A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I agree and a common creationist argument. Is there no evo here that wants to challenge this?

WK, don't you think it's more likely that whatever mechanism is involved, DNA or maybe John's chromosomal rearrangement thing, that the driving force for things like the inner ear was a predisposition of that mechanism, such as DNA, to change in a prescribed direction?Let's assume it's DNA. The evidence would suggest that specific sequences of DNA were predisposed to mutate into a certain direction or pattern, and this is not just a random process per se.If there was no predisposition in the design, then we really should have seen a random process produce far more different designs for the inner ear in mammals.I think John's point, and a point I have made, is entirely correct. The dominant evo paradigm here is practically magical thinking. Whatever it is, if it's DNA, it contains a predisposition towards specific design features. It is prescribed.Or, it could just be God created them that way.

You said, right here,

quote:

---

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 am concerned to understand the relationship between the conotations of your words "pathways" and "sites" here. I would like to try to understand if pathways 'relase' "sites" or if 'sites' release pathways or both or neither. And to this effect I will ask my original question that might be answered by anyone now with sufficient intution of PEH in this thread. The predicates seem to me to be SITES and PATHWAYS.If we can make some motivated progress here, you can get an inkling of where this line of questioning is headed in my reply on EVC @http://EvC Forum: Is Abiogenesis a fact? -->EvC Forum: Is Abiogenesis a fact?

Certainly there are going to be some mutations which are more likely than others for a given sequence, but being predisposed is not the same as being prescribed. Is this anything other than mere assertion? What exactly are you basing your analysis on? The purported evolutionary history of the ossicles? A cladistic analysis of mammals? The developmental genetics of ear development? Some numbers you made up off the top of your head? And you complain about 'magical thinking' from evolutionists?TTFN,WK

As I understood the PEH it was a case of the pathway leading to changes at specific sites.There certainly isn't any reason why the changes produced could not then act to modify the subsequent behaviour of the pathway, but given the prescribed nature of the hypothesis all of the neccessary alterations to the pathway would still be present if repressed, from the original creation of the most ancestral organism.TTFN,WK

So is it a matter of degree?As far as analysis, the fact of the matter is such analysis, as usual, are absent from the evos who merely assert random mutations (an unproven assumption) and natural selection must as an article of faith be the only way it could happen.If a process is random, there really shouldn't be any duplication of design via convergent or parallel evolution. Evos have never been able to show that. They used to insist such convergencies were the result of "surface traits" only and that the design in th environment dictated a similar design appearing, but that's shot all to pieces with things like the mammalian ear.A random process should not produce identical designs, not even if guided by natural selection, because there are more effective designs that could have emerged. Heck, you guys are always blasting inefficiencies on design without realizing such inefficiencies largely disprove the evo hypothesis that natural selection selects the best design among random mutations.It is willful ignorance on the part of evos to continually assert this myth and ignore the fact the process they espouse has no reason to produce identical designs.

I'll try and address the rest of your post later but first off, do you have any examples of this from the scientifc literature, or pretty much anywhere in fact. To me this sounds like a pretty blatant strawman or at least an equivocation. suggesting that natural selection would favour a more efficent extant allele over a less efficient extant one is not equivalent to saying that it will consequently lead to the most efficient possible design being the end result.TTFN,WK

No, but that's not what I said either. I question the reproduction of the same design since natural selection would always favor an improved design and selecting among random mutations should yield different designs not identical ones. In other words, if the same design emerges, it is apparent that the process has a predisposed bent towards that design, especially if the design is not optimal It if were optimal, one might could argue it was the result of the environment perfecting the design, but that's not the case.

