A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

It is possible to read these two statements very carefully and construct a way in which they may be taken as NOT contradictory. However, that is very hard to do.You will do better if you are very careful about how you word things and make very sure what you mean is clear.Do you, or do you not take anonymous posters seriously? Is it fair to accept disucssion with someone that you will not take "seriously"? In what way will discussion with someone you don't take seriously "please" you?

AdminNosyThis is getting ridiculous. EvC has invited me here to defend my papers and I can't even get you folks started. You make the rules here not I. I am beginning to believe you have no intention of engaging me and all this is but a diversionary tactic of some sort designed to make me look bad. I'll accept and respond to comments from anyone, anytime, any place. Is that clear enough for you? The ball is in the court of EvC. Let's get it on!

---

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

Wounded King has requested access to this forum so that he may discuss this topic with you, and it has been granted. I presume he'll begin the next time he visits the forum.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

I can't wait.

---

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

It is good to have you back Salty. Congratulations on getting the PEH published.I was wondering if we might discuss in some more detail your ideas on the role of 'position effects' in the derepression of 'latent' genes.This seems to require a couple of other accessory systems beyond merely the rearrangement of chromosomal segments. I'm not sure whether you are maintaining that there is no species specific information in the genome, I doubt that this is your contention, or merely that such information is not the source of the differences between the species.Small, species specific, genetic changes have been shown to affect the interfertility of Drosophila species (Orr, 2005). So if there is a role for small species specific differences in DNA in establishing or maintaining reproductive isolation between species is the origin of these differences one driven by the sort of position effects you hypothesise?Are the position effects merely at the level of gene expression or might they actually mediate genetic changes within coding regions?TTFN,WKp.s. sorry if my pesudonymity upsets you.

Your use of an alias doesn't upset me . It is characteristic of EvC and most other forums. It is revealing nevertheless of a certain amount of insecurity, a problem I don't have. I gave up aliases long ago so please don't call me salty.I also think you should be aware of who your real adversaries are as I am largely only their spokesperson. Here are some of them in no particular order. Mivart, Berg, Broom, Bateson, Grasse, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf and Grasse. Since I am largely ignored I often let these great scholars speak for me and will do so today in response to some of the matters you have raised.With respect to both allelic mutation and the site of species information I quote Grasse with whom I am in complete agreement."A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian allelomorphic mutation plays NO PART in creative evolution. It is, as it were, a more or less pathological fluctuation in the genetic code. It is an accident on the 'magnetic tape' on which the primary information for the species is recorded."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243, my emphasis.To anticipate any further mention of chance as having a role in evolution I will quote Leo Berg with whom I also agree." Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 406The only thing that selection, artificial or natural, has ever been able to accomplish is the establishment of varieties and in some instances perhaps subspecies.As far as the significance of subspecies to creative evolution, I agree with Goldschmidt."Microevolution does not lead beyond the confines of the species, and the typical products of microevolution, the geographc races, are not incipient species."
The Material Basis of Evolution, page 396.It is considerations like these that caused me to completely abandon the Darwinian model in favor of what I feel is the only acceptable alternative, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

---

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

Jeremy Narby, Ph.D. (Stanford University, anthropology, and a staunch evolutionist) says in this book (which I am currently reading):Context: Defending his claimed status as an agnostic and having just blasted ID. A few off topic sentences later, on the next page (Narby is narrating a travelogue as he goes). And another Stanford Ph.D., Dr. Gene Scott (degree in Philosophy and Religion and a Ph.D. minor in psychology)"It is impossible to expose oneself to evidence and not form an opinion." Dr. Scott's quote was made in a context against the absurdity of claiming prolong agnostic status.Narby is a full-blooded evolutionist attempting to assert that he has not made up his mind about God or that the same is unknowable. In either case the Christian majority proves him wrong - God is knowable. Narby slams the main assertion of evolution (chance) but he is an evolutionist = stereotypical patron of Scientism. Narby has formed an opinion, he has contradicted himself and he is confused.Ray MartinezEdited by Herepton, : Add full Narby quote

