The Bathroom Wall

I don't like the thought of making a new bathroom wall every two weeks. To encourage you people to slow down I'm going to lock this one for a few days.

This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed).

"This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed)."

Do you know any handicap or racist jokes?

Perakh

It is Dr. not Mr. Davison and has been since 1954.

I WAS a professor at the University of Vermont. I was also at various times in my career a professor at Florida State University in Talahassee, Washington University in St. Louis, Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and RPI in Troy New York. I also spent summers doing research at Woods Hole and Princeton.

I don't give a rap about what people think of me. I already know that. I am more interested in letting them know what I thnk of them and what some of the finest minds of two centuries thought of them as well. If that offends you that is just too bad.

I have never deviated from the threads topics. That is pure baloney. This whole forum is founded on a myth and I have no intention of deviating from my exposure of it as just that.

How do you like them apples?

Dr. John A. Davison

It is Dr.Davison not Dr.Davidson. It is not highjacking of threads to voice my disagreement with Dembski which I have already done several times. My question was nevertheless sincere when I asked which facts stand in the way of the Glory of God. That is a valid question and it remains unanswered.

I have no intention of questioning Dembski about what he believes. He seems to have a Christian agenda. I don't. He can believe what ever he wants. There is no place for belief in science anyway. Belief substitutes for certain knowledge which is all I care about. The entire Darwinian model is a belief without foundation. It must and will be abandoned as a hoax. Trust me.

If I must be banned for asking questions then every scientist should be banned from Panda's thumb because asking and attempting to answer questions is all that science has ever been about.

John A. Davison

What I see here at Panda's Thread is what I saw at EvC and "brainstorms." I see a Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism which adamantly denies any Intelligent Design pitted against the Fundamentalist Christians who are inclined to deny evolution entirely or at least attempt to reconcile it with Biblical dogma. In other words I see two fundamentally opposite world views which will never be reconciled with each other for the simple reason that they are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps in favor of what seems to me the only remaining explanation which I have summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

John A. Davison

For what it is worth I agree that it was a mistake for Behe or Dembski to, at any point, introduce a deity into their science even by inference. By so doing they have made themselves vulnerable. I have carefully avoided any reference to a creator not absolutely demanded by the PEH. If others see my position as that of a Christian fundamentalist they are sadly mistaken. I feel the same way about Hugh Ross. The evidence for the anthropic principle stands independently of any formal dogma.
The evidence, both direct and indirect, for a predetermined endogenously driven evolution is growing and undeniable. Otherwise I would never have published "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" where some of that evidence is summarized.

John A. Davison

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

And yet I keep hearing ID proponents claim that ID isn't about religion. Did I miss something?

...Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism ... Fundamentalist Christians ... are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps ...It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

moioci

I have made my opinions indelibly clear at EvC, "brainstorms," Fringe Sciences, Talk Origins and ARN.
I have been banned for life from the first three, tolerated at Talk Origins and ignored at ARN. Here at Panda's Thumb it would seem that they have now reserved the Bathroom Wall for my posts which seem to be unacceptable elsewhere. It is very reminiscent of what they did with me over at EvC. There they erected a special cell for me which they called "Boot Camp." I was allowed to post only there. Its stated purpose was to educate me in the art of "debate." When I proved to be a very poor student they finally banned me for life, one of my most treasured achievements.

I hope this answers your question. Thanks for asking.

John A. Davison

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

— Michael Finley

You'll note that we also back it up with evidence.

— Wesley R. Elsberry

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

— Michael Finley

Evidence for what? Panda's names Steve? Books about the rapture and creationism? April Fool's entries for Scientific American?

— Michael Finley

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

— Michael Finley

What is this, high-school biology class? You can read about this here if you'd like, but we assume that our readers are already familiar with such things, or at least should be.

— Steve Reuland

Tell you what: if someone (you?) thinks that this leaves any of your questions unanswered, why don't you bring them up here? Otherwise, I don't see why we need to transcribe textbook stuff onto this site, or why we can't avail ourselves of the abundant amusement opportunities that creationists present.

— Russell

I'd love to start such a discussion, but I hate to do it on threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Thus, my suggestion.

— Michael Finley

Pim accuses me of innacuracy. Present those inaccuracies and show what is wrong with them.

I do not present arguments. I present facts which demand conclusions and I have reached them.

There is no ID "movement." That is a contrived bit of Darwimpian chicanery designed to denigrate that which is undeniable.

It is I that have ignored the ID "movement" as I believe it was a strategic error to attempt to debate ideologues concerning matters of which they are congenitally blinded.

Pim does not think a prescribed evolution is a worthy or original idea but Pim has yet to present a single matter of fact which is in anyway incompatible with it. Neither has anyone else. And I know why. They can't. Incidentally, I am not the originator of that idea anyway, Bateson was, and a number of others have indicated as much. I reviewed that history in the PEH manuscript. Where is that history inaccurate?

It is the same old same old here at PT just as it was at EvC. New ideas are unacceptable to those who have staked their entire professional lives on a myth. So hide bound is the herd that some of them won't even read the posts of their critics. Others butcher them with garbling or out and out deletion. These are the earmarks of a dying ideology, one so ravaged by undeniable truth that it must resort to the meanest of tactics in a vain attempt to maintain itself.

It doesn't work any more and never did. It is nothing but bigotry.

"A doctrine which is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with incalculable harm to human progress."
Albert Einstein

The pontifications of Pim and others reminds me of another quotation. I know how disgusting it must be for you all to have to put of with my incessant quoting of sources that of course have no bearing whatsoever on the substance of Panda's Thumb. Well here are some that I think cut right to the quick.

"There is nothing so skillful in it own defence as imperious pride."
Helen Jackson

Here's another from the Bible.

"Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall."
Proverbs XVI

How about this little ditty from Alexander Pope?

Of all the causes which conspire to blind,
Man's erring judgment and misguide the mind,
What the weak head with strongest bias rules,
Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools."

"Then there are the fanatical atheists, whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source...They are creatures that cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein.

How do you like them apples?

Johh A. Davison

Pardon the typo. It was bigot of course. How else can one characterize someone who rejects out of hand any view which varies a micron from their own.

I repeat God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms because Darwinian (mutation/selection) mechanisms are a fantasy with no demonstrable substance. Furthermore there is no evidence of God anyway, let alone an all-powerful one as the Christian ethic presumes. There is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation in any eukaryote unless it is a back mutation to the original wild-type allele. I have been asking for examples and never received even an acknowledgement that I asked either here, at ARN or elsewhere. You see the Darwinian scheme has been accepted as a given and is never even tested any more. The Darwimps got tired of constant failure. Well I don't get tired of constantly reminding them of their constant failures. Darwimpianism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It persists for one reason only; it denies any purpose in the universe. It is the only conceivable position for the homozygous atheist mentality and it is just as wrong as Biblical Fundamentalism.

What really boggles my mind is that Pim can masquerade as a Darwinian Christian (a contradiction in terms) at the same time that he can engage in such thoroughly unChristian practices as calling an adversary all sorts of nasty names. I personally regard Pim as the most completely exposed sockpuppet in all of cyberspace and I am certainly not alone.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source...They cannot hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

If you don't believe it just visit Panda's Thumb a forum named in honor of Stephen Jay Gould who wrote a book by that name. He also declared that "intelligence was an evolutionary accident" and evolution was like "a drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door." The latter was in another of his many books whose title is self-explanatory - "Full House."

There has never been any role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Those who think so are indeed deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres. I hear it loud and clear. Some of us have been luckier than others in a prescribed, predetermined evolutionary destiny.

Be sure sometime to come up with a list of all those eukaryotic "beneficial mutations."

John A. Davison

Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda's Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin's theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.

That is an interesting accusation; I just searched all of our entries and could not find "Dumbski" used even once. In fact searching with Google turned up its use in only three comments.

Paul, please get some work done on Ontogenetic Depth. We've had a good time exposing the freshman probability mistakes central to IC and CSI, and lately "Cosmological ID", and we'd love to have more ID 'proof' to beat up on and laugh about.

Steve, you are SO clever about probability. You have advanced the state of art of physics by leaps and bounds with your expositions on probability re. cosmological ID. To think we all got PhDs and took (and then taught) advanced QM, field theory, and statistical mechanics without the benefit of your insight! It makes the mind reel, I say! The textbooks, of course, need to be rewritten.

And I am happy it gives you the chuckles, too.

DavidH,

Since you have earlier admitted that Cosmological ID is a philosopy (and one defined and interpreted differently by different ID-ers) and not a quantitative scientific theory then how is it possible to apply statistics to it?

DavidF, you should be asking steve how prob/stat has been applied incorrectly.

DavidH,

Not at all - if statistics is not applicable them, by definition, any application is incorrect. Some things are "not even wrong."

The Darwinians need no help in making themselves look silly. They have been doing a bag up job of it for 149 years.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.

Thank you Reed for reactivating the good old Bathroom Wall.

John A. Davison

DavidF, just look back in Heddle's past, and you'll see his probabilistic arguments. Apparently at some point he thought it could be supported with statistical reasoning. Whether he's changed now, I don't know. I believe someone said around here recently that Dembski has become disenchanted with his own futile mathematical attempts.

Steve, why don't you point them out?