Right. There are no experiments. Then what is macroevolution based upon ? I thought only experimentation determines scientific facts ?Please do not be offended. You are an anonymous member of the neo-Darwinian scientific establishment, well known and respected for your vast scientific knowledge. While you undoubtedly have some expertise in the history of naturalistic evolutionary theory, you, for the most part, are not a historian.We (historians) know that Darwin had contact with a vast network of artificial animal and plant breeders worldwide. This is a basic fact of evolutionary history. Darwin himself bred pigeons and conducted experiments on plants his whole life. Prior to Darwin there is at least 100 years of artificial plant and animal breeding experiments. These experiments AND Darwin's AND every experiment of these kinds AFTER Darwin have one common denominator: no one has ever breached the natural genetic barrier. Naturally breeding populations of any size, whether in the wild or in captivity (including artificial experimentation) have never even once successfully impregnated or crossed this natural barrier. There are no blue roses, fruit flies remain mutant fruit flies.Can you cite any experiments proving the fact of macroevolution (barrier breach) ?If not why is macroevolution a fact ?What justifies the fact of speciation (synonym of macroevolution) ?Edit: Homology ? Where is reductionist genetic barrier breach data (other line of supporting evidence) which justifies homologous conclusions ? [end last two edits]I will tell you. The only thing you can do is confuse the meaning of these words as is seen in your next comment: Cite the experimental artificial breeding data justifying speciation or you have lost the debate ?I predict your answer will, in a roundabout way, say it must happen in the wild behind our backs....how else did we get here ? (evolution-must-of-did-it) How did evolution do it ? Where is the vast experimental data showing the revolving door of the genetic code ? Even by your own science we know once all of the variations have been selected there are no more. Is it poof time ? Where is the poof data to justify the conclusion ?We are told by Darwinists that only experimentation determines scientific facts. Cite the experiments to justify barrier breach. For over 200 years NO ONE has ever crossed that barrier.WK: How did the human female reproductive scent mechanism evolve step by step ? Or was it an antonymic punctuational event ? How come no human female has ever been impregnated by a non-human ? Imagine that....genus homo the product of a Goldshmidt saltation ? LOL ! So much for numerous successive slight modifications.RayEdited by Herepton, : spellingEdited by Herepton, : add contentEdited by Herepton, : No reason given.Edited by Herepton, : spelling

Release from latency is perfectly unambiguous. It means that something was there and then expressed. One cannot release that which was not present. As to the mechanism which triggered (past tense) this release and thereby produced a saltational event (evolution), I have no idea and neither does anyone else. That such events occurred I am convinced. I am equally certain that natural selection never had anything to do with evolution except to preserve what had been produced long enough for it to become extinct, thereby permitting the next "prescribed" step to occur. Chance had nothing to do with any of it, just as it has nothing to do with the development of the individual from the egg."Neither in the one nor in the other is their room for chance."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 134There are so many questions piling up that I am not able to offer individual responses so I am presenting my opinions in wholesale form.

---

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

First things first Ray, you claimed there were 200 years of failed experiments, presumably with this end in mind or else why mention them, are you now conceding that that was just made up for rhetorical effect?TTFN,WK

The sites to which I and others refer are places on chromosomes where restructurings have occurred. They clearly have not occurred randomly but at "preferred" loci as I quoted in the words of the authors in my paper. Once again the random Darwinian model fails completely to deal with reality."Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."
Anonymous (I think. Correct me if I am wrong)

---

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

randmanWhy do you insist on talking about mutations? They HAD nothing to do with creative evolution. Neither did genes. It was aways the chromosome that was the instrument of evolutionary progress, never the gene. Dawkins' fantasy about "the selfish gene" was pure snake oil as have been each of his subsequent books, each more bizarre than its predecessor. He is now "weaving the rainbow" for God's sake. What next? The reason I bring him up here is because he is the ultimate, chance happy, atheist Darwinian and he seems still to represent the posture of some of the participants both here and elsewhere.Until his influence is purged from the evolutionary mentality rational discourse will be next to impossible. God how I wish he would join this discussion! Please try to arrange it.He is now finally appealing to Einstein as his hero, apparently oblivious to what Einstein thought of the likes of him."Then there are the fantical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source.... They are creatures who can't hear the music of the spheres."

---

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

Theodosius Dobzhansky carried out the last serious attempt to transform Drosophila through the most intensive artificial selection imaginable and he failed. He admitted as much but remained, for reasons I am unable to understand, a staunch defender of Darwinism to the end. His mentor in Russia was Leo Berg. I believe that if Dobzhansky had remained in Russia with Berg, we would now be discussing Bergian rather that Darwinian evolution. I believe we will anyway in the not too distant future."Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406.Amen. I only wish he had said was instead of is.

---

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

Apparently not randman. Isn't it wonderful?

---

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