A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I amazed at the lack of response to the PEH here. Surely there are those that must find it unacceptable. I can hardly be expected to defend a thesis that is being ignored. I am aso being ignored at "brainstorms." There is nothing new in this pattern. We several critics of the Darwinian model have traditionally been ignored by the self-appointed "evolutionary establishement." Don't take my word for it. Examine the Indexes and Bibliographies of the books by Ernst Mayr, William Provine, Stephen J. Gould and Richard Dawkins and see who is either missing or dismissed as of no consequence. Here are some of them in no particular order. Robert Broom, William Bateson, Otto Schindewolf, Leo Berg, St George Jackson Mivart, Pierre Grasse, Soren Lovtrup, Richard B. Goldschmidt, a veritable honor roll of some of the finest biologists of the past and my primary sources for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. We have all been ignored because if we are recognized the Darwinian paradigm would collapse in a millisecond.

---

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

Somehow, being ignored no longer surprizes me. It might even be giving me a certain amount of pleasure.

---

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

Brad McFall has just been granted permission to participate in this topic. Brace yourself .Adminnemooseus

I have never been able to understand a thing that the man ever posted. Let us hope this will be a change.

I welcome Brad McFall or any one else for that matter. What troubles me is the general lack of response as the green bar recedes to the left. I fully expected this thread to be red-lined by now. In a way I am not surprised as the history of the evolutionary literature has always been characterized not by what has been recognized but rather by what has not. We several critics of the Darwinian paradigm have never been properly considered by the so called "establishment."There are sins of omission as well as those of commission."Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry HuxleyThat dictum from "Darwin's Bulldog" is the sole frontispiece to Berg's Nomogenesis. In my opinion truer words were never written. Incidentally, Huxley was never a convinced Darwinian.

---

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

I'm seen you post the quote of the subtitle many times, and your doing such always makes me wonder "Is it the "Darwinist science" or "John A. Davison science" that has adopted a cread?"Adminnemooseus (for Minnemooseus, who does not have posting permissions in this forum)

AdminnemoosusIt is creed not cread.So we now have one administrator representing another? Is it appropriate for a presumed "moderator" to prejudice the discussion with such a comment? I personally do not think so. Whenever possible I let others speak for me as I just did. I have followed and built upon those for whom I have respect and done everything in my power to expose those who have not earned it. That includes Darwinians and Fundamentalists alike.The simple truth is that not one aspect of the PEH has as yet been addressed here. This hypothesis denies any role for chance in a long past evolution which I, as others before me, do not believe is going on any more. Until those issues are addressed, I am wasting my time here as I have elsewhere on internet forums.Why was I invited here? Was it to expose me as a charlatan and a fool or was it to engage in meaningful dialogue? I am no longer sure.Where is Brad McFall who was to comment here? Are you there Brad? This is getting both revealing and tiresome.

---

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

Oops. I (as does every other admin) have two ID's at this forum, an administrative one and a non-administrative one. I really try to keep my admin messages seperate from my non-admin messages, and to post each as being signed off by the correct ID. If I post a "mixed mode" message, with both admin and non-admin content, I try to make explicit which is which.My previous message was actually Minnemooseus (non-admin mode) input, but Minnemooseus does not have posting permissions in this forum. But he did have what was intended to be his only comment in this topic, so he asked his close associate, Adminnemooseus, to relay the message. Such a request seemed reasonable to me, so I did it. He didn't even have to threaten to cut off my computer privileges.That said, I now relay Minnemooseus's comment that he hopes that an official participent in this topic might pursue the "creed" discussion further.If and when Brad McFall shows up is up to him. I vaguely recall that he currently is in a situation where he is out of contact with the internet. He also has not responded to my recent e-mail to him, pointing out to him that he now has permissions in this topic.Brad did offer up some input here. Perhaps you would like to respond to that in this topic, or perhaps (and perhaps even better) you would like to reconsider having a seperate discussion topic with Brad. That other topic can be reopened, but the choice is absolutely yours.Have a nice day. Thank you for your time, and if you must travel, please remember "Greyhound".*Adminnemooseus*Lighthearted comment, not a debate item

It is much appreciated that you accepted the invitation and helped the [forum=-37] forum to get off the ground. I apologize that more member aren't willing to take up the challenge. I beg you to be patient until someone with courage appears.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

Prof. Davison:I posed a question here:http://EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis -->EvC Forum: A Prescribed Evolutionary HypothesisI am hoping the lack of a response was an unintentional oversight. Could you please address my question ? If not, then thanks anyway.Ray Martinez

HereptonI am convinced that the most intensive artificial selection is incapable of crossing the species barrier. I am not prepared to accept that nature does what a purposeful experimenter cannot do. The last serious attempt to transform species was by Dobzhansky with Drosophila. It is to his credit that he admitted failure. The remarkable thing is that he remained a staunch Darwinian nevertheless. Selection, when carried to extremes, invariably leads to loss of fitness and, if continued, to extinction. There is no evidence that natural selection has ever played any role in creative evolution. Quite the contrary, it has served only to maintain the status quo just as Leo Berg, and Reginald Punnett both recognized long ago. The one thing important thing about natural selection is that by not permitting change it ensured ultimate extinction for the vast majority of all forms that ever lived. Without that extinction there could never have been evolution. Both natural selection and sexual (Mendelian) reproduction were anti-evolutionary in the past and still are today. Tht is why every chickadee looks like every other chickadee. The same can be said for virtually every other native form, plant ot animal.Here is Berg's appraisal of natural selection with which I completely agree."The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Nomogenesis, page 406Punnett's comments on the role of natural selection are even more convincing to me because they clearly support the PEH. From his book Mimicry in Butterflies:"Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTING LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed."
page 152. (my emphasis).I hope that helps.

---

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

Thanks for the clarification. No, I am not interested in a one on one debate with anyone. I am prepared to take them all on, whatever their convictions, and I always have been. Richard Dawkins claims he has a "product to sell." So have I. His is an atheist Ultra-Darwinism, mine a Prescribed Evolution. It is too bad he can't participate here. Why not invite him? I would love to take him on too.

---

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

Then what mechanism drives evolutionary change ?What is the PEH mechanism and how does it cross the barrier (genetic homeostasis) ?I could produce a quote from Ernst Mayr (1963) saying genetic homestasis is a fact but everything he wrote afterwards denies and evades. He truly regretted ever saying it.Darwinists assert ONLY data from experimentation determines scientific facts, yet they ignore wholesale over 200 years of experimentation that failed to cross the barrier. One wonders what experimentation that they base a crossable barrier on, except the standard "how else did we get here ?" atheistic philosophic nonsense.Ray

Hi Herepton,In response to your question at Message 38...I don't understand what you mean by replacement. Are we merely talking about numbers of species or new organisms filling in niches vacated by an extinct species or new organisms evolving which effectively mimic the extinct species functionally and morphologically?In terms of the first the fossil record shows a number of cycles of large scale extinction followed by rediversification. Similarly there are a number of examples of different species apparently fulfilling the same sort of ecological niche.Without knowing what you, or John, mean by replacement I can't really answer.TTFN,WK

Perhaps you could give some details of these 200 years of experimentation. I am unaware of any persistent experimental efforts to introduce the sort of macroevolutionary changes you claim are impossible, although I am aware of attempts with varying degrees of success to produce new reproductively isolated species.Genetic homeostasis still isn't the sort of barrier you are talking about, just as it wasn't the previous time we discussed it.TTFN,WK