A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I further agree not to use any abusive language here but I will make no such guarantee elsewhere where such behavior is the norm. What else must I agree to? Please inform me in advance as I certainly don't want to lose this opportunity to respond to any questions, especially from DaveScot. He has been following me around for quite some time now. He pops up at every forum where I have posted. I strongly recommend that my long history with DaveScot be carefully reviewed as a prelude to what may follow, especially his role as blogczar at Uncommon Descent where he found it necessary to purge every paper I ever wrote on the subject of organic evolution, papers that he personally and rather proudly had placed on the side board at Uncommon Descent, a forum from which he also had previously banned me.Perhaps he would like to use this opportunity to explain that bizarre history.As for the subject of his post, I have exlained several times that I was unable to test my Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH) because I did not have at my disposal female frogs carrying chromosome rearrangements in heterozygous form. That is mandatory for such a test to be meaningful. The real question should be - Why, since 1984 when I first published the SMH, have others not tested the SMH? Also why has it not been tested with other forms including mammals? I gave specific instructions as to how it could be done on more than one occasion. DaveScot more than anyone knows that as I presented that information on my blog when he asked for it there.Let me answer the question I just asked. I propose that the SMH has not, to my knowledge at least, been tested for exactly the same reason that Darwin's finches, among the easiest of all birds to domesticate (the canary is a finch). The reason is simply that such experiments could destroy, once and for all, the biggest hoax in the history of science. Darwinians essentially have abandoned the scientific method. It would not surprise me in the least if such tests have been done and the results kept secret. They are terrified of what they might reveal. Until they have been performed and pubklsihed the SMH remains viable. Even if new species are not produced it in no way militates against semi-meiosis having been the major instrument for speciation in the past. There is every reason to believe that true speciation and the formation of any of the higher categories is quite impossible anyway as my signature proclaims.Now with this brief introduction I turn the microphone over to DaveScot or of course anyoe else who is interested in the presuned subject of this thread - A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

---

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

Excuse my many typos in my last post. I do that when I get worked up!

---

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

Could you describe what's special about a frog heterozygous for chromosome reorganization and how exactly does one identify such a frog?Edited by DaveScot, : No reason given.

If any organism is heterozygous for a major chromosome reorganization it will appear as a loop in the synaptic stage of meiosis. This I made perfectly clear, complete with a figure demonstrating that configuration and the consequences of it following the completion of the first meiotic division. That figure incidentally was in two of the papers that you deleted from the Uncommon Descent side board, in the original 1984 paper and again in my Manifesto along with a complete discussion of the evolutionary significance of this virtually universal cytologcal step. I recommend an introductory course in cytogenetics."You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison

---

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

You only used the word "loop" one time in the manifesto and no mention was made that it is how to identify the test animals. Shortly thereafter and finally It appears we have two imaginary, unproven means of speciation at issue in the above; semi-meiosis and Darwinian. You seem to have declared that to settle the matter the Darwinians have to prove theirs works and if they cannot then yours must be the truth by default. That doesn't sound like the scientific method to me. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your challenge. Please explain.You are the expert on the manifesto. It's helpful when you refer to your own work you would quote a page and paragraph and drop the snide remarks about classes I should take.At any rate, you didn't define any methodology for finding these frogs that are heterozygous for chromosome reorganization. You say they can be identified by a loop structure evident during meiosis. So to find these frogs does one have to watch frog germ cells being created under a microscope with enough resolution to see this loop structure? And then what, when one of those germ cells is identified somehow take it off the slide and grow it into an adult frog?Verification of this hypothesis necessarily requires someone to perform some work in a laboratory. I'm trying to determine what the work is and how it is to be performed. There's a reason no one has done this experimental work. I want to know if difficulty or impossibility is the reason. I don't believe for a New York minute that fear of exposing the Darwinian hoax is why no one has done this experimental work. The scientist who successfully disproves the modern synthesis and demonstrates the real mechanism of organic evolution would become rich and famous beyond his wildest dreams. That's something to covet not fear.Edited by DaveScot, : Minor spelling corrections.

... we have a proposed side topic to this topic.As you probably know, Brad McFall was interested in taking part in this topic, but Admin (with the support of other admins) declined having such happen. I, however, did think that a John A. Davison / Brad McFall conversation could be interesting, and thus I proposed to Brad (via e-mail) that he propose his own topic, directed at you, and intended to be for you and he only.Please see PEH (John A. Davison and Brad McFall only), and respond with either a "Yes, I want to do it" or a "No, I don't want to do it". The option is yours, and in no way am I trying to force this addition topic upon you.Adminnemooseus