Sadly those luminaries aren't actually here to conduct a debate, nor are they aware of more recent research.If you have anything that actually contradicts the cases reviewed in Orr's paper then that would be very interesting, as it is I am not talking about chance at all, I am hoping to discuss possible mechanisms by which the genetic factors which have been experimentally shown to be involved in the reproductive isolation of certain species may have been generated as a result of the position effects you posit.If you believe that the differences in 1ary genetic sequence are not responsible then what alternative do you propose?If the deprepression of latent information doesn't involve the addition of novel, or modification of previously existing, genetic sequence then how is it operating? Was all of the genetic sequence information already fully formed in ancestral species and the current patterns of genetic sequences and expresion are merely the result of a combination of derepression leading to novel expression patterns and loss of genetic sequence in some lineages?TTFN,WK

Oh but it is a discussion about chance and to put that title on your response is irresponsible. The role of chance is the major element in this discussion.It is only natural that when one is confronted with a phenomenon like evolution, or anything else for that matter, to immediately look for a cause. That is the job of the scientist and I have practiced that myself as a developmental biologist with some success I might add; three solo papers in Science and others in the Journal of Heredity, the Journal of General Physiology, American Naturalist and elsewhere. Those experiments are what led me to the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which I published 22 years ago. I know a lot about the experimental method and what it can and cannot disclose.The question I asked long ago was this one. What, if the most intensive efforts to transform species through artificial selection fail, and they have, is one to conclude? Even before I examined the historical literature I drew the formal conclusion that selection had nothing whatsoever to do with the emergence of new life forms or their subsequent changes. Imagine my deight when I subsequently discovered that Leo Berg, Reginald C. Punnett and St George Jackson Mivart had independenly anticipated that very same conclusion long before I was born. One of my stated objectives is the resurrection of these scientists from the oblivion to which the Darwinian spokespersons have deliberately and cynically submerged them. Now we all know who these primary spokespersons have been. Ernst Mayr, Stephen J. Gould, William Provine and most recently Richard Dawkins. Each of these abandoned science early in their careers to spend the rest of their lives writing reams of what I regard as science fiction stories. Not one of them has contributed a single tangible bit of real data to the problem of organic evolution. Don't expect to find my sources in their Bibliographies because they aren't there or if they are it is for some trivial matter. One of the dirtiest literary tricks is to cite an author in the Bibliograhy and never mention him in the Text. Erst Mayr was a master at this.Dawkins, the quintessential Darwinian, has become the laughingstock of evolutionary science if you ask me. No real scientist even cites him. He lives in a fantasy world of his own design.Now I don't even blame these people any more because one of the inescapable conclusions of the PEH is the recognition of what Einstein declared long ago."Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no conrol."Einstein died a convinced determinist and so will I. I regard the word "determined" for all practical purposes as synonymous with "prescribed." Even the way we view the world is "prescribed" as the studies on separated homozygotic twins so clearly reveals. We are all victims of our "prescribed" fates. Some of us have been luckier than others. I regard my sources and myself as among the luckier ones. Gilbert and Sullivan realized this about the same time that Einstein was born."Every boy and every girl,
That is born into the world alive,
Is either a little liberal,
Or a little conservative."
IolantheSo you see this exchange has EVERYTHING to do with chance. Having completely rejected its role in both ontogeny and phylogeny, I have been driven to the only conceivable explanation which is summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.I repeat that chance had absolutely nothing to do with a long past evolution just as it has nothing to do with ontogeny now. Once again I am not alone."Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134

---

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

Could you provide some specific references for these failed enterprises? I'm not familiar with any extensive experimental efforts to transform species in the sort of 'macro' sense that you and Goldschmidt seem to be describing. I believe for the scansion to work the final line should be "Or else a little conservative."None of this seems to have anything to do with possible mechanisms by which latent information could be derepressed. Do you not wish to discuss this specific topic?TTFN,AW

