Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 300 (328857)
07-04-2006 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Syamsu
07-04-2006 6:36 PM


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 They are all populated by a bunch of like minded, unfulfilled, unpublished blowhards most of whom never had an original idea in their lives.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 406
Again 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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2006 6:36 PM Syamsu has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 275 of 300 (328859)
07-04-2006 9:45 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Syamsu
07-04-2006 6:36 PM


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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Syamsu, posted 07-04-2006 6:36 PM Syamsu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 276 by AdminJar, posted 07-04-2006 9:49 PM John A. Davison has replied
 Message 277 by Syamsu, posted 07-05-2006 5:17 AM John A. Davison has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 279 of 300 (328884)
07-05-2006 6:36 AM
Reply to: Message 276 by AdminJar
07-04-2006 9:49 PM


Re: Just for your reference John
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."
ibid
In another word - "PRESCRIBED"

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 276 by AdminJar, posted 07-04-2006 9:49 PM AdminJar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 280 by AdminJar, posted 07-05-2006 1:02 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 300 (329033)
07-05-2006 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by AdminJar
07-05-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Just for your reference John
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."
Montaigne
Not this old physiologist Michel!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by AdminJar, posted 07-05-2006 1:02 PM AdminJar has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 282 of 300 (329303)
07-06-2006 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 280 by AdminJar
07-05-2006 1:02 PM


Re: Just for your reference John
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by AdminJar, posted 07-05-2006 1:02 PM AdminJar has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 12:47 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 284 of 300 (329441)
07-06-2006 4:51 PM
Reply to: Message 283 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 12:47 PM


Re: Greetings, Dr. Davison
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."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 12:47 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 285 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 5:32 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 286 of 300 (329458)
07-06-2006 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 285 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 5:32 PM


Re: science, please, sir.
Pink sasquatch
You waste your time here. Read what I have demanded. Communicate with me at my blog, via email or not at all. The choice is yours. Got that? Write that down and stop using an alias. It offends me and that is not a good way to begin a dialogue. I regard it as intellectual cowardice and I don't enjoy responding to cowards, although God knows I most certainly have more often than not!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 285 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 5:32 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 6:03 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 288 of 300 (329475)
07-06-2006 7:09 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 6:03 PM


Re: validity
Pink Sasquatch
You are hilarious. Not only do you refuse to understand that I meant exactly what I said when I explained why I was through communicating here at "showcase," but even after I explained it again, you still persist. You have exposed yourself as an illiterate boor unable for some reason to understand that a man is only as good as his word. You bore me to tears as do all others who cannot comprehend, probably for congenital "prescribed" reasons, simple English declarative sentences. Now don't continue to make a fool of yourself. It is not becoming for someone who claims to be as "scientist," especially an anonymous one. I don't know of a single anonymous scientist of any description and neither do you. Try submitting your next scholarly paper as "Pink Sasquatch." Don't bother me again as I won't respond. Write that down.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 6:03 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 289 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 7:55 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 290 of 300 (329545)
07-07-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 289 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 7:55 PM


Re: persistence vs illiteracy
An anonymous poster, stephen hutchings, who I suspect is actually David Springer, has forwarded your comments to my blog where I have answered them. You could have done the same if you had understood my position which you obviously still don't. I do not interact with the patrons of a forum which denies me that which it freely allows to all others. Do you finally get it now or do I have to repeat myself for the fourth time? If you want my answer go to -
newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/
and stop wasting both your time and mine here at "showcase."
And don't expect much respect from me at my blog either until you abandon your silly alias. Pink sasquatch indeed!
It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 289 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 7:55 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 292 of 300 (329649)
07-07-2006 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 287 by pink sasquatch
07-06-2006 6:03 PM


Re: validity
Apparently pink sasquatch is not interested in pursuing her interaction with me at my blog.
Stephen huthchings who forwarded her questuions to my blog has apparently freely admitted that he is one and the same as DaveScot, aka David Springer, aka Richard Tracy aka etc, etc. etc ad nasusem, one of the most alias prone posters of all time. I now refer to him as Spravid Dinger, just as I now refer to all publicity crazed "prescribed" ideologues wherever I find them, such sterling personalities as Mernst Ayr, Gephen J. Stould, Jillip Phonson, Richael Muse, Wonathan Jells, Dilliam "Bible Codes" Wembski and of course the biggest charlatan and ultraDarwnian mystic of all time, Dichard Rawkins, not a scientist in the entire lot.
It is hard to believe isn't it?
I love it so!