I know I've talked about fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10^120, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat...

And the fine tuning of the nuclear chemistry inside stars, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat...

And the privileged location we have in the galaxy, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat...

And simply the type of galaxy we have, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat... (unless noting that only ~10% of the galaxies are eliptical constitutes a misuse of probability theory)

The part of me that slows down to watch train wrecks is curious as to how Heddle would answer Victor Stenger's anti-"Cosmological ID" arguments. Simply put, Stenger found that there really isn't much "fine tuning" in this universe; that lots of different initial starting conditions could have produced a universe capable of supporting life as we know it. (These arguments sit on top of the argument that different constraints would simply have led to life as we don't know it, of course.)

But then the rest of me knows exactly how Heddle would answer it: through lies, equivocation, ambiguous statements, or perhaps by whining that he was just kidding all along. Anyway, I'm sure he's got something.

While quintessence [an untested theory] may not turn out to provide the correct explanation for the cosmological constant problem, it demonstrates, if nothing else, that science is always hard at work trying to solve its puzzles within a materialistic framework. The assertion that God can be seen by virtue of his acts of cosmological fine-tuning, like intelligent design and earlier versions of the argument from design, is nothing more than another variation on the disreputable God-of-thegaps argument. These rely on the faint hope that scientists will never be able to find a natural explanation for one or more of the puzzles that currently have them scratching their heads and therefore will have to insert God as the explanation. As long as science can provide plausible scenarios for a fully material universe, even if those scenarios cannot be currently tested they are sufficient to refute the God of the gaps.

...it is true we cannot say anything about the probability of this universe,...

DavidH,

It's patently obvious that fine-tuning only makes sense if there is some distribution of possible values. We don't know that a distribution is possible, and, further we don't know what that distribution is if it exists. It's one thing to look for such distributions - as cosmologists are doing - it's quite another to act as though such disytributions were actually known.

So you can't have it both ways; - a gut feeling that the universe is fine-tuned based on - using your words - the philosopy of Cosmological ID rules out any recourse to probability and statistics.

DavidF

Is that so? Patently obvious it is?

So why do Weinberg, and Stenger, and many other anti-IDers --- why do they acknowledge a cosmological constant fine tuning problem without saying anything about a probability distribution of possible cosmological constants?

Don't you think they would like to say "there is no problem morons! You don't know what the probability distribution is! Come back and whine about that after you've worked that out from first principles!"

No, only the cosmology/prob/stat whiz kids on PT understand that argument. Weinberg should really give back that Nobel Prize.

Emanuelle,

If that is not my quote, I'll endorse it (as a quantitative statement, i.e., we cannot say anything like "the probability of this universe is 1 in [whatever].") What is the point of your post?

Mr. Heddle:

It is indeed yours, and the only (the only) correct remark I've seen you make about probability so far. The rest of the time, you keep insisting that this or that characteristic of our universe is "oh-so-unlikely".

DavidH,

There is an apparent (i.e., potential) cosmological constant fine-tuning problem with current theories. That does not mean that it is necessarily a real problem. However, the fact that multiple universes have been posited with different constants is a tacit admission that a distribution of cosmological constants is one possible solution. Is it a uniform distribution? A Gaussian distribution peaked at some value or is it even certain that a distribution exists at all?

The answers are not known.

What is known is that you have stated in black & white that Cosmological ID is a philosophy and not a science - therefore, statistics cannot be applied. If statistical/probabilistic arguments can be used surely some distribution must be assumed. How do you do that with a philosophy?

Your sarcasm is amusing in small doses but is no substitute for argument. You'd do better to try to resolve the multitude of contradictions which flow from almost everything you say. As I keep saying you can't have your cake and eat it too - there really is no free lunch. If you believe in ID then go with the flow or otherwise dump it. But for goodness sake stop claiming on the one hand that Cosmological ID is not science and is philosophy while on the other you keep arguing that statistics and probability somehow apply.

As for your musings about elliptical galaxies and such - these seem to contradict your own statements that finding life on Titan would not dent your personal philosopy of ID. But your thoughts are so disjointed and self-contradictory that it is impossible to know what you are trying to say, if anything.

You really are all across the board - swooping in to nip people's ankles like an enraged Creationist lap-dog, but then rapidly taking off, or changing the subject, once the questions get hard or you are taken along a line of reasoning which starts to make the multiple contradictions manifest.

It's not surprising though, for it seems impossible to believe the Bible and deal with reality objectively.

Creationists still suck.

Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny, I have to agree with Leo Berg:

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance." Nomogenesis page 134

I just wish he had used the past tense for phylogeny because evolution is finished, something Berg never recognized. However, Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse did and so have I. Once that is accepted, everything else falls in place. The whole bloody business was front loaded at the onset and somehow worked its way uphill with no help from the environment. It is all down hill now and has been for quite some time. Trust me, but of course you won't because you can't. Your genes won't permit it.

John A. Davison

Where did anyone get the idea that I have to defend my position? That is insane. It is the Darwinians that can't even dream of defending their position. I come to forums to enlighten and not to defend. I also come to attack the Darwinian myth. It gives me great pleasure. That is one of the rewards of getting on in years. Thomas Henry Huxley felt the same way as follows:

"Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jammimg common-sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest."

He is the one who also said:

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."

That incidentally is the frontispiece to Leo Berg's Nomogenesis.

Darwinism is the slowest known form of self destruction in recorded history, one hundred and forty-six years and still not quite dead.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Professor Davison is really kicking some ass here. I'd guess that's always the case when a biologist of his high calibre meets up with Church of Darwin apologists.

Sancho and Don reunited again! Ole!

[obscene comment nuked by njm. Poster's IP banned.]

Longhorn's definition of evolution is children having genetic differences from their parents. I really don't know what more to add, so I won't.

I see DaveScot has joined me in the dungeon. EvC had its "boot camp" and Panda's Thumb has its Bathroom Wall. At least we haven't been banned yet by the ruling groupthink.

What is all this crap about fine-tuning and probability? What has that got to do with evolution or development or anything else for that matter. Isn't that sort of like Phlogiston, or Ether or Selection?

John A. Davison

Well. Now the truth outs. Pim is running the show and he is the one who decides which of my posts go to the out house. I should have known.

Everything I contribute is worthwhile or I wouldn't be contributing it.

I don't know how you folks ever let this happen but I would recommend a change in management before Panda's Thumb becomes the laughing stock of cyberspace. For all I know it all ready has.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Panda's Thumb.

John A. Davison

According to ID statisticians, this post may be up to 58% off topic, but here goes. Since I live in Dallas, this IMAX debate hits very close to home, and I cannot help but point out what I feel is the real source of this conflict, at least in my community.

Though they may claim intellectual independence from their fundamentalist creationist predecessors, ID proponents certainly cannot claim financial or political independence from them. So, I don't want to hear any boohooing over how I've confused the ID movement with a particular brand of theistic religion. Below I offer a summary of a Twelve Step program.

Twelve Steps Toward Recovery from Fundamentalism

1. Finally, we admitted that we were powerful and that we alone could determine the meaning of our own lives and the boundaries of our relationships.

2. We came to see that the specter of a punitive, all-male Deity had kept us from leading lives of harmony and humility with our fellow human beings and countless other worthy creatures.

3. We made the decision to accept responsibility for the innocence of all suffering, including our own, and take back our will from the dreamed-up superego that we worshiped as an idealized parent.

4. We made a fearless moral inventory of ourselves. And then remembered to forgive.

5. We admitted to our colleagues, friends, partners, and children the exact ways in which we had oppressed them with our religious terror and unchecked addiction to spiritual materialism.

6. We pledged never again to advocate the sacrifice of body for soul, or soul for body, and instead committed ourselves (body and soul) simply to the policy of least harm.

7. We renounced fundamentalist religion as a fear-based failure of human imagination, and recognized that open science and honest metaphor provide a more useful means for exploring human potential than any "revealed literal truth" that derives its authority from distant supernatural power brokers.

8. We made a list of all persons and groups we had bummed out with our superstitious, moralistic blather. When possible we made amends to such people, even if it only meant bringing them a delicious sandwich.

9. With great sorrow we regretted our abusive treatment of the natural world as a mere backdrop against which the drama of human "salvation" plays itself out.

10. We continued to take a personal inventory of our own biases, such that whenever we felt the moral world presenting itself in terms of black and white, we promptly became suspicious of our own self-interest. Then we gave the problem a second look.

11. We sought through education and honest reflection to improve our understanding of how religious fundamentalism sabotages authentic human intimacy and has distracted us from the precious reality of shared human experience.

12. Having begun our awakening to truth, freedom, and a humane spirituality at peace with science, we have tried whenever possible to create conditions on this world sufficient for the health and enlightenment of all beings, without discrimination, including confused fundamentalist bullies.

J. Obser & P. Mihalakos

There is no such thing as a "beneficial" mutation in any eukaryote unless it is a back mutation to the original wild-type allele. I have been asking for examples and never received even an acknowledgement that I asked either here, at ARN or elsewhere.

Longhorn

It is Davison not Davision.

I want examples, not what someone thinks. As far as I can tell they do not exist. No, bacteria are not eukaryptes. They are prokaryotes. I repeat my claim that the only beneficial mutations are the back mutations that return the genotype to its wild-type status.

