A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

The neoDarwinian fairy tale is very much a part of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It has been completely rejected not only by me but by every one of my sources which was instrumental in leading me to the PEH. I have arrived at the PEH through the time honored method of the elimination of all alternatives. If you choose not to present your version of the mechanism of organic evolution you have forfeited your right to criticize mine. This ceases to be a dialogue when that point is reached. The issue at stake here is a very important one. What WAS the mechanism of organic evolution? I have published my version and I stand by it. It is only natural that I should ask others what their version is. That is exactly what I did on my first blog when I sponsored the "First Annual Tournament of The MECHANISM of Organic Evolution." I even extended personal invitations to all the luminaries on both sides of the debate. Only two responded, Michael Behe and Jonathan Wells, both indicating they were too busy writing. To make a long story very short, nobody submitted their 500 word essay summarizing their version of the MECHANISM of organic evolution. I concluded, naturally enough, that either they had no convictions or they were ashamed to disclose them. If you are unable or unwilling to support your convictions, I will be forced to the same conclusion with respect to this presumed dialogue.I was invited here to defend my thesis and I have responded. I don't think it is appropriate to be interrogated concerning matters about which I have admitted I know very little. In other words I do not choose to speculate. I never have.I have carefully constructed my thesis on a basis provided by some of the finest minds of two centuries, not one of whom was either a Darwinian or a Christian Fundamentalist. I say without hesitation - A plague on both their houses.

---

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

Where in this thread have I criticised it? What I am trying to do is understand what if any mechanisms there are by which your hypothesis might reconcile with a number of observations documented in the literature, such as genetic differences associated with reproductive isolation.Simply saying 'position effects' does not actually provide a mechanism. Perhaps a better example of the sort of posiiton effects that might be relevant would be those seen in position effect variegation as has been widely studied in Drosophila (Wakimoto, 1998). Alternativley there may be a case to be made for psudogenes being part of an RNA based repressive system which might then be subsequently altered by chromosomal reorganisation to allow expression of a complementary gene.TTFN,WK

The mechansm will be disclosed by research being carried on in the world's laboratories right now. Everything now being discovered pleads for predetermined pathways, preferred sites of chromosome reorganization and very ancient origins for what were once thought to be very recently evolved gene families. I discussed that research in my paper. In other words everything is in favor of the PEH and absoloutely nothing supports the Darwinian fairy tale. Please do not trot out Drosophila as a model for anything. It hasn't changed a scintilla in millions of years. Like every other organism that reproduces sexually, it is incompetent to become anything very different from what it already is and I am not alone with that either. Robert Broom claimed as much 50 years ago. As you know that is another of my convictions and I have published it under the title "Is Evolution Finished?. The only thing the Darwinian model has in its favor is the one thing that Darwin was able to demonstrate in his "opus mimimus" - the establishment of varieties through selection. That is all that has ever been demonstrated for the Darwinian paradigm. For many organisms even that may not be possible. Darwinism in all its trappings is the biggest and most ideologically inspired hoax in the history of science which is why no one here or elsewhere will even dream of trying to defend it any more. It is nothing but a mass hysteria that has lasted for nearly a century and a half. The jig is up and I am delighted to be able to share in its downfall. I am 78 years old, no longer with a laboratory and my primary purpose now is to expose and dispose of the Darwinian atheist generated myth once and for all. I have already replaced it with an hypothesis that recognizes the real world as represented both by experiment and the testimony of the fossil record.

---

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

Your posts in this thread are spot on and I have learned much.The "Darwinian atheist generated myth" is a penalty from God for denying Him Creator credit triggered by the new starting assumption adopted by the scientific community between the years 1859 and 1874. That assumption said God was not responsible for the production of nature. The penalty causes persons to believe something so ridiculous (Darwinism) for denying Him Creator recognition.Ray Martinez

Thank you Herepton but you should understand that I do not subscribe to a living personal God. Neither did Einstein. I am not even certain there was just one. I am inclined toward at least two, one benevolent, the other malevolent. It makes the world easier for me to understand. What I am fairly certain of is that there is no God at present guiding the world. That is why I regard evolution as a thing of the distant past. Nevertheless your comment is much appreciated.

