Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   John A. (Salty) Davison - The Case For Instant Evolution
Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 1 of 226 (34635)
03-18-2003 2:04 PM


The following quoted is something Salty put up a link to, at Terry's Talk Origins forum. It is apparently a condensed version of his "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis For Organic Change".
It appears to me, that Salty has some common ground with Peter Borger.
Salty has recently registered here at , so he is available to make replies to this and other topics.
In the admin mode (Adminnemooseus), I think I might be giving this topic a little special attention, and in that context I strongly encourage everyone to be of good behaviour.
quote:
THE CASE FOR INSTANT EVOLUTION
By
John A. Davison
Professor Emeritus of Biology
University of Vermont
Mailing address, 68 White Cap Road, Colchester, VT 05446
email jdavison@zoo.uvm.edu
Telephone (802) 863-2995
Introduction
While it is true that evolutionary changes went on for millions of years, it does not follow that those transformations occurred gradually. Evolution involves genetic change. One might ask — is there such a thing as a gradual genetic change? All genetic alterations take place with time constants on the order of seconds, whether they are point mutations, deletions, duplications, or chromosomal inversions, fusions or translocations. The very notion of a gradual genetic change is meaningless. Yet that is precisely the position which the Darwinians have taken. I know of not a single instance, fossil or recent, demonstrating the gradual transformation of one diploid species to another. All experimental attempts to produce such transformations have failed (Davison 1998) The Darwinians claim that such transformations take too long to be observed, a position that renders the notion of gradualism untestable. Also, there is no compelling evidence that evolution has resulted from the accumulation of point mutations (base pair substitutions). The vast majority of such mutations are deleterious and those that have accumulated may very well be of neutral character, not affecting the active site of the molecules involved.
Chromosome reorganization
If one examines the karyotypes of related species such as Homo sapiens, and his close primate relatives, one sees that structural chromosomal differences distinguish the various primate genera (Davison 1998) These differences are precisely those postulated by Goldschmidt over 60 years ago (Goldschmidt 1940). The reorganization of a chromosome is an all-or-none event for which intermediate or gradual stages are inconceivable. Karyotype analyses place the chimpanzee as our closest living relative, followed by the gorilla and the orangutan, in full agreement with the conclusions from both comparative anatomy and molecular biology. Schindewolf (1993) fully supported Goldschmidt based on the evidence offered by the fossil record where intermediate forms are conspicuously absent. Schindewolf even claimed that we might as well stop searching for missing links as they never existed! That is especially evident for many marine invertebrate series that are often very complete yet lack transitional forms.
Is Evolution in Progress Now?
There is also no evidence that macroevolution is still in progress, a view proposed by Robert Broom who claimed that a new Genus has not appeared in the past two million years. Curiously, Julian Huxley reached the same conclusion in Evolution: The Modern Synthesis (Huxley 1942), a book presumably summarizing the Darwinian evolutionary perspective! (Davison 1998). Huxley got this idea from Robert Broom as a result of a private correspondence between them (Broom 1933). Huxley further maintained that new genera or species either remained stable or became extinct. Huxley’s conviction that evolution is no longer going on has been completely ignored by the neoDarwinians. Grasse (1977) maintained that all we see today is the substitution of alleles. I agree. It is obvious that one cannot evaluate a mechanism that is no longer in operation. Since the vast majority of extant diploid species reproduce sexually, that mode of reproduction can thus be questioned as a macroevolutionary device. It was considerations like these that led me to postulate the semi-meiotic hypothesis (Davison 1984) as an evolutionary mechanism. The first meiotic division is a perfectly valid form of diploid reproduction. Since the sister strands invariably remain together during this division, this single cytological event retains the original genotype at the same time that it can produce a new structural genome in homozygous form. The only requirement for this result is the presence of a chromosomal structural modification in heterozygous form in a cell or cells destined to become ova. One half of the products will be like the original karyotype, one half will be a homozygous novel karyotype, in principle a new species (Davison 1998). It should also be noted that there is no evidence that the restructuring of a chromosome necessarily involves the introduction of new genetic information. The simplest explanation is that the restructuring of the chromosome has resulted in the derepression of information already present in the chromosome structure. I return to this matter in a subsequent section. The semi-meiotic hypothesis has been recognized by Phillip L. Engle in his recent book Far from equilibrium (Engle 2002).
What We Do and Do Not Know About Evolution
It is revealing to summarize what we really know about evolution, that most mysterious of all biological phenomena. First, most serious scientists are convinced that it did occur although there are still some who adhere to a strict creationist scenario. When it comes to how it occurred, we are still virtually entirely in the dark. We have no idea how life originated or even how many times it originated. There is no evidence for an organic soup, and the more we learn about the molecular and structural complexity of even the simplest life forms, the less likely it seems that life could have arisen by chance. The Cambrian explosion should give any serious scientist pause before proposing the mechanisms responsible for the transformations of such discretely separate and unique body plans.
