Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 74 (8962 total)
154 online now:
Faith, PaulK (2 members, 152 visitors)
Newest Member: Samuel567
Post Volume: Total: 871,211 Year: 2,959/23,288 Month: 1,150/1,809 Week: 269/313 Day: 10/71 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

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

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

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 287 of 300 (329462)
07-06-2006 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 286 by John A. Davison
07-06-2006 5:45 PM


validity
You waste your time here.

Since you thanked me earlier for giving you a message to reply to, in order to pontificate, which gives you pleasure, please realize that I continue to respond in order to allow you such pleasure. You claim that this forum is not an appropriate means to communicate with you, yet you respond within minutes of my posts! Obviously you pay quite a bit of attention to this forum, and so it seems like a great place for us to have a discussion.

...stop using an alias...

Sorry for offending you so, Dr. Davison. (Feel free to call me Dr. Sasquatch if it helps, I assure you that I am a practicing scientist with the appropriate credentials). I do hope you understand - elsewhere in the forum the discussion is not solely scientific, and can become quite personal. It is for those discussions past that I hide in anonymity. Based on your previous posts in this thread, I may only surmise that your insistence on "real" names is to allow you to make character attacks rather than engage in honest analysis of your hypothesis.

...I regard it as intellectual cowardice and I don't enjoy responding to cowards...

Intellectual cowardice comes in multiple forms. For example, it would seem that refusing to answer simple, specific, valid questions regarding the hypothesis that one created a thread to defend is an ample display of intellectual cowardice.

Do you believe that there is a range of mutational changes with varying position effects, and thus varying speciation potential?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 286 by John A. Davison, posted 07-06-2006 5:45 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 288 by John A. Davison, posted 07-06-2006 7:09 PM pink sasquatch has responded
 Message 292 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:25 PM pink sasquatch has responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 responded

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

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 289 of 300 (329484)
07-06-2006 7:55 PM
Reply to: Message 288 by John A. Davison
07-06-2006 7:09 PM


persistence vs illiteracy
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.

(One wonders how I write oh-so eloquently yet cannot read! Ah, Dr. Davison! You are quite the cut-up!)

I persist, not because of illiteracy, but because I, too, believe a man is only as good as his word. Not his name, nor his whining against the names of others. Not unlike my prediction - you appear to have resorted to character attacks rather than address the content of my questions, which would appear of some import to your hypothesis.

It would seem you are afraid of any discussion of your hypothesis, which stands as your word, which means little if you do not stand behind it, even under mild scientific scrutiny. Are you as good as your "word", yet unwillingly to allow it to be discussed? I would hate to think you were guilty of that intellectual cowardice you mentioned earlier...

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, alas, you still communicate here, rapidly and regularly, hundreds of posts. Your words and actions do not agree, it seems.

Why not communicate constructively, rather than rant and rail in regards to reasoning I in no way represent? (By the way, that last bit was alliteration, not illiteracy).

Now, shall we place SNPs at one end of the "speciation potential" mutational scale, and genome duplication at the other?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 288 by John A. Davison, posted 07-06-2006 7:09 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 290 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 7:42 AM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

Admin
Director
Posts: 12657
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002


Message 291 of 300 (329596)
07-07-2006 11:34 AM


Using Your Real Name
This is off-topic for this thread, but the thread is almost at the limit anyway, and this is also the thread where use of pseudonyms has recently come up.

I know John disagrees with me, but I encourage people to use pseudonyms whenever possible. I'm sure there are some cases where it makes sense to use your real name (for example, an already well-known scientist like Behe or a well-known Internet personality like John here), but in most cases this seems a bad idea. I won't try to enumerate specific risks, but there *are* risks. Just as I'm sure you all practice safe sex, you should also practice safe web-surfing.

For those with WSJ subscriptions, there was an on-line article on the subject today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115223808654700306.html?mod=hps_us_pageone


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

Replies to this message:
 Message 294 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:41 PM Admin has not yet responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 responded

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

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

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

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 295 of 300 (329652)
07-07-2006 4:08 PM
Reply to: Message 294 by John A. Davison
07-07-2006 3:41 PM


Re: Using Your Real Name
Dr. Davison, I am astonished that you can spend any time on the net and not know very well why anonymity is important.

Please, do not do anything that might make a newbie make a mistake.

ABE

It is not necessary to know who someone is to evaluate an argument that is put forward. It helps avoid the logical mistake that represents.

Of course, it has the side effect that one may waste time on a proven crackpot but the worst of those usually show their nature in a few lines of their first post.

Edited by AdminNosy, : finished the response


This message is a reply to:
 Message 294 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:41 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 8:34 PM AdminNosy has not yet responded

pink sasquatch
Member (Idle past 4442 days)
Posts: 1567
Joined: 06-10-2004


Message 296 of 300 (329668)
07-07-2006 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 292 by John A. Davison
07-07-2006 3:25 PM


finally! a scientific discussion!
Well Dr. Davison! A hearty thanks for finally engaging in scientific discussion after much dodging on your part. But first I wanted to mention that I do indeed have not only a penis, but two glorious testicles, and thus your attempts to feminize me are unwarranted. (And as an aside, I checked out your photo at your website, and must say your skin also has a pinkish hue! We are not all that different, you and I!)

As an aside, I am glad to hear that we have at least a small audience - though I love, simply love, the fact that even when presented with a proper name, rather than an alias, you refuse to believe the name to be true! Even proper names appear as aliases to you! Why bother worrying about such, Dr. Davison? Please simply address the merits of the arguments, rather than childishly chide character of which you know not.