---

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

I hesitate to jump in here today because I don't have the time to completely do this topic justice, but wanted to say it is refreshing to hear someone point out some of the inadequacies of the dominant evo paradigm. I do think it is far more reasonable to see the cause of things like convergent evolution, which theoritically sometimes produced nearly identitical structures such as the mammalian ear, as more likely caused by a predetermined design embedded into the DNA, and as such think evolutionary theory should be more properly in the domain of Intelligent Design than the product of chance, mutation and natural selection alone (including the other aspects of dominant evo theories).However, there is an alternative. It could be that many of these creatures did not evolve and were simply created.My question to you, and forgive my ignorance here on some matters but I am not a scientist as you and WK are, is whether you still hold to universal common descent from a single ancestor, and so believe that this original ancestor was formed/evolved or otherwise came about with the latent potential for all the forms we see today.In other words, does your mechanism makes sense for a single common ancestor to have evolved into all of life today? Moreover, perhaps there were multiple instances of life forms that evolved as common ancestors (abiogenesis) or were created (special creation)?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : To fix typos, grammar and add title.

Actually, I did know this about you Prof. Davison which makes your evidence and arguments all the more objective.Einstein believed in "Spinoza's god". Spinoza believed nature itself had a mind, and of course who do you think spoke for this mute "mind" ? Darwinists are the same today; the prophets of nature stealing the patent from God.Ray Martinez

I would very much like to see a response from you concerning the above ?Ray

The question of common descent is a very important one and I have not made up my mind about it. A common genetic triplet code would certainly favor it but such a code is also the simplest way to specify 20 or so amino acids. This was proposed by the physicist George Gamov long before it was verified experimentally. If there were separate creations the simplest way would be still to be expected.Darwinism is basically monophyletic based as it is on probability. That alone is sufficient to question a monophyletic origin. I think one of the reasosn that Leo Berg was and still is ignored by the evolutionary establishment is because of his position on polyphyleticism. Here is what he has to say in Nomogenesis:"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms.i.e, polyphyletically"
page 406.Notice that he does not state tens of thousands of creations however. I am still not quite certain what he really meant but I heve enormous respect for this great Russian biologist. I regard him as the greatest evolutionist of all time. I am not prepared to dismiss him out of hand.When it comes to chromosome structure we can offer some conclusions with some certainty. The chromosme studies have now made it fairly certain that all of Primate evolution can be undertood as the restructuring of a common original karyotype. In my opinion I see no reason for this to have been achieved through the introduction of any new genetic information from the environment which of course is inherent in the PEH.When we begin to campare different mammalian orders or arthropod orders too, things are no longer so clear. Even larger gaps aappear when we compare the vertebrate classes. Fundamental difference characterize such features as where the germ cells arise and how they reach and invade the gonad which is itself sterile! The higher one goes in the taxonomic heirarchy the greater the gaps seem to become. For example, even at the order level, the germ cells of frogs (Anura) and salamanders (Urodela) come from separate embryonic germ layers, the endodoerm in the former and the mesoderm in the latter. They even have fundamentally different modes of origin being preformed in the frog egg and produced by embryonic induction in salamnders. I have discussed much of this in my original 1984 paper and in my unpublished Manifesto. Any descent theory of evolution must be able to cope with these discontinuities. I don't see how a purely monophyletic system can deal with it myself.To be brutally fair about the issue, I feel we have to admit that nobody knows how any times life was created, where in the geological column the creations took place, when the creations took place and how many creators were involved. In other words we know virtually nothing with certainty. My personal bias is toward a half dozen or so separate creations but I am not prepared to defend that with much enthusiasm. Certainly the prokaryopte / eukaryote gap is an enormous one with no sign of any intermediate transitional states. So is the protostome / deuterostome gap which separates the two major animal groups. Whether the mouth or the anus develops from the embryonic blastopore seems pretty basic to me. It reminds me of a certain derogatory statement frequently made about an adversary's intelligence. You know like - "You don't know your stomadeum from your proctadeum!"Thanks for a good question. That is the stuff that makes for profitable discussion or at least I like to think so.