Ontogeny and Phylogeny Compared
There are several parallels between embryonic development (ontogeny) and evolution (phylogeny). Both are irreversible processes. Both involve the expression of genetic information. In the case of ontogeny, that information is obviously present at the onset of development. I recently (Davison 2000) suggested that the information for evolution might also be present from very early in the evolutionary process. This idea was first presented by Leo Berg (1969) in his remarkable book Nomogenesis: or Evolution According to Law. Berg presented several examples of the premature appearance of advanced phyletic features. He called it phylogenetic acceleration. I prefer to call it evolutionary derepression, thereby indicating that the information for evolution is preformed just as it so obviously is for ontogeny. Another similarity resides in the fact that each process has the intrinsic capacity to terminate (self- limitation). I have suggested that a primary role for sexual reproduction is to bring macroevolution to a halt, thereby stabilizing the species. (Davison 1998). This provides a reasonable explanation for the stability of fossil species as Huxley (1942) had concluded. In support of this proposition, it has yet to be demonstrated that any diploid organism, reproducing by obligatory sexual means, is capable of exceeding the subspecies level. This perspective also remains compatible with the discrete nature and stability of the vast majority of all species, both recent and fossil. I propose that they are discrete from one another for two reasons. Firstly, because they can no longer evolve, and secondly because they were produced by instantaneous all-or-none devices (chromosome restructurings) which, by definition, can have no intermediate states.
Conclusions
We are left with an unavoidable question. Where did the information for phylogeny and ontogeny come from? One cannot escape the conclusion that something or someone had to put that information in place. Robert Broom believed that evolution was the result of a plan. He also, along with Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse, thought that evolution is no longer in progress. The evidence favors both of his propositions. Leo Berg insisted that chance played no role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. If not chance, then what is the alternative? These considerations raise an interesting question. What was the last mammalian genus and species to appear? It would seem that Homo sapiens is a likely candidate, since there is no evidence of his presence prior to about 100,000 years ago. In summary, it would seem that a sufficient factual body now exists to warrant serious consideration to the proposal that there has been, as Robert Broom had suggested, a teleological origin (plan) for biological information and its evolutionary expression. Needless to say, the realization of this prospectus will have a profound effect on the way in which man regards his position in the universe.
References
Berg, Leo S. (1969), Nomogenesis or Evolution Determined by Law. M.I.T. Press, Cambridge (original Russian edition, 1922).
Broom, Robert. (1933), Evolution — is there intelligence behind it? South African Journal of Science 30:1-19.
Broom, Robert (1951), Finding the Missing Link. Watts, London, p. 107.
Davison, J.A. (1984), Semi-meiosis as an Evolutionary Mechanism. J. Theor. Biol. 111: 725-735.
Davison, J.A. (l998), Evolution as a Self-L imiting Process. Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 91: 199-219
Davison, J.A. (2000), Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information. Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum 93: 513-524
Engle, P. (2002), Far From Equilibrium. Laurel Highlands Media. Greensburg, Pennsylvania..
Goldschmidt, R. B. (1940), The Material Basis of Evolution. Yale University Press, New Haven.
Grasse, P. (1977), Evolution of Living Organisms: Evidence For a New Theory of Transformation. Academic Press, New York (original French edition 1973).
Huxley, J. (1942), Evolution, the Modern Synthesis. London, p. 571.
Schindewolf, O. (l993), Basic Questions in Paleontology. University of Chicago Press, Chicago (original German edition, 1950).
Abstract
All genetic alterations occur in a matter of seconds. Accordingly, there is no reason to assume that evolution has been a gradual process. On the contrary, the fossil record demonstrates that major changes took place over very short time intervals. All attempts to transform species through selection of point mutations have failed. Chromosome rearrangements characterize the differences that exist between ourselves and our primate relatives. Such differences could not conceivably occur gradually. I have proposed, with Leo Berg, that phylogeny (evolution) has involved the derepression of preformed information which was present from very early in evolutionary history. I also agree with Julian Huxley, Pierre Grasse and Robert Broom that macroevolution is no longer in progress. Homo sapiens is apparently the most recent mammal to have evolved, suggesting that there has been a plan, as proposed by Robert Broom. Such a teleological view of evolution can have profound consequences on the way in which man views his place in the universe.
Running Title
Instant evolution
Cheers,
Moose
------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2003 3:31 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 3 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-18-2003 5:09 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 7 by Admin, posted 03-19-2003 9:17 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 13 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2003 10:49 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 3 of 226 (34640)
03-18-2003 5:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
03-18-2003 2:04 PM