Even if by some stretch of the imagination one can support the idea of a beneficial mutation, allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution anyway. Allelic mutations are of no evolutionary significance because they do not alter the basic chromosomal structure of the organism and accordingly are not effective in creating reproductive incompatibility. Furthermore, evolution WAS far more than the creation of reproductive incompatibilty. It WAS the creation of new kinds of living creatures, something no one has directly witnessed. Now I am aware of certain claims about such allelic differences being of significance in speciation, but that does not detract from the notion of a "beneficial" mutation.

You will gave to do better than that to dissuade me. Hundreds of years of the most intensive selection of Mendelian allelic mutants have never resulted in the generation of new species of domesticated animals. I am very hesitant to ascribe to Nature capacities that are denied the experimental scientist. To me that would be mysticism, something I have no truck with. As a matter of fact I regard Natural Selection as an anti-evolutionary element just as Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett did. It maintains the status quo and that only for limited periods of time which typically end in extinction as deleterious genes take their toll or environmental changes exceed the limited capacities of the sexual mode. It is happening today all around us. Natural Selection, the cornerstone of Darwinism, is an unsubstantiated force which is largely a figment of the Darwinian imagination.

The only benefit I can envision for allelic mutations is the assurance of extinction without which there would never have been any progressive evolution and we wouldn't be here, as its terminal product, discussing its mechanisms.

"The struggle for existence and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary, conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

"Animals are not always struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all."
Anonymous

John A. Davison

I want examples, not what someone thinks.

allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution anyway.

Allelic mutations are of no evolutionary significance because they do not alter the basic chromosomal structure of the organism and accordingly are not effective in creating reproductive incompatibility.

Furthermore, evolution WAS far more than the creation of reproductive incompatibilty.

It WAS the creation of new kinds of living creatures, something no one has directly witnessed.

You will gave to do better than that to dissuade me. Hundreds of years of the most intensive selection of Mendelian allelic mutants have never resulted in the generation of new species of domesticated animals. I am very hesitant to ascribe to Nature capacities that are denied the experimental scientist. To me that would be mysticism, something I have no truck with. As a matter of fact I regard Natural Selection as an anti-evolutionary element just as Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett did.

The only benefit I can envision for allelic mutations is the assurance of extinction without which there would never have been any progressive evolution and we wouldn't be here, as its terminal product, discussing its mechanisms.

Re "fine-tuning and probability? Isn't that sort of like Phlogiston, or Ether or Selection?"

That suggests a good analogy - maybe fine tuning and front loading are the phlogiston and ether of evolution theory. :)

Henry

Dr. Davison,

What can I say except RIGHT ON!

Thanks for your efforts. They're not for naught.

Dr. Davison, What can I say except RIGHT ON! Thanks for your efforts.  They're not for naught.

[DaveScot impersonating another commenter. The source IP is now banned as per rule 6. -- WRE]

Longhorn

I simply cannot communicate with you. We are not on the same frequency. You just keep repeating basic Darwinian mysticism. I suggest that you stop asking me questions and read my papers instead. Then come back with some evidence that you understand my position and perhaps we could resume some form of dialogue.

John A. Davison

PvM
You said a mouthful when you said I help the 'cause.' Groupthinks are like that. Thanks for helping my 'cause' which is the exposure of Darwinism as a hoax and replacing it with an hypothesis that at least recognizes the undeniable truths revealed by the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.

You are a treasure and I do not whine.

John A. Davison

For an interesting reaction of creationists to the recent PBS NewsHour show on ID/creationism, see the ARN thread "Intelligent Design" on PBS NewsHour, Featuring a Saddled Triceratops. See the full ARN thread "Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Theory" says Bush White House for an entertaining snippet of the reaction of this website's denizens to some uncomfortable facts.

Full disclosure: I was just banned from ARN, presumably for making "inflammatory religious comments." ARN purports to be a website dedicated to the "science" of ID, and does not mention religious comments on their forum rules; anyone who questions the basis of the Christian religious convictions on which this "science" forum is based is quickly banned.

ARN pays absolutely no attention to me even though I have said nothing about religion but simply presented undeniable proofs that the entire Darwinian model is a fairy tale, a lie and a hoax. I have also identified ID as a self-evident given without which no discussion of evolutionary mechanism is even possible.

The primary difference between ARN on the one hand and Panda's Thumb, EvC and "brainstorms" on the other, is the latter three "groupthinks" are very much more aggressive in supporting their silly belief. ARN is doing what the Darwinian establishment has always done with their many critics. They simply don't exist. I am happy to report that Panda's Thumb, "brainstorms" and EvC have very definitely acknowledged my existence for which I am very grateful.

The reason I have been hostile toward my adversaries is because I have learned from 20 years of experience that they will not otherwise respond to me. By lampooning them and harpooning their sacred Darwinian cow I have managed to awaken them from their self-imposed coma and activated some of their most virulent spokespersons, like PvM, Wayne Francis and Scott L. Paige.

All in all it has been a very rewarding experience for me and I hope a lesson for any rational observer.

I have no further complaints except that I do not whine. I attack Darwimpianism with all my waning energies and will continue to do so to my dying day.

John A. Davison

Did anyone else just get creationist spam in their email? The way mine came in, it was definitely harvested from this site.

I've been lurking here for months. But I just wanted to say one thing.

If a user ever started posting here whilst suffering from some form of illness - such as a delusional disorder centering upon their views on evolution or creation - then I don't think it would be in the best interests of either the blog or of the individual concerned to continually debate that person's beliefs (male gender used for the sake of this hypothetical point).

You could probably tell such a person by his delusions of grandiosity and persecution. He might openly portray himself as a crusader against a vast conspiracy. He may believe that he is 'special', and may also associate himself with important historical figures. He may also act as though he has access to vitally important information that is being supressed, which others 'do not understand'. He might also consider himself exempt from presenting the normal standards of evidence required.

To debate this kind of person would probably increase his paranoia and sense of persecution, and could further convince him that he is right. It would also risk bringing the blog into disrepute by having it host endless bizarre arguments that would go nowhere, even if most of the vitriol was posted by the individual concerned.

I am merely a layperson in the field of psychology, but I have read enough to be aware of the basic symptoms of delusional disorders. Of course, most creationists or intelligent design advocates are not mentally ill, and I hope a situation such as the one I posit above never arises.

Yeah, I just got something from that Islamic creationist whose name I've forgotten. My first ever creationist email!

testing

Oh there has been a conspiracy allright. It has been a conspiracy of silence and denial that there have ever been any anti-Darwinian evolutionists like Grasse, Berg, Broom, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson, Punnett or most recently myself. You see we do not exist. If you don't believe me just check the references in the evolutionary literature, especially the books by Dawkins, Gould, Ayala, Provine or Mayr. By our not existing the Darwinian hoax has been able to be sustained. That is why I am trying very vigorously to be heard wherever I am allowed.

John A. Davison

However, Gould considered Bateson's attack on the Panglossian preachings of the Darwinists as "bordering on meanness." Bateson was unambiguously labelled as an "obstinate," "stubborn," "old fogey," who "had fallen a bit behind the times," and "had his own particular axe to grind."

One would think that if JAD actually wanted to share ideas, he'd start with those of his ideas that would sound plausible to other biologists, instead of incessantly repeating ideas that he knows won't be accepted. Also he could show some interest in discussing the details of those ideas, instead of spending his posts making assertions about the incompetence of those who disagree with him.

Take his point that mammals and birds have incompatible, non-homologous reproductive strategies: that implies that one or both evolved their current strategy separately, which suggests that one or both went through a period of using some form of asexual reproduction. Perhaps JAD could try to explain why semi-meiosis has more explanatory power than a simple cloning type of reproduction. (Besides which, semi-meiosis strikes me as the ultimate in inbreeding, but then nature never has been conservative of individuals.)

Or how about a discussion of what types of chromosomal rearrangements would prevent interbreeding, and which would merely reduce the odds of success, and by how much. That could be interesting.

Or how about whether there's really any reason to suppose that the various genera of apes had to go through periods of nonsexual reproduction in order to explain them having differences in chromosome arrangement. Keeping in mind here that if these genera have homologous male chromosome (which as I understand it is not carried in the females in these species), that would be evidence against an interruption in the sexual reproduction in those lineages.

Henry

Re: Paranoid delusions

The theraputic profile of paranoids and their prognosis is so poor that there is little point in being conserned for their sake. If paranoid rants so detract from the pleasure, or partisipation of others, that we lose readers- then I feel that we should just "boot" the paranoids.

Henry J.

My ideas are not plausible to other biologists because other biologists are nearly all chance worshipping, atheist, liberal loony tunes, so thoroughly brainwashed in Darwimpianism that they cannot conceive that their entire life has been wasted chasing a phantom. My adversaries are not necessarily incompetent; they are just blind to any interpretation that differs from the one they have been raised with.

PvM

I see you had to trot out Gould to say something nasty about the father of modern genetics. What would you expect from a Harvard Darwimpian whose office is right down the hall from Ernst Mayr's.
Gould was a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian just like Mayr and a professed atheist besides. William Bateson realized by 1924 that Mendelian genetics had absolutely nothing to do with progressive evolution and he said so. He was a true prophet and a great scientist.