Yes indeed one has to look under the microscope to observe the stages of meiosis. DaveScot and I have been over all this many times before. I have repeatedly explained what is required to be able to test the semi-meiotic hypothesis and even gone into detail on the methods involved, including how the SMH could be tested with mammals where chromosomal configurations are already well known. I am not responsible for the failure of the evolutionary establishment to respond to my suggestions. They are as plain as day to anyone with a rudimnentary knowledge of cytogenetics. More important, DaveScot's comments in no way address the substance of the PEH which is what this discussion is supposed to be about. He seems to be more interested on casting doubt about my integrity as a scientist than in engaging with the topic at hand.My conclusions have been published and are now for all time just as are those of my several briliant sources not one of whom was a Darwinian or ever found it necessary to invoke a personal God.I came here by invitation to defend a new hypothesis for organic evolution, one which I feel is in complete accord with what is being revealed in the world's laboratories. I long ago rejected the atheist Darwinian model as a total failure as did all my sources. I have also rejected any role for a personal God as did Einstein:"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the reigious fanatics, and it springs from the same source ...They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."That leaves me in the middle of this senseless ideologically dominated debate that continues to typify the evolutionary scenario. That suits me just fine. I love the way the opposing cults are butchering one another. I say a plague on both their houses.Now lets discuss the topic of this thread. That is why I am here.

---

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

Thank you for the clear answer. Here are some further questions:Could you describe the procedure for observing a frog germ cell being created under sufficient resolution to identify it as heterozygous for a chromosome reorganization? Please provide enough detail so I can get an idea of the time and effort required per observation.After finding one of the above, is there a way to recover it from the microscope stage and grow it into an adult frog? Again, if you could, provide enough detail so I can get an idea of the time and effort required.Finally, do you have an estimate of how many observations might be necessary in order to find the one required? No we have not. The most I've gotten in the past is a description of the animal you needed and couldn't locate. Perhaps you discussed this further with someone else. If so I'd be happy to read that account of it and save you the trouble of repeating yourself. If you could be so kind as to give me a direct link to where this is recorded I shall go read it forthwith. I have never seen a detailed description of the experimental work including equipment, procedures, and estimates of the manpower required. I don't know about labs in academia but I spent decades in commercial research labs and writing up your experimental program before embarking on it is standard operating procedure just like a business plan is SOP before starting up a new line of business. Is it done differently in university laboratories?It seems to me you're being rather evasive about this. I'm giving you the benefit of doubt that the semi-meiotic hypothesis has merit that warrants testing it. That appears to be more generous than most people are willing to be with it. I'm merely trying to determine what it would cost to test it. Research has to be paid for, Doctor Davison, and the people writing the checks to cover it usually want some idea of the cost and anticipated range of results before underwriting the program. I'm rather surprised you have never written up a detailed experimental program to submit to various sources for funding.

Well, I guess one creature exists that might introduce new species through "artificial" means such as genetic engineering or perhaps mechanical means (AI).I, of course, agree 100% with your basic criticisms of the dominant evo theories; and have no reason to doubt the personal impact on your career that you mention on one of the links an admin provided; and kind of wonder about the banter between you and Dave Scott, but at the same time, would like to hear more about your theory and less about fights on other boards and such.Specifically, how can we identify the mechanism that this prescribed latent information could have worked it's way out into the species to create new species? If this is a process that once worked, but doesn't occur naturally, can we manipulate the process somehow to recreate it, and so test your theory?

From one of your papers.... Retired Service | The University of VermontSo what we would have is basically some event or force would trigger reordering of the chromosomes during the reproductive process in several new individual members of a species, or at least 2 for sexually reproducing species? And that would begin the new species or genus? I am sure you realize the creationists would just agree that your criticisms of ToE are entirely correct and prove that ToE is false based on empirical observations, and that we are left with a new hypothesis that cannot effectively be tested since this process seems to have died, having run it's course.I think the basic flaws you point out such as the fossil record not appearing to match Darwinian evolution and the dead-end nature of microevolution are fairly easy to grasp but the mechanism aspect is a little harder, at least for me.Nevertheless, I think there should be some ways to perhaps demonstrate this process or rule it out as unlikely. Do you think it could be possible to find a way to perhaps reverse the process? In other words, if there is chromosomal reordering, perhaps we can shut that off so that the older species is produced.Of course, that may come off as simply a dumb question as this particular area is one I readily admit ignorance in. Maybe WK can chime in?Edited by randman, : No reason given.Edited by randman, : for clarity