Also, you seem to imply that I am uninterested in interaction with you - simply not true - I do not have the luxury of being a retired philospher such as yourself, and was hard at work at the bench for the past nine hours, and thus can not be nearly as attentive as you towards this forum (the one at which you refuse to communicate).

To recap, I asked two questions, and you have now provided a response to those questions:

Dr. Sasquatch asks:

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?

Dr. Davison answers:

Well that is pretty easy. An allelic substitution is a modification of a gene. Such changes have nothing to do with evolution and at best can produce only varieties. An inversion or translocation or any other gross rearrangement of the genome need not change any genes whatsoever yet such changes obviously affect several phenotypic expressions simultaneously. Most important, such rearrangements create serious problems for the fertility of a hybrid in which one chromosome is normal and its homologue is modified. While these are minimal in effect as long as only one or a few of the chromosome complement are hererozygous, they will invariably result in sterility if several heterozygotes are invlved as in the mule for example...

Also to claim that there is a continuum beteween allelic substitutions and chromosome rearrangements is absurd. They are entirely different phenomena. While evey genetic change probably has some effect on the phenotype, only structural rarrangements have been involved in evolution. Except as they eventually can lead to extinction, point mutations in no way influence reproductive potential and so are meaningless as evolutionary devices. To continue to adhere to this gradualist view is without foundation.

Dr. Sasquatch responds:

Such a simplistic answer belies your background in physiology, and suggests a great deal of ignorance regarding molecular genetics on your part. Honestly, it seems as though you either misunderstood or intentionally side-stepped my question entirely.

I simply cannot believe you are so ignorant of basic genetics to say there is simply nothing but allelic substitution and chromosome-level rearrangment in the mutational palette!

Even at a simple logical level, you should realize that something as complex as a genome would not be mutable in such a binary way. Just off the top of head, and possibly poorly organized, is a surely-incomplete list of possible mutations in the continuum I imagine.

from "Least speciation potential"
- single base substitution
- single base insertion/deletion (indel)
- microsatellite indel
- decibase-level indel
- decibase-level duplication
- decibase-level inversion
- decibase-level translocation
- kilobase-level indel
- kilobase-level duplication
- kilobase-level inversion
- kilobase-level translocation
- megabase-level indel
- megabase-level duplication
- megabase-level inversion
- megabase-level translocation
- chromosome-level indel (reciprocal)
- chromosome-level duplication (reciprocal)
- chromosome-level inversion (reciprocal)
- chromosome-level translocation (reciprocal)
- interspecific genetic exchange
- chromosome-level indel (non-reciprocal)
- chromosome-level duplication (non-reciprocal)
- chromosome-level inversion (non-reciprocal)
- chromosome-level translocation (non-reciprocal)
- full-complement ploidy changes
- aneuploidy
to "Most speciation potential"

Let me know if you have anything to add. The heart of my question, though: Where in that range of mutations do you place the distinct boundary you speak of between "allelic substitution" and "chromosomal rearrangment"? (If you cannot, I can only assume you will be taking back your label of "absurd" regarding the range of mutations that exists).

I would also be interested to know if you accept that simple base-level changes could, in a way, cause position effects. Examples:

- There are master regulatory genes that have been discovered using expression-phenotype-based QTL mapping. Some of these master regulatory genes control the expression levels of several hundred other genes - it would seem to me that a subtle change in a master regulator could vastly change expression of many phenotypes in a "position effect" of sorts networked across the genome.

- Similarly, their are non-genic regulatory regions of the genome that modulate expressivity of many genes both in cis and trans. What of mutation of such regulatory domains? Indeed, it would seem that regional decoupling of genes from their regulatory regions is a primary cause of position effects.

You accuse me of promoting gradualism of evolution, when I am doing no such thing! I am simply suggesting various mutational modes, that though they seem "simple", or not at the karyotype-level, may actually have enormous epistatic network and/or pleiotropic consequences, resulting in saltational changes.

Dr Sasquatch asks:

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)?

Dr. Davison fails to respond to this point.

It may be the case, as your PEH would predict, that the above hypothetical situation does not exist. But if it did, how would you respond? Surely you realize that hypotheses must be falsifiable - would this present a falsification?

I do look forward to hearing your response, and thank you in advance for a more thought-out one than previously provided, (though I apologize if you did not understand my questions - feel free to ask me to clarify).

I feel that my explanation of a mutational spectrum with variable likelihood of resulting in saltational evolution can only strengthen the PEH!

It is so easy to believe, isn't it!

I love it so!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 292 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 3:25 PM John A. Davison has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 297 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 8:09 PM pink sasquatch has not yet responded

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

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

John A. Davison 
Inactive Suspended 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 yet responded

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3318 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 299 of 300 (329747)
07-08-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 297 by John A. Davison
07-07-2006 8:09 PM


Re: finally! a scientific discussion!
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.

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?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 297 by John A. Davison, posted 07-07-2006 8:09 PM John A. Davison has not yet responded

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 722 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 300 of 300 (329761)
07-08-2006 1:34 AM


300 is the limit
John does keep claiming that he won't post here, but he continues anyway. If someone is still interested in trying to communicate with him start a new thread, this thread has reached it's limit.

If John or anyone else wants to start a sequel, please attach links to this topic and to John's PEH.


AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:

  • "Post of the Month Forum"

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

    Newer Topic | Older Topic
    Jump to:


    Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

    ™ Version 4.0 Beta
    Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2020