Bateson was indeed an "obstinate, stubborn old fogey" and so am I and for exactly the same reasons. We both realized that Darwinism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science and we both encountered the same mindless opposition which the critics of Darwinism have always faced. I am proud to be numbered as an admirer of William Bateson. Others were Leo Berg, Richard Goldschmidt and Reginald Punnett. Even Ernst Mayr admired Bateson but don't ask me why.

John A. Davison

I simply cannot communicate with you. We are not on the same frequency. You just keep repeating basic Darwinian mysticism. I suggest that you stop asking me questions and read my papers instead. Then come back with some evidence that you understand my position and perhaps we could resume some form of dialogue.

Giving Glory to God What is the tangible benefit of Intelligent Design for the Christian community? I think minimally it is that it will prevent our young people from being swept away by this materialist ideology. But beyond that, and I think this is what really is the driving force for me, it gives us the truth of creation. I am wholly committed to the fundamental truth that God, by wisdom, created the world. It is only in acknowledging that that God will get proper glory for his creation. It would be a travesty and an insult if you met some wonderful artist, a Michelangelo or a Leonardo da Vinci or a Rembrandt, and they had their life's masterpiece beside them, and you came along and said, "You just threw this together. There is nothing to it. I could do that." Now take it further. That is what we do when we take the marvelous designs that God has built into the world, things that far exceed anything by Michelangelo, and we do not just say, "I could have done that," but we attribute them to some blind, stupid, material process. It is just galling to me when I see the nature programs on PBS where "nature did this" and "natural selection did that." Where is God in all of this? He is dispensable. I think that is the real problem with naturalism and materialism. There are the Dawkinses who are rabid in their atheism, but for the most part these materialists rarely come out and say, "There is no God." It is not that there is an outright denial of God, it is just that God is not necessary. Instead of a heated denial it is benign neglect. And I think we are seeing that more and more. But I think Intelligent Design is going to turn this around. I think we are going to see the whole level of rhetoric and controversy ratcheted up more and more in coming days.

— Dembski

Re "My adversaries are not necessarily incompetent; they are just blind to any interpretation that differs from the one they have been raised with."

I think that's called "projection".

-----

Re "It is just galling to me when I see the nature programs on PBS where "nature did this" and "natural selection did that."

So, he prefers to give God direct credit for designing mosquitos, malaria, typhoid, athlete's foot, tapeworms, boll weevils, etc.? Sounds to me like he didn't think through what he's saying.

Henry

If Paul Nelson is greatly disturbed by the disemvoweling of a few of Dr. Davison's posts, perhaps Paul Nelson would open an ID blog or two for Dr. Davison's fulminatons? I'm sure Dr. Davison would be happy to fulminate, if Nelson will provide the forum.

I do not fulminate. I speak the truth. The entire Darwinian chance-based model is a farce and a hoax generated and sustained by committed atheists whose condition, like every other aspect of evolution, has probably been preordained. If there is one lesson to be learned from forums like this one it is to question the notion of a "free will." Everyone seems to be victimized by internal forces over which, as Einstein so wisely reminded us, we have no control.

For anyone to claim that they know anything with certainty about either the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution reveals an ignorance beyond description. Evolution, like ontogeny, remains an enormous mystery the mechanism for which has yet to be revealed. One thing is for certain however. Chance had absolutely no role in that process, none whatsoever. Neither did allelic mutation, natural or artificial selection or population genetics or any other postulate of the Darwinian dogma. Darwinism must be and is being relegated to the intellectual compost heap where it joins Phlogiston and the Ether.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

PvM
If you are so concerned about what I am doing over at ARN why don't you join in over there? Have you been banned from participation at ARN? How about "brainstroms?" Is this the only forum left for you? I see that here you have managed to elevate yourself to the point where you can introduce threads and then rule them with an iron hand. You are one of the chosen few at Panda's Thumb. I predict, judging from your past history, that will not last much longer. Panda's Thumb, like other forums will finally recognize you for what you continually demonstrate yourself to be, an intractable Darwinian zealot practicing the most vile of methods in defence of a failed hypothesis and a transparent hoax.

John A. Davison

If Paul Nelson is still quivering with righteous rage that Davison was prevented from sharing the wisdom of Leo Berg with PT readers, he might want to check
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here

The list includes multiple references to Nomogenesis, the work cited in the viciously disemvoweled comment, including multiple references to the page in question. See what I mean by repetitious and annoying?

The disemvoweling is childish, and displays a lack of class. Neither of which is unexpected from PT.

Take his [JAD's] point that mammals and birds have incompatible, non-homologous reproductive strategies: that implies that one or both evolved their current strategy separately, which suggests that one or both went through a period of using some form of asexual reproduction.

Nature \ 432, 913 - 917 (16 December 2004); doi:10.1038/nature03021 Nature AOP, published online 24 October 2004 In the platypus a meiotic chain of ten sex chromosomes shares genes with the bird Z and mammal X chromosomes FRANK GRÜTZNER1, WILLEM RENS2, ENKHJARGAL TSEND-AYUSH1,*, NISRINE EL-MOGHARBEL1,*, PATRICIA C. M. O'BRIEN2, RUSSELL C. JONES3, MALCOLM A. FERGUSON-SMITH2 & JENNIFER A. MARSHALL GRAVES1 1 Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia 2 Centre for Veterinary Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK 3 Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia * These authors contributed equally to this work Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.G. (frank.gruetzner@anu.edu.au). The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited in EMBL under accession numbers AJ744847, AJ744848, AJ744849. Two centuries after the duck-billed platypus was discovered, monotreme chromosome systems remain deeply puzzling. Karyotypes of males, or of both sexes, were claimed to contain several unpaired chromosomes (including the X chromosome) that form a multi-chromosomal chain at meiosis. Such meiotic chains exist in plants and insects but are rare in vertebrates. How the platypus chromosome system works to determine sex and produce balanced gametes has been controversial for decades. Here we demonstrate that platypus have five male-specific chromosomes (Y chromosomes) and five chromosomes present in one copy in males and two copies in females (X chromosomes). These ten chromosomes form a multivalent chain at male meiosis, adopting an alternating pattern to segregate into XXXXX-bearing and YYYYY-bearing sperm. Which, if any, of these sex chromosomes bears one or more sex-determining genes remains unknown. The largest X chromosome, with homology to the human X chromosome, lies at one end of the chain, and a chromosome with homology to the bird Z chromosome lies near the other end. This suggests an evolutionary link between mammal and bird sex chromosome systems, which were previously thought to have evolved independently.

I am not in the least surprised to discover links between mammal, bird and platypus sex-determining systems. That in no way detracts from the fact that birds and mammals implement entirely different chromosomal mechanisms for sex-determination. After all, I have not denied evolution as some seem to think, only the capacity of the sexual mode to promote it beyond the production of subspecies or varieties, a position I still hold. We should remember that meiosis, wherever it is found, consists of two sequential cytological steps. The first is a demonstrated form of diploid reproduction and must heve evolutionarily preceded the second and accordingly is the more primitive.

If the sole purpose was to produce haploid gametes from diploid stem cells, there would be a single meiotic division. No living organisms produces true gametes in this fashion. What we are witnessing in meiosis is the history of the process complete with the steps in order by which it has been realized.

I presented the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis twenty years ago and it still has not been subjected to critical experiment with material heterozygous for structural chromosomal rearrdangements. Until that has been done it remains viable as a device for macroevolution, the only one which I, for one, can even conceive. I am not a special creationist which would seem to be the only alternative and the one the Fundamentalists seem still to support.

The truth lies with neither Darwinism nor Biblical fundamentalism but elsewhere.

John A. Davison

Re "For anyone to claim that they know anything with certainty about either the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution reveals an ignorance beyond description."

and

Re "One thing is for certain however. Chance had absolutely no role in that process, none whatsoever. Neither did allelic mutation, natural or artificial selection or population genetics or any other postulate of the Darwinian dogma."

Now, apply statement 1 to the author of statement 2...

Makes me wonder if this guy even reads his own stuff - he claims asserting certainty reveals ignorance, then proceeds in the next paragraph to assert his own certainty about something he just said we cannot be certain. By doing that, he just called himself ignorant.

Henry

Yeah, well, I once called myself ignorant, but I didn't know what I was talking about!

I do not fulminate. I speak the truth. The entire Darwinian chance-based model is a farce and a hoax generated and sustained by committed atheists whose condition, like every other aspect of evolution, has probably been preordained. If there is one lesson to be learned from forums like this one it is to question the notion of a "free will." Everyone seems to be victimized by internal forces over which, as Einstein so wisely reminded us, we have no control.

— Nosy

ful·mi·nate v. intr. 1. To issue a thunderous verbal attack or denunciation: fulminated against political chicanery. 2. To explode or detonate.

I see you did just that. You are performing beautifully. Don't change a thing. You are a caricature of yourself and every other Darwinian bigot. Thanks again for demonstrating the lengths to which godless Darwinism finds it necesasary to go to preserve and protect the biggest hoax in recorded history.

John A.Davison

You're improving JAD... Keep up the good work and soon you may even be able to conduct a scientific discussion.