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 287 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-06-2006 6:03 PM pink sasquatch has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 293 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:28 PM John A. Davison has not replied
 Message 296 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-07-2006 5:49 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 293 of 300 (329650)
07-07-2006 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by John A. Davison
07-07-2006 3:25 PM


Re: validity
I forgot to include M.P. Zeyers. Esley Welsberry and Pott L. Scage. Sorry about that.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:25 PM John A. Davison has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 294 of 300 (329651)
07-07-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by Admin
07-07-2006 11:34 AM


Re: Using Your Real Name
I find it hard to believe yet oddly gratifying for me to realize that you actually PROMOTE anonymity without ever offering any reason in support of such a bizarre position. No wonder no one can take this forum seriously. Know one knows who anyone is. At least der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Felsberry)lets the goons at his forum know that he is in charge. Apparently know one is in charge here. Anonymity has never been anything but a license for verbal abuse and snide denigration of any one who dares take exception with the standard dogma. EvC is the perfect example.
There now, I feel somewhat better.
It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by Admin, posted 07-07-2006 11:34 AM Admin has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 295 by AdminNosy, posted 07-07-2006 4:08 PM John A. Davison has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 297 of 300 (329688)
07-07-2006 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 296 by pink sasquatch
07-07-2006 5:49 PM


Re: finally! a scientific discussion!
Dr. Sasquatch still doesn't get it. I have no intention of responding to your litany of presumed mehanisms here. How many times must I tell you this?
Instead I will use my brief cameo appearance here at "showcae to tell you and all others what my position is with respect to the causes of both phylogeny and ontogeny.
Alelic mutation, population genetics, sexual reproduction, Mendelian genetics and natural selection, none of these, ever had anything whatsoever to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny. Both heave been the result of front-loaded, highly specific, auto-regukated blocks of information not one scintilla of which resulted from the direct action of the environment beyond that of acting as a simple stimulus or releaser for latent endogenous potential. That is what makes it possible to substitute a needle for the sperm and, after supressing the second meiotic division, obtain perfectly normal diploid frogs. Incidentally, these frogs are of both sexes proving beyond any doubt that the potential for both sexes is contained in the female genome alone.
The entire Darwinian myth is based on the unwarranted assumption that phylogeny and ontogeny resulted from external causes which are subject to experimental discovery. They have never been discovered because they never existed. It is as simple as that.
I know this is unacceptable to the atheist Darwinian mentality but it is the only conceivable explanation which is in concert with what we really know about both phenomena.
I am certainly not the first to realize that the universe has resulted exclusively from a plan.
"EVERYTHING is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein, ,my emphasis
Certainly that which IS determined WAS determined which is the essence of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.
The Darwinian fairy tale is nothing more than mass hysteria which has gone on unabated for 147 years fueled by "prescribed" atheist mentalities that are simply unable to see that which was so obvious to Einstein, many of my sources and myself.
By a curious coincidence a couple of dear friends just returned from vacation to present me with a portrait of Einstein because they know how much I revere this great mind. It is the one with the Argyle sweater and the caption which reads:
"Great spirits have always encountered violent opposition from mediocre minds."
It is most approprate to the condition that so obviously prevails here at EvC and so many other internet forums.
I hope this seves to clarify my position on the two greatest unsolved mysteries in all of biological science. I am glad I had a chance to present my convictions before being muzzled by a forum which cannot accept me as member in good standing. Have a nice cozy "groupthink." I have another paper to write based largely on my experience here.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 296 by pink sasquatch, posted 07-07-2006 5:49 PM pink sasquatch has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 299 by randman, posted 07-08-2006 1:03 AM John A. Davison has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 298 of 300 (329696)
07-07-2006 8:34 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by AdminNosy
07-07-2006 4:08 PM


Re: Using Your Real Name
You are hilarious. Anonymity is nothing but licence for cowardly abuse and the unbridled opprtunity for unprincipled blowhards to see their phony names in print in the ephemeral meaningless world of cyberdom. If all had to present their real names and credentials or lack of same, internet exchanges would be a darn sight more civilized than they are. If you want to see pigs in action visit my two blogs. I regard it as ridiculous that the director himself must hide his identity. Even Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Professor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Felsberry) doesn't have to resort to that.
Thank God my nightmare here is about to end.
It is hard to believe isn't it?

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by AdminNosy, posted 07-07-2006 4:08 PM AdminNosy has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024