A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

This is cheap and dishonest, as if I am arguing against my own evidence. You can understand and follow complicated scientific arguments in journals and deduce obscure fossil scraps to be as your worldview needs them to be, but now you evade by dishonesty the irrefutable fact that no person has ever crossed the barrier - all experimentation failed for 200 years. I am greatly comforted that you employed this tactic = inability to refute.I will leave you alone = the real reason Darwinists do this when they have no answer.Ray

If no one has been experimenting to cross 'the barrier', the nature of which is obscure in the extreme, then its not having been done is proof of nothing.Ifyou want to talk about experiments to do with speciation in terms of the development of reproductive isolation then I would be happy to join in, while you persist in your own peculiar 'macroevolution' terminology of barriers and humans breeding with other non-specific species I fear we are going to get nowhere.TTFN,WK

I am open to the idea that mutations cannot work to produce macroevolution, but discussed mutations and genes for sake of argument to make the point that it is not reasonable to think a random process would evolve the same designs.But from what I have read, you are probably right. The observed mutations do not appear to be anywhere near sufficient, but this is an area I don't know as much about.I would like to see some evo challenge you on the whole genes and mutation thing here, but looks like that won't happen.Wonder why?

WK, animal husbandry has been around a long time, and whether one calls breeding an experiment, there is still an experimental process. I fail to see why Ray's comments on the breeding doesn't answer your question and qualify as hundreds of experiments.

It's certainly surprising. I would think there would be at least some evos willing to challenge your comments on the inadequacies of mainstream evo models, but apparently not.

John, here we see seeming advanced and fully evolved features(from your theory's perspective), but not entire new species or genera. I agree that this sort of thing indicates a decided break with gradualism that is a necessity of all mainstream evo models, but it is still not the appearance of whole new species.Is your position that just as a fully formed, new, advanced feature can appear that sometimes this process would have affected all of the organs and creature so much so that a new species appeared all at once?

I have brought this up her ad nauseum, but most evos just ignore the facts here, but you are entirely correct. The intermediates do not exist, not among living species and not among the fossils, but amazingly evos insist that this complete lack of data is somehow congruent with thier insistence these intermediates did exist.Maybe someone from the evo side will take up that issue with you?

Because the sort of things that have been attempted with breeding have not been the sort of things Ray is describing as macrovolutionary. They are almost always performed with enhancing an existant trait, they are not concerned with the generation of completely novel traits.Consequently you have the selective part of the equation but without much longer timescales than a century you are not going to have the same degree of novelty generated by mutation to select from.To take Rays example of roses, there are a number of pigments involved in flower colour and allelic variation in any of these, or in their regulation, could lead to changes in colour. But if, for example, the family of enzymes required for producing blue pigmentation is absent, for whatever reason, from the roses there is no reasonable expectation that that enzyme will be generated de novo during the course of a breeding program, even one of decades or centuries. This might be changed if the required enzyme were merely a variation of one already present in roses in which case there would be a better chance of an appropriate mutation ocurring, I don't know exactly what those chances would be however.And in terms ofanimals what on Earth do you think the breeders would havebeen trying for that would have been suitable? Flying dogs?Those engaged in animal husbandry certainly don't try and breed for reproductive isolation.The point is what those hundreds of experiments have been trying to do, if 99% have been concerned with making cows that produce more milk or chickens that lay bigger eggs then I fail to see how they could be considered to be suitable for the sort of things Ray seems to be looking for.If I say there are thousands of experiments showing bacterial resistance to WD40 and when questioned point to the thousands of bacterial experiments regularly carried out I haven't given any evidence that any of them have been carried out to investigate resistance to WD40.If Ray says there have been 200 years of experiments that failed to 'cross the barrier', whatever that means, and then points to 200+ years of animal husbandry it is only suitable if that animal husbandry was carried out with the intent to 'cross the barrier'.TTFN,WK

Because whenever one provides JAD with a reference he will not read it, but will instead claim that it is entirely consistent with, and supportive of, his hypothesis.One of the best things about you Randman is that you do generally actually look at a substantial proportion of the references you are given.There is an insane amount of evidence of sequence level mutations unassociated with substantial chromosome rearrangements being the basis for phenotypic changes of the type JAD puts forward as only being due to chromosomal rearrangements, I already mentioned some examples right at the start here in terms of reproductive isolation.TTFN,WK

I really don't think I have a handle on genetics sufficient to address whether you or JAD is correct about mutations as a vehicle for evolution, but he has some very strong data on his side in the fact the intermediates are just not seen in the fossil record, nor among living species.If evolution proceeds gradually, one would expect to see both among living species and in the fossil record hard evidence and examples, and a lot of it too, of intermediates, but we just don't.

