A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

WK, animal husbandry has been around a long time, and whether one calls breeding an experiment, there is still an experimental process. I fail to see why Ray's comments on the breeding doesn't answer your question and qualify as hundreds of experiments.

It's certainly surprising. I would think there would be at least some evos willing to challenge your comments on the inadequacies of mainstream evo models, but apparently not.

John, here we see seeming advanced and fully evolved features(from your theory's perspective), but not entire new species or genera. I agree that this sort of thing indicates a decided break with gradualism that is a necessity of all mainstream evo models, but it is still not the appearance of whole new species.Is your position that just as a fully formed, new, advanced feature can appear that sometimes this process would have affected all of the organs and creature so much so that a new species appeared all at once?

I have brought this up her ad nauseum, but most evos just ignore the facts here, but you are entirely correct. The intermediates do not exist, not among living species and not among the fossils, but amazingly evos insist that this complete lack of data is somehow congruent with thier insistence these intermediates did exist.Maybe someone from the evo side will take up that issue with you?

I really don't think I have a handle on genetics sufficient to address whether you or JAD is correct about mutations as a vehicle for evolution, but he has some very strong data on his side in the fact the intermediates are just not seen in the fossil record, nor among living species.If evolution proceeds gradually, one would expect to see both among living species and in the fossil record hard evidence and examples, and a lot of it too, of intermediates, but we just don't.

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.

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.

Arguments for a personal God are more theological or subjective, but I think it's not necessary to exclude belief or call it naive in a personal God, and think Einstein was somewhat naive in making that statement.The simple fact is science cannot determine a lot of things. Science cannot determine whom you love and decide to marry. Perhaps science can help pick a better mate, and maybe we could one day have arranged marriages based on genetics or some such Gattica-type thing, but really much of life's decisions must be navigated with little help from science. You see a business deal and it looks great, but you have a bad feeling or bad hunch something is wrong......well, you better go with your gut feeling, and not your scientific analysis on that one. That's one of the things life teaches us.So it's naive to say that belief in a personal God is naive because it presumes that we should derive our beleifs and actions from scientific inquiry and analysis, and scientific theories and views are way too fleeting for that.

You think Einstein was the greatest mind of all time. Personally, I think Tesla's mind was much greater and yet I am not going to adopt all of his beliefs outside of the realm of science.Plus, Einstein was wrong on quantum mechanics. He actually started out right on it, to his credit, but backed off because it didn't fit with his ideas on how things must be.Regardless, yea, I think the only reason one would say belief in a personal God is naive is that they would think that science should tell them what to believe in certain areas and since science cannot do that, they would be skeptical. Imo, that is frankly a very dumb move, whether the one doing it is brilliant or not. Science is limited by technology and cannot be relied on to formulate most beliefs (such as right and wrong, beliefs about God, whom to marry, what to devote one's life to, etc, etc,....).

I am not sure how determinism in your view rules out a personal God, and actually think there is a paradox involved here, but that gets us into theology. But I will add this. Are we as puppets on a string still able to make free choices? I suppose that might depend on the relationship between the the puppet and the one holding the strings.Edited by randman, : No reason given.

Well, I see the empirical basis of what John is talking about. We do have an observed mechanism for reproduction, and the neoDarwinian proposed addition to that is to claim random mutations and natural selection can produce macroevolution. However, we don't see the neodarwinian claim match up with the facts. They don't match the fossil record at all, for example. We see absolutely no evidence of such gradual (small changes added up over time) at all in the fossil record producing macroevolution. Nor do we see this in current biota, as John pointed out.He adds some other empirical observations as well that all add up to nullifying the claim mutations acted upon via natural selection could be the vehicle of organic evolution. Now, John like evos in general still holds to the fact that what we see here must be the result of some organic evolution. Admittedly, this is a weak assumption, but is no weaker in his theory than it is for evos in general.So he says, well, we know there is a process for descent, and we don't see a gradual process. So there must have been within organisms a latent reproductive ability to reproduce offspring that would be radically different; that within their genome existed a latent or prescribed design.Now, this is an inference from the evidence, but it at least matches much more the facts than mainstream evo models. Of course, neither can be fully tested and observed, and so perhaps both should always be considered a hypothesis, but neoDarwinianism an extremely unlikely hypothesis that contradicts the data we have.

This is, of course, correct as so many have tried in vain to point out to mainstream evos. It's very curious that absolutely no one from that perspective dares even try to challenge you on that.But maybe there is some benefit to thinking this though a little more....First, we can see gradualistic evolution of major taxa simply did not and does not occur, period.Second, whether or not you are right on the inherent deficiencies of mutations as an agent for organic evolution, it is true that clearly small mutations adding up is absolutely not what we see in the fossil record, not even close to it.So ruling out mainstream evo models, your model would require, for sexually reproducing species, to produce their new species offspring in at least pairs. In other words, it must coincide with others having offspring of the same type so they can mate.What do you think is the trigger for the mechanism?Moreover, if this latent ability was encoded into species, might we at least see some traces of this still working. For example, if we ever see a global change in a small way with human reproduction, such as earlier puberty or whatever, we would normally look for a virus or bacteria, a change in diet, or other environmental factors, but perhaps there is something still programmed into humanity that triggers "prescribed changes."Imo, there should be some more work done thinking on how to test for aspects of this prescribed mechanism. Sometimes scientists think something can never fully be tested (aspects of QM were like that), and yet someone figures out a way to do it.Personally, the hopeful monster thing seems a stretch, but then again, if organic evolution is to be preserved as a working theory, it is going to take something like the hopeful monster idea to make it work. It is more plausible if taken as something deliberately programmed in (a form of ID) because one can imagine more easily something strange like this occuring as part of some intelligent intent, but the idea, chance alone could explain it is prepostrous, as you rightly point out.Edited by randman, : edited pathogen out as that is not the best term there

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

John, I was invited back from a permanent ban at the same time you were, but were given more leeway and could post on the general forum. I understand your denigration of EvC, but at the same time, I don't see why when genuine questions of substantive remarks are presented, that you are flat out ignoring them, and why you would treat EVERYONE HERE, including someone like me that has certainly taken as much flak as you are, the same.On your quote above, I am not a scientist, and my question is genuine. Could you elaborate on your remarks? The idea that within the genome of the female, the sexes are determined: is that true just for frogs or are you saying for people as well? And how does this relate to the prescribed idea?