In Christ's name

Not on Panda's Thumb. I prefer the published literature in refereed journals. Where may I find your contributions to the great mystery of organic evolution except on forums I mean? Don't be shy, tell us all about it. Surely you have expressed you mindless bigotry in some permanent venue haven't you? A book, a pamphlet, an abstract, surely there must be some hard copy representation of your intractable Darwinian mysticism and vicious bigotry. But is there? Somehow I feel certain that there isn't.

The ball is in your court where it has always been. Don't bother responding because you and I both know that you can't. Maybe others will finally recognize you for what you really are and always have been, nothing but an unfulfilled frustrated troublemaker, unable to make it in the real world and reduced to fantasizing in the world of cyberspace.

You are pathetic.

John A. Davison

Glen,

Re #23194, "and thought of what has recently been discovered about the sex chromosomes of platypuses"

Interesting. So at least some components are homologous, even if some features aren't.

Henry

You are pathetic

— Davison

One of these days you people will realize that you are being manipulated by one of your own in a most insidious fashion. PvM, aka Pim van Meurs, is no credit to a forum which claims to be interested in the truth about a subject as mysterious as organic evolution. He has a long history of disruption and deception that has earned him a well deserved reputation.

As for evolution, presumably the subject of this forum, it is not what we know for sure that matters because there is very little that seems certain. It is what we know that HAD nothing to do with evolution that we now know a gteat deal about. This inlcudes:

1. allelic mutation.
2. natural selection.
3. gradualism in any form except possibly a tendency toward gigantism.
4. population genetics.
5. Lamarckian inheritance*
6. isolation.
7. artificial selection of the most intense and sustained sort.
7. genetic drift.

* It is possible that in the past Lamarckian mechanisms may have been involved but there is no evidence that they still are.

I am sure I have omitted some other features of the Darwinian myth. I am also convinced on the basis of present evidence that macroevolution is finished and has been for a very long time. In short the entire Darwinian scheme is a myth which must and is being finally abandoned. If Panda's Thumb refuses to recognize that it is not because I have failed to warn their membership of the imminent demise of the Darwinian hoax.

John A. Davison

The various genera of primates do not have homologous Y chromosomes. The Y is the most variable chromosome in the complement and exhibits very little structural homology. It is the X chromosome which is the least variable which is exactly wnat one would anticipate from the gynogenetic, semi-meiotic mechanism which I have proposed. The X is virtually morphologically identical in Pan, Gorilla, Pongo and Homo. While it has undergone many internal chamnges it is the most stable of all the chromosomes in the primate complement. Don't take my word for it. Look at the karyotypes and draw your own conclusions.

John A. Davison

In Re, Comment #22783, Comment #22791, Comment #22798, and virtually every other rant of Davison.

Davison
Every single insult, provocation, disparagement, and hostility that erupts from you totally applies to every comment you have recorded. There is a name for that in psychology. They call it projection. It's just sad.

A simplistic view of mutation is just a change in the genetic code. Your SMH is a way to change the genetic code and therefore is an example of the mutations you seem to love to denigrate so much. A new mechanism for mutation(well, relatively new), what a wonderful discovery. What makes this sad is that you have something that could contribute to modern biology yet you squander your effort attacking it. Do you perhaps harbor resentment that your contribution is small and your name will not be a household name someday? There are lots of physicists in the world who presumably would like to have the stature of a Newton or an Einstein, but they don't waste their time trying to tear down the whole of physic as a result. So your not Darwin. At least you have SOMETHING to contribute. Take some pride in that and work to help slot that contribution into the modern synthesis.

If not then take your acrimonious melancholy elsewhere. It's just sad.

Sincerely,

Paul

Sorry to butt in here OT, but I don't know how to begin a new thread and want to get some word out about Dover:

The Dover School Board's curriculum committee voted last night (April 4) to accept the DebunkCreation list's donation of 23 science books. I'm glad to see that public officials can still be forced to cave in to public pressure.

A few weeks previously, there was discussion at D/C about a response to that contingency. Here is the strategy we decided upon:

-----------------------
If they accept the donation, then I think there are two simultaneous
tracks we'd want to take. The first is to declare "open season" on
them. If they begin crowing about how "open-minded" they are by
accepting these books, then it's time to put the word out to every
anti-creationist group we can think of, and invite them to raise
money and donate all the anti-ID books they can find. This will, I
think, have several advantages for our side; (1) first, and most
importantly in my view, it will put an end to the whole "give our
books to the library" tactic followed by the IDers. If, every time
they give books to someone, that is followed by a flood of anti-ID
stuff and becomes a huge headache for the school board, it will
GREATLY reduce the likelihood that the IDers will try it again, or
that any other school board will accept such donations. I think it's
worth it to try to defang this ID tactic. (2) in the case of Dover,
while the book list that we donated was indeed very good, it is still
incomplete, and there are still lots of very good anti-ID books which
students should have access to. If the board is stupid enough to
hold the door open for us, I think we should walk right on in, and
invite all our friends with us. This tactic won't cost us anything --
- we'll invite other groups like talk.origins, Panda's Thumb, other
email lists, etc to raise their own money and send their own books.
We can just offer to act as an information clearinghouse so everybody
doesn't send the same books as everyone else. This tactic has
actually already sort of started itself, since someone from Pandas
Thumb has already offered to donate additional books. If the board
accepts ours, they have no reason not to accept everyone else's.
It'll turn into a world-class headache for them. We win, they lose.

Track two; OK, if the Board wants to crow about how willing it is to
admit anti-ID info into the library, let's see if they'll allow it
INTO THE CLASSROOM. Let's *duplicate* the "Pandas" strategy -- we
pick an anti-ID book, raise enough money in conjunction with other
anti-ID groups to buy, say, ten or twenty copies between all of us,
and then donate them as a "supplemental text" for classroom use.
That will shut the board up in a big hurry, and it will put them
right back where they were at the beginning of this, all poised to go
through the whole process all over again. Let's see how "open-
minded" they REALLY are. Will they allow anti-ID texts in the
CLASSROOM right next to "Pandas"? Or will they reveal their true
motives (again) by allowing "Pandas" in the classroom but REJECTING
anti-ID rebuttals? Lets force them to either shit or get off the
toilet. Once again, we win, they lose.

---------------------

Here's everyone's chance to get involved. I will shortly put up a web page at:

http://www.geocities.com/lflank/books.html

to list all the books already donated and those already spoken for, so we can all coordinate our efforts and avoid duplications.

The address for the Dover High School Library is:

Dover Senior High School Library
46 West Canal St
Dover PA 17315
(717) 292-3671

If you do send anything, let the press know about it. You can reach the York Dispatch newsroom at:

news@yorkdispatch.com

and the York Daily Record newsroom at:

news@ydr.com

And, of course, let me know, at lflank@ij.net

Has anyone passed on the info from Lurker's Comment #23125 about Dembski's speech to the PA ACLU? It would be great if they could bring it up in trial while Dembski is on the witness stand.

Does anyone know where you purchase the "Debinski is a Dumbinski" tee-shirts at this site?

Would "Dr" GH's reference to creationists as America's Taliban (Yes it's a comment, to his own post--at least I assume "Dr" GH is Gary SS Hurd) be subject to the same criticism?

Given that ID's money comes mainly from Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson Jr., whose aim is to place the U.S. "under the control of biblical law," could someone please explain why it is not appropriate to compare creationists to the Taliban?

This well reasoned commentary in the New York Times, entitled "When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality" illustrates the similarities quite nicely.

"That is the only use evolutionary theory has: trying to "prove" the Bible to be wrong, and that's why it is such a deadly enemy. Trying to make a scientific proposition out of a statement of creation, as you call it, is an act of self-defense against those scientists who are trying to destroy the idea of creation, and with it the entire foundation of the Bible." "Evolution only produces Nazism and atheism and communism and genocide. Shows how effective brain-washing can be. Do you realize how many "isms" exist because of their belief in evolution? Nazism and Communism, for starters, and of course Humanism and Atheism; Humanism being the religion du jour in our 'Government' Schools. "

Russell,

At least you spelled D*mbski correctly. You won't have Berlinski on your case.

In case anyone is interested, my post 23313 above was directed at Pim van Meurs who immediately sent it down to the Bathroom Wall in typical fashion. It must be nice to be one of the chosen few at PT and be able to do what one wants with critical posts.

John A. Davison

Would "Dr" GH's reference to creationists as America's Taliban (Yes it's a comment, to his own post---at least I assume "Dr" GH is Gary SS Hurd) be subject to the same criticism?

— David Heddle

Dumbski.

LOL

Paul Flocken

You misunderstand me completely. I am not frustrated and I am not melancholy. I am hostile and have nothing but contempt for the whole Darwinian scheme known as the "Modern Synthesis". Are you aware that Julian Huxley the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." destroyed the entire scheme with a single paragraph 7 pages from the end of the book?

There never was a "Modern Synthesis." What happened is a bunch of staunch Darwinians led by Ernst Mayr got together and proclaimed a synthesis. Their Symposia are marked by the absence of Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, Leo Berg, Robert Broom, Otto Schindewolf and Reginald C. Punnett every one of whom was in the height of their powers and not one a Darwinian by the stretch the imagination. If they had particpated there never would have been a "Modern Synthesis." They were deliberately excluded, some of the finest minds of the times. The whole thing was a disgrace, a farce and a hoax and has been ever since.

My Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is a new hypothesis for organic evolution and has never been formulated as such before. It is receiving support right now from molecular biology and chromosome structural studies neither of which will ever be reconciled with the Darwinian myth.

The restructuring of a chromosme is not comparable with a simple change in the genetic code. It can unleash a whole new reaction system just as Goldschmidt relized long ago. I suggest you consult some of the recent literature. You can start with the references I cite in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis manuscript (in press). Evolution in reverse has already been achieved with yeast and it didn't involve any influence from the environment whatsoever, only the restucturing of what was already there. It forsees a whole new view of evolution, a process which proceeded without reference to the environment in any way.

What is truly sad is the realization that there are still people around like yourself who can actually accept any aspect of the Darwinian fairy tale. It is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It should have been ababdoned at its inception and actually was by some of the finest minds of two centuries. It has been kept alive through the efforts of a bunch of hide bound atheist ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr, all glued to their endowed chairs in a voluntary early retirement from real science, cranking out huge quantities of pulp science fiction for an unsuspecting and naive public which includes the majority of those here at Panda's Thumb. You even named your forum after one of them. What a dead giveaway that proved to be. I should have realized and I certainly do now. Have a nice groupthink.

John A. Davison

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."
Montaigne.

Davison seems to confuse simple genetic code changes with Darwinian mechanisms. Chromosome restructuring is easily reconcilable with Darwinian theory.
As far as these 'finest minds' being excluded, I am not convinced that they are 'finest minds' nor that their exclusion was not warranted as they held to a view which appeared in stark contradiction with facts.
Davison refers to Darwinian theory as the most failed hypothesis in science and yet it is one of the better supported hypotheses in science based on the insight of Darwin and others who realized the importance of natural selection on evolution.
If you are not melancholic or frustrated you surely seem to present that impression.
Why not present your arguments with more than just assertions and maybe you will be taken seriously.
What about them apples :-)

"Dr" GH is Gary SS Hurd

These are America's Taliban. They are the book burners and the witch burners. They have no use for education, and are actively trying to deny education to others. There is no 'signal' that will get through to them. Ridicule and derision are effective weapons. I would rather laugh at them than have to shoot at them. Dembski's goal is at one with theirs.

DR GH

The SS was a typo. Since you have posted on the "seperation" clause, you ought to be a little tolerant of typos.

The quote around the DR is because I find it amusing that you feel the need to use that title.

Your explanation sounds SOOOOO plausible. As believable as Rev. Mike.

A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation.

A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation.

The murder of civil rights leaders, and their associates- the fire bombings of health clinics and the murder of their staffs- the massively deadly bombing of government buildings, and the monetary and 'moral' support for these activities comes from the same well of ignorance and religious extremism as creationism.

...murder threats and solicitations for the murder of Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo.

Heddle, you are a punk liar. But, aside from the obvious, creationists are very fond of touting Ph.D.s, even the phony ones. At the same time, too many scientists, commonly inflicted by liberal rejection of "elitism," have let the public be conned by creationist "professors" by not observing that there are topics which require real work and effort to understand. Creationist con artists profess but, "... they understand neither what they say nor the things about which they make assertion. {See 1 Timothy 1.7}"

Consequently, I make no secret nor apology for my doctorate. I literally shat blood to get it. (Amebic dysentery won't earn you a degree, but you won't ever forget it either).

"It's Dr. Evil, I didn't spend six years in Evil Medical School to be called mister thank you very much."

. . . murder threats and solicitations for the murder of Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo. Irony, anyone?

Irony, anyone?

"SS" as a typo in the middle of "Gary Hurd"? I'm trying to imagine how that could happen. Sort of like when Dick Armey "mispronounced" Barney Frank's name.

Presumably the irony Finly means is that the people making these threats are some of the god fear'n Xians who want the 10 commandments posted throughout the land.

Russell,

Following the death of Mrs. Schiavo, some on the Christain Right called for the murder of Judge Greer and Michael Schiavo.

Of course, no true fundi™ would ever admit this after the fact.

Russell

How could the SS typo happen?. The good Dr's middle initial is S. (look on the list of contibutors). I suppose nobody, ever, in the history of typing, ever accidentally hit a double key. Clearly this is just part of the vast creastionist conspiracy.

"SS" as a typo in the middle of "Gary Hurd"? I'm trying to imagine how that could happen. Sort of like when Dick Armey "mispronounced" Barney Frank's name.

A detailed and extensive new analysis of the fossil records of marine animals over the past 542 million years has yielded a stunning surprise. Biodiversity appears to rise and fall in mysterious cycles of 62 million years for which science has no satisfactory explanation.

I guess I'm so used to hearing about death threats from the religious right, I've long since gotten over any irony associated with it.

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000902.html#c23344

Important Dover News!!!!

Don't let this get lost in the shuffle!

I took up the moniker "Dr.GH" when the notion of internet anonymity was popular. I always linked various sources that gave my name etc..., but only if people would click a few links. Cheaper than an unlisted phone number. Besides, as a former private investigator, unlisted phone numbers are not that big a problem either.

One day it ocurred to me that I was an expert witness in some major felonies, and that my name and address were public record to some very bad people. On that scale, why worry about internet punks? But, I had also made thousands of internet posts and had sort of "become" the moniker. Too late to change.

"His blood be on us and our children ... Matthew 27:25, maybe I'm the one who must execute this curse . . . I do no more than join what has been done for more than 1,500 years already. Maybe I render Christianity the best service ever!" (Adolph Hitler, 1942)

— Hitler

I'm sorry, [insert name here], I meant no offense.

Roger,

Oh, the old Hitler and Christians linkage? Sorry, that dog don't bite:

Rutgers university (that hotbed of fundamentalist Christendom) has a Nuremberg project where they are investigating some newly uncovered documents. One major part of the Nazi Master plan was "The Persecution of the Christian Churches." (I haven't seen a "The Persecution of Evolutionists" document on the Rutgers site, I'll let you know if I do.)

The editor of the project, Julie Mandel, said

"A lot of people will say, 'I didn't realize that they were trying to convert Christians to a Nazi philosophy.' . . . They wanted to eliminate the Jews altogether, but they were also looking to eliminate Christianity."

(the Phildelphia Inquirer, Jan. 9, 2002.)

Of course, the Philidelphia Inquirer is a well known Moonie rag.

And from a 1945 OSS report: "Important leaders of the National Socialist party would have liked to meet this situation [church influence] by complete extirpation of Christianity and the substitution of a purely racial religion"

Yeah those Nazis, they sure were claiming to be Christians.

Frank,

I am sorry for the typo only because it gives you a red herring that diverts from the sad truth that "Dr" GH, from the PT masthead, is guilty of the same type of unprofessionalism of which Elsbery is attributing to Dembski.

Yeah those Nazis, they sure were claiming to be Christians.

In a recent thread, someone claimed that someone called "Weinreich" poses as "Mike Gene" and "Julie Thomas". I had noticed the similarity between these two net personas some time ago. Who is this Weinreich guy?

GWW,

Before the Rutgers work, it was only possible to claim that the Nazis were not sincere, that they used some Christians as useful idiots, and also (as others have done before and since) misused bible passages to support their racist agenda. Now we know that, in fact, the persecution of Christianity was in the plan all along.

I'm pretty sure the Nazis were not into christianity except insofar as they could use it. What's disturbing about the photo-ops is not so much how the Nazis are pretending to be good christians; it's those robed, crucifix-bedecked prelates giving the old Nazi high-five. That, literally, sends chills down my spine.

Before the Rutgers work, it was only possible to claim that the Nazis were not sincere, that they used some Christians as useful idiots, and also (as others have done before and since) misused bible passages to support their racist agenda. Now we know that, in fact, the persecution of Christianity was in the plan all along.

... to put their synagogues and schools to fire, and what will not burn, to cover with earth and rubble so that no-one will ever again see anything there but cinders ... Second, one should tear down and destroy their houses, for they do also in there what they do in their schools and synagogues ... And third, one should confiscate their prayer books and Talmud, in which idolatry and lies, slander and blasphemy is taught" From Proctor 1988: 88.

And so the creationists continue to spew in their effort to hide the religious justification of Nazism. They weren't after Jews at all, by golly- they wanted to kill Christians- they just missed!

Rev Dr" Lenny Flank,

Excellent essay. I enjoyed reading it. Thanks for the link.

GH

There is incessant debate about it: have theists or atheists historically caused more suffering and death? When you add up the numbers, opposing Stalin with Torquemada, the Chinese Revolution with the Crusades, have atheists or theists killed more, tortured more? And was Hitler a theist or an atheist, anyway? Here's a better question: who cares? Suppose Hitler was an atheist. Suppose Stalin tortured and killed more people than all of the theists put together. What implications follow for atheism as a whole? None -- few atheists are even remotely like Hitler or Stalin. Suppose Hitler was a theist. Suppose the Crusades resulted in more suffering and death of innocents than the actions of all atheists combined. What follows for theism as a whole? Nothing -- the majority of theists are nothing like Hitler and despise the Crusade mentality. Theists and atheists who spend their time trying to denounce the other side by arguing that "tyrant W was an atheist," "racist murderer X was a theist," "insidious philosophy Y presumes there is no God," or "destructive dogma Z is based on the Bible," are typically engaging in a classic act of bigotry -- the demonization of an entire class of highly varied people on the basis of the actions of a few extremists. In the process, they insult and polarize the good people on each side, and trivialize the comparatively minor, yet still dangerous, elements within.