Sure, but they certainly are not being attempted any more. The most famous attempt was by Dobzhansky with Drosophila and it is very much to his credit that he admitted failure. The reason the Darwinians no longer experiment with controlled selection is because they are scared to death of the results. If they had really been interested in testing their hypothesis they would have done it years ago with Darwin's finches. Maybe they did. Nothing would surprise me. Finches are among the easiest of all birds to domesticate. The canary is a finch. Now it doesn't really matter anyway because the Grants have demonstrated that the various varieties spontaneouly interbreed and produce fertile and genetically fit offspring.As for the scanning of Gilbert's lyrics, take it up with Gilbert. he is dead.I challenge anyone to take any two species, living or extinct. and provide convincing evidence that one of them is ancestral to the other. What we see going on around us is not evolution in action as the Darwinians continue blindly to assume. We observe the terminal irreversible products of a long past evolution. Just as ontogeny terminates with death of the individual, so phylogeny is terminating with the extinction of its final products. I agan suggest that Homo sapiens is the last mammalian species to appear with a documentable age under 100,000 years. Also once again I am not alone. Even Julian Huxley, author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" (he coined the term) stated in no uncertain terms that a new genus has not appeared in the last two million years. page 571. I still maintain that a documentable novel species has not been produced in historical times; that is in the last 4000 years. Even if I am wrong I remain certain that it could not have been done through the agency of bisexual (Mendelian) inheritance. It is much too conservative a mechanism to ever support what has been largely, if not exclusively, a saltatinal evolution without gradual intermediates. Bateson admitted the same near the end of his life as I have documented in my papers and in the Manifesto. Neither allelic mutation nor the sexual mode of their inheritance ever had anything to do with creative evolution. Furthermore, all that we see today is rampant extinction without a single verified replacement.Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny does now, proceeded entirely on the basis of prescribed latent information by a means in which the only conceivable role for the environment was that as a releaser for that stored information. Such creatures apparently no longer exist. Again I will let another speak for me."Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism that is not mutational and aleatory."
Pierre Grasse. Evolution of Living Organisms, page 245. His entire sentence is in italics.The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis does exactly that.

---

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

Excuse me. I forgot to add that I have no idea how the information was derepressed and neither does any one else that I know of. We do know that just changing the position of chromosomal blocks of information can have profound effects on gene expression however. I documented that in the PEH paper. I see no need to introduce any new information into an evolving genome to account for all of Primate evolution. How much further this can be extended remains to be seen.

Don't you have any interest in considering how it might be derepressed? The example of repression of genes localised near the telomeres is certainly a starting point, but either you require a very large number of loci under the repressive effect of telomeres or we should be looking for an aternative form of chromatin structure which has a localised repressive effect.Perhaps epigenetic factors such as histone methylation/acetylation or DNA methylation would be suitable mediators of repression.TTFN,WK

Of course I am interested but I do not speculate on matters in which I am not an authority. Frankly I feel that everything we are now learning is in full accord with the PEH and absolutely none of it can ever be reconciled with the Darwinain paradigm based as it is on randomness and natural selection. My views have been published and are now for all time. How do you feel about my position is the question I now ask you. Do you support the neoDarwinian model in any way or don't you? I wouldn't give a nickel for it myself and neither did any of my sources.

---

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

Surely you are still quite capable of keeping up with current literature. Why should you need to be 'an authority' on a specific field, epigenetics is still a part of developmental biology and you have been doing that for long enough surely? Unless you think that you are losing the faculties you have applied to your research previously why not familiarise yourself with other relevant molecular mechanisms which might mediate the processes you hypothesise?I'm not sure how discussing my views on neo-darwinian theories would in any way be a discussion of your Prescribed evolutionary hypothesis, surely that would be a topic for a different thread?TTFN,WK