randmanThe intermediates are not there because there never were any. Got that? That is exactly what Otto Schindewolf meant when he said - "We might as well stop lookimg for the missing links as they never existed" and "The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg."
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution , page 395.The simple unvarnished truth is that Schindewolf, like every other one of my sources has been relegated to oblivion by the "establishment" because they (Darwinians) cannot deal with the realities those sources have revealed. Here are a few of them.1. Intermediates never existed.
2. Natural selection WAS and still IS purely conservative and accordingly WAS never creative.
3. Allelic mutation HAD nothing to do with creative evolution except possibly ensure extinction.
4. It is the chromosome, not the gene, that WAS the real unit of evolutionary progress.
5. Subspecies are not incipient species but simply specialized dead ends.
6. A convergent "gradual" evolution is without foundation.
7. Sexual (Mendelian) reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary device. It can only produce varieties.
8. Evolution is finished and has been for a very long time.I have presented the sources, chapter and verse, for every one of these conclusions in my various papers and in my unpublished Manifesto. One of my stated purposes has been to resurrect those sources from the deliberate, ideologically inspired, literary graveyard to which the primary spokespersons for the Darwinian model have always interred them. That I feel I have done.The cynical machinations of the atheist Darwinian cult constitute an intellectual scandal unprecedented in the history of science and in my opinion a hideous disgrace unparalleled in historical times. Darwinism should have died in the late nineteenth century at the same time that the Ether died in Physics and for exactly the same reasons. It had already been proven to be without foundation. Soren Lovtrup called it a a deceit. That is not good enough. I prefer to describe it as a deliberate hoax executed by mentalities that refuse, probably for congenital reasons, to recognize that there has been a purpose in the universe. Richard Dawkins is the quintessential example of this mentality yet he remains a hero to the radical atheist element. Collectively, my several deliberately and cynically neglected biologists have provided the basis for the PEH, and I am delighted to have given them full credit for it.That is what the PEH is really all about,"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control"
Albert Einstein

---

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

I have never denied auxiliary genetic effects. What I will say is that what we observe genetically is only a portion of the genetic potential. Rearrangement of chromosopmes not only can silence certain genes but undoubtedly also can activate those previously silenced. In any event allelic changes are without foundation as playing any role in evolution beyond the production of varieties. So much for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. It is an illusion maintained by those that think, as Stephen J. Gould did, that we were accidents. I am not one of them. If others insist on assigning a role to chance and natural selection, there is nothing that I can or care to do about it any more. I abandoned the neoDarwinian myth as a graduate student fifty-three years ago. Some people are just slow learners. I am not one of them.

---

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

Let me further amplify my response. I believe there WAS an entirely new kind of genetics involved in evolution. For want of a better name I will call it "position effect genetics" or PEG for short. PEG WAS the instrument for the expression of PEH. We see only the tip of the iceberg when we observe what any given organism is expressing. The proof of this resides in how the phenotype may be severely altered when the genetic material is rearranged. That has been known since the 1930s. That rearrangement is ALL that has to be considered to explain Primate evolution. How much further PEG can be extended is still not resolved. Simply scrambling and recombining the genetic material in yeast has inadvertantly produced an ancestral form. Such experiments continue to support the PEH. I repeat - it is the chromosome, not the gene, that WAS the instrument for progressive organic change, just as Goldschmidt first claimed 66 years ago. Allelic mutation never had anything to do with either true speciation or the formation of the higher taxonomic categories. All of those emerged from within the genetic material of those organisms still capable of evolving. Such creatures seem no longer to be with us. I am not alone in these conclusions."A cluster of facts make 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."
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 243."Any system which purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
ibid, page 245."Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
ibid, page 71.This of course is in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which is why I present it now. I am quite content to represent undoubtedly the greatest French zoologist of his generation as well as Leo Berg, his Russian counterpart. There is more solid evolutionary science in any chapter by either of these two great biologists than in all the collected works of Mayr, Gould, Provine and Dawkins combined. Furthermore, nothing in their writings in any way conflicts with contemporary evolutionary science which discloses absolutely nothing in support of the Darwinian paradigm.

---

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

Doctor DavisonI'm as torn as ever between admiration/agreement with your published work and disgust/loathing of its author.You've said on several occasions that your work speaks for itself. Sadly this is not true. You still speak for it. I'd like nothing more than to put your work back on Uncommon Descent and refer to it if it could somehow be dissociated with your foul living personality on the internet. As I indicated before, as great as your detective work and sound conclusions regarding the mystery of organic evolution, it becomes a liability to promote it as long as you are around to provide running commentary.So here's what I'm going to do. I will restore your work at Uncommon Descent in memoriam if it is within my power at the time. Then it will truly be able to speak for itself. You told me many times that you'd have to die before your work is recognized. I didn't believe you at the time. Now I do. But how was I to know it was a self-fulfilling prophecy you were giving me.{DaveScot's posting permissions in this forum have been terminated. - Adminnemooseus}Edited by Adminnemooseus, : See above.

I doubt very much if Dembski will allow my papers to be replaced at Uncommon Descent so I am unimpressed with your promise. If you ever had any intention of replacing them you would simply do so and not make it some kind of condition. God knows I gave you enough opportunities. Furthermore I see no relationship between my personality which I feel you have totally misrepresented and 22 years of my scholarly efforts. My responses on internet forums have always been "When in Rome do as the Romans do" and God knows so have yours. I at least haven't found it necessary to use several aliases as you have done. Most important, where in my published papers have I ever expressed my personality in any way?I also requested that you no longer participate here after your last nasty assault on my character, something you have just repeated. Apparently that request has been denied without my knowledge. That is unacceptable. Your comments in your post should have been made in an eamail and certainly have no place in a discussion of my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. If you are going to continue here I want to know so I can take the appropriate steps.If you expect any respect from me you will first have to replace my several papers with an explanation as to why you found it necessary to remove them in the first place. That I am confident you are quite incapable of even considering as your past history where I an concerned clearly testifies.I expect a clarification from the administration as to why you are posting here. If one isn't forthcoming I am out of here, which result may be what is behind all this in the first place. Pardon my paranoia."Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger.God knows I have my share.I don't need internet forums as I am a published scientist. I do this sort of thing primarily for amusement on the outside chance someone might consider me to be serious, something I have always been wherever I present my convictions, whether in hard copy or on the ephemeral internet."Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"
Gregor Mendel

---

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