...the influence of the Christian churches would have to be minimized as thoroughly as possible. On the other hand, the predominantly conservative and patriotic influence exerted by the larger Christian churches was a factor of some positive value from the National Socialist standpoint, and insured those churches a substantial measure of support from conservative groups destined to play an important part in the National Socialist plans...

Given that ID's money comes mainly from Christian Reconstructionist Howard Ahmanson Jr., whose aim is to place the U.S. "under the control of biblical law," could someone please explain why it is not appropriate to compare creationists to the Taliban? This well reasoned commentary in the New York Times, entitled "When Sentiment and Fear Trump Reason and Reality" illustrates the similarities quite nicely.

Amebic dysentery won't earn you a degree, but you won't ever forget it either).

Dr GH, with a Ph.D., this shouldn't be too subtle of point: The Nazis used Luther's words for their purposes, but that didn't make them Christians. And who can (apart from you, it would seem) say if Luther's words inspired the Nazis or were just useful to them?

You can quote all the articles you want, but you'll still run head-on into the more recent Rutgers work. That is quite inconvenient for anyone who wants to claim that Nazis sincerely thought of their movement as, in any way, Christian.

I would not stoop to the depths that you guys do, to post tenuous ties between Nazism and evolution, for I understand that an idea, cause, or theory can be misused, and that misuse doesn't cast aspersions on all proponents of said idea, cause, or theory.

Please continue to make my point so well, that you are unprofessional.

The Nazis used Luther's words for their purposes, but that didn't make them Christians.

Can someone tell me who "Weinreich" is, and the evidence for him/her posting under the pseudonyms of Mike Gene and Julie Thomas?

The political program of the ID movement (and the fundamentalist "Christian" movement of which ID is a subsidiary) has virtually no public support.

U.S. Senate Republican leader Bill Frist said on Tuesday that courts had acted fairly in the Terri Schiavo "right-to-die" case, differing sharply from a vow of retribution by his House of Representatives counterpart, Tom DeLay. "I believe we have a fair and independent judiciary today," said Frist, now trying to resolve a battle with Democrats over judicial nominations that threatens to tie his chamber into knots. "I respect that."

*I* certainly haven't. I had the Nicaraguan variety. Where'd you get yours?

http://www.missoulian.com/articles/2005/04/05/news/mtregional/news07.txt

Pim van Meurs

Since you pay no attention to me and regard me as some sort of imbecile, I will allow others to express what they thought about natural slection.

"The struggle for survival and natural selection are not progressive agencies, but being, on the contrary conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, page 406

"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 differences as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett

"In all the research since 1869 on the transformations observed in closely successive phyletic series no evidence whatever, to my knowledge has been brought forward by any palaeontologist, either of the vertebrated or invertebrated animals, that the fit originates by selection from the the fortuitous."
Henry Fairfield Osborn

That anyone could still subscribe to the myth of Natural Selection is beyond my comprehension yet here we have Pim van Meurs still presenting a living example of such a mindless and completely unsubstantiated view of evolutionary reality.

Natural selection, the cornerstone, the sine qua non of Darwinian mysticism is a non existent figment of the atheist imagination. All evolution was emergent, driven entirely by internal forces and was independent of the environment in which that evolution took place. To continue to claim otherwise is not acceptable and never was.

The assertions of which the Darwimps are constantly accusing me were never mine alone anyway. They were those of my distinguished predecessors, some of the finest minds of two centuries. All I have done is to accept and extend their judgements. For this, your fearless leader Pim van Meurs will never forgive me for it strikes at the very heart of everything the Darwinian fairy tale represents.

As long as van Meurs represents the sentiments and the methods of Panda's Thumb as he most certainly does, this forum is doomed to the same fate as "brainstorms," where he was also instrumental in the demise of that forum. As near as I can determine this is the only forum where he can still hold forth. He is apparently persona non grata at ARN too. Panda's Thumb should be ashamed of itself. If it is not yet, it soon will be.

Yours in Christ indeed. What hypocricy!

John A. Davison

By the way, my apologies to Wesley. I had no idea that my one comment from a year past would be grasped by such dishonest fools to use as a weapon (feeble though it is) to distract from your well done rebuke of the likes of Berlinski.

ST Cordova posted this picture at ARN: http://www.vai.org/vari/biography/images/Weinreich-portrait.jpg

ST Cordova called him "his friend"

Nosivad, thank your for sharing the early to middle 1900's opinions of some people on natural selection. Of course their ignorance can be excused.
Natural selection is hardly a myth as it has been shown to exist. Since we see variation and selection in action, it is hard to argue that this view of evolution is unsubstantiated but since I have come to realize that Nosy appears to be unfamiliar with evolutionary theory, he can be excused for his mistakes.
I also understand that Salty has some problems with realizing that I am not an atheist but rather a Christian. Based on empirical evidence I do not expect Nosy to correct his errors for an extended period of time. I understand...

In Christ my dear friend. Keep up the good work of striking at the very heart of the Darwinian fairy tale and let us know when you have acquainted yourself with Darwinian theory.

;-)

All I have done is to accept and extend their judgements.

— Davison

Great White Wonder,

Re "62 million? Are you sure it's not 42 million?"

I'm sure the article said sixty two, and the graph in it shows several peaks at a little more than 50 my apart. It doesn't seem to be an exact interval though; the one at around 60 (more or less) mya appears to have been a little late, just going by their graph.

Henry

There is no Darwinian theory and never has been. There was a Darwinian hypothesis put forth in 1859 and it has never received a scintilla of support beyond the production of varieties and possibly in some instances subspecies. It is a farce a scandal and a hoax.

I have no problems with Pim van Meurs of any sort. I know all about Pim van Meurs as his reputation has always preceeded him right here finally to Panda's thumb, his last outpost. Here he has become one of the ruling oligarchy, dominating every thread with his mindless arrogant and insulting pontifications in a vain attempt to prop up the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. He is an intellectual menace to scientific inquiry and a blight upon the face of this forum. Panda's Thumb will learn the hard way as did ARN and "brainstroms."

John A. Davison

Several Republican politicians returned contributions from Ahmanson once they found out who he was and what he stands for.

Several Republican politicians returned contributions from Ahmanson once they found out who he was and what he stands for. Who returned the money?

Maybe more important, who kept the money after they found out about Ahmanson?

Its your turn now Pim. be sure to fire back with more nonsense in what has become a ludicrous demonstration on your part of the total shambles of Darwinian atheist materialism. You are a credit to your lost cause, mindless, blind and deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres. You are a living miracle with neither brains nor integrity. God but you are a pleassure to deal with. What was it that Huxley said about Bishop Wilberforce? Wasn't it God has delivered him into my hands? I believe it was and if there is a God or Gods (incidentaly for which I see no presence), I now thank Him or Them for having delivered you to me on a platter. What more could a man want?

John A. Davison

The old Hitler and Christians linkage? Sorry, that dog don't bite ... One major part of the Nazi Master plan was "The Persecution of the Christian Churches."

— Heddle

Alas, it cannot be anything but the terrible wrath of God which permits anyone to sink into such abysmal, devilish, hellish, insane baseness, envy, and arrogance. If I were to avenge myself on the devil himself I should be unable to wish him such evil and misfortune as God's wrath inflicts on the Jews, compelling them to lie and to blaspheme so monstrously, in violation of their own conscience. Anyway, they have their reward for constantly giving God the lie. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants. ...but then eject them forever from this country. For, as we have heard, God's anger with them is so intense that gentle mercy will only tend to make them worse and worse, while sharp mercy will reform them but little. Therefore, in any case, away with them! Over and above that we let them get rich on our sweat and blood, while we remain poor and they such the marrow from our bones. I brief, dear princes and lords, those of you who have Jews under your rule-- if my counsel does not please your, find better advice, so that you and we all can be rid of the unbearable, devilish burden of the Jews, lest we become guilty sharers before God in the lies, blasphemy, the defamation, and the curses which the mad Jews indulge in so freely and wantonly against the person of our Lord Jesus Christ, this dear mother, all hristians, all authority, and ourselves. Do not grant them protection, safe-conduct, or communion with us.... .With this faithful counsel and warning I wish to cleanse and exonerate my conscience. —Martin Luther, The Jews and Their Lies

— Martin Luther

Davison,
Is this really all the life you have? Do you know nothing but invective and vitriol? This is their forum and you are still here, biting the very hand that feeds you. DS and DK are gone, and you are still here. Doesn't that tell you something. Yes, you have been disemvoweled; yes, you have been sent to the outhouse; hell, you may even have been deleted: but you are still here. I don't see how you can even compare this site to ARN and its partners in deception. If you had anything worthy to say I bet here you'd be listened to. They may be waiting for just that. I suspect it may even have something to do with the fact that you ARE a PhD. They have been respectful and patient. As far as PvM is concerned how is he supposed to answer insults. You make no argument. You have no evidence. You simply cast one aspersion after another. If you looked I'm sure you would find he has oodles of credentials worthy of consideration. As you say, its just the touch of a mouse away. But asking him to participate in a kindergarden screaming match is pointless.
As I said, you are a sad old man wasting his end of days being useless.