Hopeful Monsters?
Amongst others, Salty seems fond of the work of Goldschmidt, creator of the concept of the "hopeful monster".
While I'm not about to buy into Salty's efforts to completely overturn Darwinism, I wonder if his views might contain at least a grain of truth.
Might a "hopeful monster" occasionly be able to happen, and to be able to reproduce? In other words, might a small genetic change result in a rather substantial change in body morphology? An instance of very quick "punk eek"?
I point out this other topic, started by Schraf:
"big breakthrough in Evolutionary Biology" at
EvC Forum: big breakthrough in Evolutionary Biology
Also, started by sld:
"Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes" at
EvC Forum: Genetic Evidence of Major Changes in Body Shapes
Moose
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-18-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-18-2003 2:04 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 4 by PaulK, posted 03-18-2003 5:24 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 5 by Quetzal, posted 03-19-2003 1:26 AM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 9 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 9:54 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 21 of 226 (34697)
03-19-2003 12:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by derwood
03-19-2003 12:14 PM


Some
(Addressed to all, not just SLPX - posting this in a "semi-admin" mode)
I have previously held off posting anything to do with Salty's position, because up to his releasing the material of message 1, his content was in rather massive works (ie. his "manifesto").
Now, the paper quoted in message 1 gives a concise starting point for discussion.
Personally, my biology knowledge is pretty limited. I realize that it is difficult to present material of a complex subject, in a way that the "ignorant masses" can understand, but I can hope that the more knowing can give it an attempt.
I know that the Darwinist side finds much not to like about Salty's position. I think that, first of all, I would be interested in finding out if others from the evolution side find anything they do like in Salty's postition.
Salty, you need to extract the relevent points from your larger works, and present them here. Just citing those works doesn't cut it.
Cheers,
The much ignorant Moose
Added by edit - note to Salty - You have indicated that you had password problems. I thought I'd point out that it is possible to change the password from the original offering to a personal choice. Click on "profile", at the upper right of many of the pages, to start the process of doing such a change (assuming you haven't done it already).
------------------
Professor, geology, Whatsamatta U
Evolution - Changes in the environment, caused by the interactions of the components of the environment.
My big page of Creation/Evolution Links
[This message has been edited by minnemooseus, 03-19-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 12:14 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 12:38 PM Minnemooseus has replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 23 of 226 (34699)
03-19-2003 1:14 PM
Reply to: Message 22 by derwood
03-19-2003 12:38 PM


Re: Some
I should have put that "Darwinist" in quotes.
Anyhow, my intent was "Darwinist" = "mainstream evolutionist", as opposed to Salty's "Anti-Darwinist" saltationistic evolution.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by derwood, posted 03-19-2003 12:38 PM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by John A. Davison, posted 03-19-2003 2:38 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 46 of 226 (34777)
03-20-2003 12:06 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by derwood
03-20-2003 11:39 AM


From the non-admin mode
SLPx, I do agree with you, but for at least now, I feel the need to let Salty be Salty. I certainly hope that this doesn't cause you to go into the "cranky mode".
This is not to say that Salty exempt from disipline, for any future transgressions he might do.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by derwood, posted 03-20-2003 11:39 AM derwood has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 61 of 226 (34817)
03-20-2003 8:37 PM


Source of message 1 quote
For the record, I pulled the Microsoft document that I quoted in message 1, from the Terry's Talk Origins document area, at:
Microsoft OneDrive - Access files anywhere. Create docs with free Office Online.
You need to be registered at the site, to access this.
(Note: the above link seems to work for me right now, but who knows if it will work for others)
The quoted in message 1 is an exact reproduction (except some formatting) of that document. As such, I think it should stand as is in message 1. Of course, Salty is welcome to submit corrections to it, as new message(s) in this topic.
I don't understand why, but the source was atributed to "Cherokee" and not "Salty". Since I pulled the file, I have noticed a "My Documents" folder, by Salty, but there does not seem to be anything in it.
Moose

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 105 of 226 (34931)
03-21-2003 4:37 PM
Reply to: Message 103 by John A. Davison
03-21-2003 4:00 PM


Philip Johnson
So, Salty, at this point I must ask how your viewpoints are relative to old earth creationist Philip Johnson?
quote:
I still maintain that the best explanation for the emergence of true species does not require the addition of new information which has been generated through mutation and selection. Just as in ontogeny, I think it was there all along. I am sorry I cannot document that, so please do not expect me to do so.
To me (very much not a biologist), you seem to be saying that you find the science of the mainstream biological evolutionary thought to be terminally flawed, but you are conceeding that you have no scientificly valid alternative.
Moose

This message is a reply to:
 Message 103 by John A. Davison, posted 03-21-2003 4:00 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by John A. Davison, posted 03-22-2003 7:01 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Minnemooseus
Member
Posts: 3941
From: Duluth, Minnesota, U.S. (West end of Lake Superior)
Joined: 11-11-2001
Member Rating: 10.0


Message 186 of 226 (35223)
03-25-2003 12:30 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by derwood
03-25-2003 12:14 PM


Note that this is in non-admin mode (or something like that).
I would like to remind SLPx and the other opponents of Salty that we are (I think) trying a strategy that includes:
1) Heavy courtesy towards Salty ("kill him with kindness").
and
2) Total lack of any adminstrative restraint on Salty ("let Salty be Salty").
Or something like that.
That said, I must again point out that this is a discussion/debate between the one and the many. As such, Salty has a heavy load on him. I suggest that fast replies from Salty not be expected - Give him time to prepare his thoughts.
Or something like that.
Moose
"Are we having fun?" - Zippy the Pinhead

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by derwood, posted 03-25-2003 12:14 PM derwood has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by Percy, posted 03-25-2003 12:41 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 189 by John A. Davison, posted 03-25-2003 12:42 PM Minnemooseus has not replied
 Message 191 by derwood, posted 03-25-2003 12:51 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024