,Hopefully you don't mind me entering the discussion this late in the thread. I have a some specific questions regarding PEH on which I'd like to get your input. If my questions reveal that I am not understanding your hypothesis, please let me know.1. You make a clear distinction between allelic changes and chromosomal rearrangments, the former cannot contribute to speciation (or does so rarely), while the latter is the primary mode of speciation. My question: What is the distinction between an allelic change and a chromosomal rearrangment at the genetic level? As an example, I'm assuming you would consider a 1 Mb inversion or translocation to be a chromosomal rearrangment, but what about a 100 base pair inversion, or smaller?2. What would you make of two (reproductively incompatible) species with the same karyotype? Would such constitute a falsification of PEH, (or perhaps an exception to PEH)?I think I'll leave it that to start, and thanks in advance for your response.

Well thank you pink sasquatch, another alias I presume?You don't seem to understand either. I am no longer responding to anything anyone posts here at "showcase" because I am not allowed to be a full member of this forum. I thought I had made that clear. I will be happy to respond to questions addressed to me at my blog or via email provided only that they are civil. As far as I am concerned my presence here is now just an opportunity to pontificate at my pleasure about the failure of the Darwinian hoax. I hope you understand my position and why I must take it. Do you? If you don't it won't matter anyway.For example -Allelic mutations and natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with evolution except in some instances to hasten extinction. Both natural selection and Mendelian inheritance serve to prevent both true speciation as well as the generation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. Besides, creative evolution is a thing of the past exactly as my signature proclaims. Creatures that cannot change most certainly cannot evolve. A new genus has not appeared in 2 million years and a new bona fide species not in historical times. All we see is rampant extinction without a single documented replacement.Depressing isn't it; I mean for the Darwinians of course.P.S. Richard Dawkins is a deranged charlatan. He is to Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism. Kammerer killed himself when he was exposed. God only knows what Dawkins will do.That is my free lecture for today. Thanks for offering me this opportunity.

---

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

Dr. Davison,Thank you for respecting the time I spent reading the thread and your PEH, as well as my effort in gaining access to the forum and formulating questions that I would think should be of interest to you as well as myself.Despite your "shackled" participation within the forum, I was hoping your interest in scientific discussion would prevail over your urge to pontificate. I am simply interested in the science, so you may feel free to call the Depressed Darwinians and Deranged Dawkinians all sorts of names until the cows come home, and I won't mind one bit.One concern I have, which is likely to be a criticism leveled at the PEH by others, is that "allelic mutations" and "chromosomal rearrangments" are not discrete entities, but rather there is a continuum from one to another, perhaps with varying intensities of position effects, and thus varying speciation potential. This, in part, was my impetus for asking question #1 above, and I think it is something to be considered.Feel free to engage in honest discussion with me on this point, or simply use this message as a springboard for more pontification at your pleasure.Thanks.