I've been trying to discuss possible mechanisms with John but he seems to feel that that would be outside of his field of expertise and doesn't want to speculate. I think there is a problem with this, if there has been a loss of genetic material then reversing the chromosomal changes might fail to recapture the state of the ancestral species genome. It seems to me that there are some similarities between John's theory and that put forward by Maresca and Schwartz (2006) which we discussed previously. Maresca and Schwartz's theory suggests a mechanism which might account for periodic occurrences of major chromosomal rearrangement but still leave the context as that of a chance occurrence contrary to what John's theory would posit.They do however suggest that a heterozygote with a non-lethal chromosomal rearrangement, and presumably not one producing sterility, which had a recessive phenotype could spread through the population being sporadically expressed in homozygotes as the rearrangement spreads, this may allow a number of homozygotes to appear suddenly. The same could be the case in a scenario based on John's theory of PEH.John himself obviates this problem with his semi-meiotic theory and gynogenetic production of homozygotes, but I don't see why Maresca and Schwartz's theory wouldn't be an equally plausible explanation although they don't avoid the crossing-over problems as John's does.TTFN,WK

I am not being evasive about anything. I never have been and I resent that suggestion. It is unprofessional and unacceptable. I recommend an apology but that is entirely up to DaveScot. I don't think it will appear.The methods for semi-meiosis were not even invented by me. You will find them in my 84 paper and in my Manifesto. If you hadn't purged them from Uncommon Descent you could discover them in a heartbeat. Check the paper by George Nace. I am afraid you will have to go to the library for that!One of the problems (which anyone would know I would think) is that in order to identify a chromosome heterozygote frog probably requires the sacrifice of the animal. That is NOT necessary with mammals especially laboratory stocks which are known to be hereteozygous for chromosome rearrangements.The simple truth is that the SMH is being ignored by the evolutionary establishment for purely ideological reasons. So is the PEH and both because they deny the existence of allelic mutation as of any significance in organic evolution. The chromosome and not the gene WAS the unit of evolutionary change and always has been. Goldschmidt was the first to recognize this 56 years ago and he was vilified for it by the Darwinian cult. They, including DaveScot, have continued with that dereprecation. He remains head and shoulders above the neoDarwinian geneticists who for purely ideological reasons continue to worship chance as having a role in evolution. It has never played any role whatsoever in either ontogeny or phylogeny. That in a nutshell is the entire premise of the PEH.Furthermore, it is very possible that the SMH, if it is ever properly tested, may fail to produce a new species. One of my present convictions is that creative evolution is no longer even possible; that like ontogeny, phylogeny has also been a self-limiting process. Nevertheless, until someone, somewhere is willing to perform the necessary experiments, the SMH remains a viable explanation for a fundamental feature of the evolutionary process. It can explain why we are all so very much alike at the gene level.I am convinced that allelic mtation has never played any role in creative evoliution beyond the accumulation of deleterious genes leading to extinction. Without extinction there could have been no evolution and that is all allelic mutation was ever good for. Leo Berg knew that, Pierre Grasse knew that, Richard B.Goldschmidt knew that and I know it too. The truth of the matter is that sexual (Mendelian} genetics has played no role in evolution beyond the establishment of varieties. William Bateson said as much too when he declared that he had wasted his life in the study of Mendelism and that it had nothing to do with evolution. I have documented that in my papers and in the Manifesto.The neoDarwnians have been chasing a phantom and continue to do so in direct defiance of an overwhelming body of evidence that renders that approach completely sterile. They do so for one reason only. They are congenitally incapable of recognizing that there has been a purpose in this world, that purpose being to ultimately produce a rational being.Robert Broom in the last paragraph of his book put it this way:"Those who consider that all the strange course of evolution is the result of an accident, or a series of accidents, are qute at liberty to think so. I believe there is a Plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal."
Finding the Missing Link, page 101.I differ with Broom on only one point. I believe that goal has already been reached with the emergence of Homo sapiens, who I believe is the youngest mammal species on the planet and probably the last one ever to be produced. Now there is only extinction.

---

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

I feel it is well within the experimental method to recreate our own ancestors. If we can rearrange our chromosomes experimentally I am confident that they could serve as a template for an ancestral form. There would be no role in the process for allelic mutation as I see it. Of course that is a formidable task and not likely to be achieved in the near future. Just scrambling and recombining chromosomes in yeast has produced dramatic genetic effects without any need for allelic mutation. Much, if not all of organic evolution, has been due to "position effect", not to allelic mutation. I hope this helps to answer your question.

I think I have presented my position in other responses here. I see no reason to assume that a future evolution is even conceivable. I published a paper in Rivusta to that effect - Is Evolution Finished? It is available on line. Since publication I would now say without hesitation - Evolution is finished! I have repeatedly requested examples of creative evolution in progress and been met with no response.You are right in indicating that I hesitate to comment on matters where I do not feel qualified. It is not required by the implications of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.I think all of evolution, exactly like ontogeny, resulted (past tense) from internally generated forces. That is what I mean by "prescribed."

You ask me to apologize for suggesting you're being evasive and then went on to avoid each and every question I asked. I'm sorry I suggested you were being evasive.Here are the questions again.