---

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

I am hoping to ride the coattails of Randman and ask another good question.We know in the First edition of Origin of Species (1859) by Charles Darwin it contained one example of macro-speciation: whales morphing into bears. The example was quickly yanked from the second and all later editions by Darwin.We know Darwin was a prolific plant and pigeon breeder. He also had a vast network of worldwide breeder contacts. Based on these two facts we deduce Darwin suspected that there was a natural barrier (genetic homeostasis) that is impassable - that is why he, in fact, yanked the aforementioned example from the Origin.Common ancestry, based solely on parahomologous structures and anatomy assumes and keeps itself alive - all the while miraculously circumventing the barrier which no artificial breeder has ever been able to cross in experimentation. Yet Darwinists assert it happens behind our backs in the wild ?Prof. Davison could you address genetic homeostasis the way I have defined it here ?Thanks,Ray Martinez

I think then if we were to assume abiogenesis, that chemistry can evolve into biology as it were, unsubstantiated of course but assuming that possibility, then it is likely it would happen more than once and perhaps with some sort of regularity in geologic terms, or at least over the period of time conditions were favorable for it. I think the evo assumption that makes more sense is not the magical one-time event thing, but the idea a property in chemistry enables the evolution of biology.With that being said, the design for life would not be the product of chance but the product of the design of the physical world. I say, not to debate any specific point you have made obviously on this, but just to point out, imo, this once again points to ID as a more accurate framework or paradigm to think about the data than the "randomness" or all is chance paradigm. Well, that fits with your idea there were original forms that could evolve but have sort of spent their potential for the most part by now. When you say creations, do you mean special creations by God, or something else? One reason I ask is that your idea of original forms that could evolve a whole range based on the potential, sort of like they were programmed ahead of time to evolve specific new life forms, reminds me of baraminology, which is to seek to discover the original kinds. I know you are not a creationist per se, but your ideas do conform to some sort of outline of limited range original creatures that could evolve to a certain point and no further.Would you say that's a correct observation from your vantage point?I will be travelling some and may not get back to this until a few days, or maybe just one or 2 posts this evening, but when I have the time, I think it would be interesting on this thread or another to compare some creationist or even scriptures that creationists base their thoughts on with your ideas. Obviously, the young earth thing doesn't work with your theory, but some of what you propose seems more like Intelligent Design or progressive creation via ID, with evolution as the latter process of working out the design in real-time.Edited by randman, : add a phrase for clarity

I am not a philosopher. I am, or more accurately was, a bench scientist who believes what can be demonstrated by experiment. As for the origin of life, I do not believe that could ever have occurred by chance and in that sense I am very definitely a creationist but not of any particular sect. I don't see how anyone can possibly assume that the universe was not the product of an immense intellgence for beyond out capacity to comprehend. That was Einstein's view and it is mine as well. Life is miraculous and miracles have a way of recurring, so I see no problem with multiple origins of life. I see tremendous problems with spontaneous generation. It was disproved in three sequential centuries first by Franceso Redi, next by Lazarro Spallanzani and finally and most decisively by Louis Pasteur. Nobody even worries about it any more that I know of. That is good enough for me. I'm convinced. It simply can't happen and probably never did. One or more Big Front Loaders (BFLs) did it eons ago as far as I can tell. It is my view that they wrote one or more goal-seeking programs that have now run their course. From here on it is all down hill. Anyone who doubts that we are losing species at an alarming rate ought to have his head examined: on an annual basis probably at a greater rate than at any time in the history of the earth and all without a single documented replacement. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and so have I. Evolution is finished.Sorry but that is about as far as I am prepared to go."Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

---

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

Hello Dr. DavisonBefore we get started I want to remind you that I have chosen not to use my real name here and I ask that you honor the rules you agreed to when you registered here and not invade my privacy by revealing my real name.In case you didn't read the registration agreement here is the relevant portion:EvC Forum: Information Are you willing to abide by this?

DaveScot's real name is well known. What is unknown is why he refuses to use it. I have always regarded anonymity as little more than license for abuse. I recommend a perusal of either of my blogs for verification of that suspicion. Why that convention was ever permitted boggles my ancient mind. Imagine a scientific literature founded on such principles!Now that I have promised not to divulge his real name perhaps he would like to begin his interrogation. That has always been his style.

---

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

For the most part, there will be no direct moderation in the Showcase forum. Perhaps there will be an occasional note that the topic is drifting, but by and large there will be no direct moderation.Rather, moderation will occur by limiting access to those who follow the Forum Guidelines. Briefly, the Forum Guidelines allow any viewpoint, and they ask that you stay on topic, discuss constructively and focus your discussion on the topic and not the people you're debating with.Access will also be limited to those who, in the opinion of the moderator team, would have the best chemistry with those they would be debating with. This is very subjective, of course - we'll do the best we can.The members showcased in this forum have found through experience that their viewpoints often do not receive a fair hearing at Internet discussion boards, and this forum is an attempt to see if a different approach might prove more successful.So far, so good, it would seem. I think John's recent posts are some of most detailed and informative that I've read regarding his views.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director