Sincerely,

Paul

Roger, you conveniently ignored the recent research from Rutgers that I linked to. And like DR GH, you assume if the Nazis quoted Martin Luther, and/or if Martin Luther was anti-Semitic, then Christianity is anti-Semitic, and Nazis were faithful Christians, which is makes no sense from a deductive standpoint and is disputed by the Rutgers documents.

You no longer have to consider the possibility that Nazis were using Christian sloganism to justify their racism, and found it convenient at times to gald-hand with Christians who should have known better. o, the Rutgers documents on the "master plan" point out that the Nazis viewed the Christians as useful pawns yet also planned the persecution of Christians.

They did not, however, plan for the persecution of evolutionists.

(A good test: The US is much more Christian than Europe. Is there more anti-Semitism in Europe or in the US? Think before you respond, because I have the charts from the ADL that provide the data.)

Of course Hitler's treatment of the Jews was not consistent with the gospels. And Christians, including Martin Luther and popes, have said and written things that are inconsistent with the gospels.

They did not, however, plan for the persecution of evolutionists.

And Christians, including Martin Luther and popes, have said and written things that are inconsistent with the gospels.

"I an now as before a Catholic and will always remain so." —Adolph Hitler (1941), statement to General Gerhart Engel

— Hitler

"For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last." (1 Thessalonians 2:14-16)

— Paul

There is no Darwinian theory and never has been.

— JAD

Re "If you had anything worthy to say I bet here you'd be listened to. They may be waiting for just that. "

Yep. If he'd shown any interest in actually discussing ideas, he could've had a discussion. But if his only visible interest is in ranting and attacking those who disagree with his favorite ideas... well, that kind of puts a damper on things.

Paul Flocken

Thanks for the lecture on how to behave on a forum dominated by Darwinian atheist ideologues. I doubt very much if you have read my papers or you would realize that I have summarized a huge literature from embryology, taxonomy, paleontology, cytogenetics and Mendelian genetics absolutely none of which can be reconciled with the Darwinian model of mutation and selection. I have repeatedly, on every forum where I have ever participated, requested examples of beneficial eukaryotic mutations only to be met with stony silence.

Now you endorse Pim van Meurs warped view of an evolutionary mechanism whcih is totally without validity by suggesting that he could respond if I were to just give him a chance. You are something else. I have challenged the Darwinians all my professional life and received nothing tangible from them that could in any way alter my studied conviction that they are blind ideologues incapable of sustaining any kind of rational discussion. Panda's Thumb is just one more example of a groupthink in which any deviation from the faith-based Darwinian religion will simply not be tolerated. It is EvC all over again, only worse, much worse. At EvC I never had a post deleted or garbled or sent other than where it was posted. You act as though you are doing me a favor by not banning me, while Pim van Meurs goes right on blithely sending my posts to the Bathroom Wall or worse. I am enlightened to see that you think it is just fine to butcher carefully crafted posts or delete them. You are no better than Pim van Meurs.

Well you folks managed to get rid of my only ally by banning DaveScot. That is so revealing and I see you found it necessary to mention it. Well I can assure you I have no intention of abandoning my responsibility to continue exposing intellectual chicanery wherever I find it. The battle in which I engage is the one for how man is to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident as your heroes (Gould, Dawkins, Mayr, Provine) so obviously insist or is he the result of a plan as I and others are convinced? I am confident of the latter and have presented, in refereed publications, evidence, both direct and indirect, in support of that position. If you cannot recognize that I can only conclude that you are blind, ideologically blind and accordingly incapable of recognizing the truth.

Henry J just keeps right on demonstrating that he has not read my papers because if he had he would discover that I have presented not only ideas but experimental verification for them. I have yet to have any specific matter of fact on which my papers are based even mentioned, let alone challenged. Instead exactly as at EvC I am accused of assertions which are never identified and many of which I never even made or were made by others I have cited.

I still wait for a list of all those "beneficial" eukaryotic mutations. I long ago reached the only possible conclusion which is that they do not exist.

Have a nice continuingly intolerant groupthink.

John A. Davison

Bigoted religious extremists in Kansas pass an obviously unconstitutional law:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/06/kansas.gaymarriage.ap/index.html

What a sad day for humans, especially for Christians who aren't paranoid ignorant bigots and for gay people and their families.

Hey JAD, you whine about being sent to the bathroom wall. This is where off topic postings belong. While I understand that you have to oppose Darwinian theory at all cost, I suggest before doing so you may want to familiarize yourself with said theory.
It's pretty clear that anti-Darwinian postings are allowed and even encouraged on PT. The problem is that Nosivad considers repeating the same old assertions without much proof or evidence to be 'discussion'.

As far as a eukaryotic beneficial mutation, would human mutations satisfy?

Good luck my dear friend.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/20050327-MacDonald_creation.ram

I saw this movie of a news show about creationists in Kansas posted in the comments at Pharyngula.

Is Jack Krebs in the video? What about FL???

Bigoted religious extremists in Kansas pass... ... ...for gay people and their families.

Jesus to Mary (John 20:17): "Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God." (a short time later) Jesus to Thomas (John 20:27): "Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side"

I am not a very good Christian like PvM claims to be although it does present a fine ethic by which to live if one can manage it. In searching through the Bible to find something supporting what we know about evolution I have discovered a couple of things worth mentioning as they might influence the fundamentalist element.

I refer to the Gospel according to St. John, 19: 30, "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, IT IS FINISHED: and he bowed his head and gave up the ghost." (my emphasis) King james version.

He obviously was referring to evolution or so I like to think.

The second place where the Bible lends support to my Semi-meiotic hypothesis involves the virgin birth of Christ as well as the immaculate conception of Mary, his mother. Female frogs which have their eggs activated artificially rather than with sperm or with sperm which have been irradiated so they contribute nothing genetically produce, as a result of the first meiotic division, normal frog offspring. Now these frogs are all genetically XX because frogs (Rana species) have a sex determining system like outselves with an XX female and an XY male although there is no obvious heteromorphic male chromosome as there is in mammals. Curiously though, a large fraction of these gynogens are male frogs which when bred with XX female frogs can produce only XX offspring which of course should all be female. But they are not. Some of these are also males. These experiments performed by George Nace demonstrate with clarity that all the necessary infomation for the production of both sexes is contained in the female genome. I have summarized this research in my Manifeto which can be consulted for further details and examples demonstrating the bipotential of the female vertebrate genome to produce both sexes. Furthermore female frogs can be converted to normal males through the application of male hormone (testosterone) during larval development and males to females with estrogen.

Thus the Bible lends support to science as far as the New Testament is concerned.

However the vegetative production of Eve from Adam's rib is without foundation. In fact I find nothing in the Genesis account that can be considered sound biology. Can anyone?

"Methuselah lived 900 years,
(repeat),
But who calls that livin'
When no gal will give in,
To no man who's 900 years?
The things that you're liable,
To read in the Bible,
It ain't necessarily so."

Ira Gershwin, Porgy and Bess

The one about Jonah is great:

"Now Jonah he lived in a whale,
(repeat),
He made his home in,
That fish's abdomen,
The things that you're liable,
To read in the Bible,
It ain't necesaarily so."

Amen

John A. Davison

Roger Appell,
Please go over the following...

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000654.html#c16238
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000883.html#c21475
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000889.html#c21422
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000871.html#c20072
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000871.html#c20122
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000871.html#c20131
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000873.html#c20116
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000873.html#c20133
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000893.html#c21564
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000893.html#c21571
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000893.html#c23334
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000893.html#c23340
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000893.html#c23413
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000878.html#c21486
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000878.html#c21862
http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/000878.html#c21864

...and then I will beg you not to call me a christian again.

My irritation at the situation is because, despite the fundie christian accusation of a secular humanist conspiracy to destroy the country, there really isn't any coordination between groups that the fundies are so opposed to. The secular humanists are not conspiring with the atheists, who are not conspiring with the gays, who are not conspiring with the environmentalists, who are not conspiring with pro-choice supporters, who are not conspiring with the evolutionary biologists, who are not conspiring with the big bang cosmologists, who are not conspiring with the (insert favorite liberal cause here). We have no effective coordination amongst all these groups and probably couldn't even if we wanted it because of such widely disparate goals. But every perceived "attack" against their "divinely inspired" culture by any one group increases the zeal they have available against all the other groups. And fundie christians do have very effective coordination. Like the ID "big tent" suggests they are willing to paper over there differences for the sake of defeating the "secular devils". I cheered the gays for their victory in Texas over the anti-privacy laws. But that seemed to embolden them to the point that they took their victory for more then it was worth. They should have let the boiling pot cool for a little while before the next step. Instead they went too far, too soon and fundie christian's got to see single sex marriages across the country over and over and over and over and over again last year on T.V. Republicans manipulated that "horror" for all they were worth and we saw the results last Nov 2. We continue to see the results with every new ammendment passed. An analogy can be drawn with ID. The discover institute was NOT ready for their little baby to see the light of a courtroom, but Dover, Pa residents jumped the gun and now the whole ID facade is going to get a well deserved smackdown. I mourn the "smackdown" gays are receiving right now all across the country, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant to why its happening.

Sincerely,

Paul

Oh, and thank you for the citings from the bible. It is always nice to additional examples of blatant christian hypocrisy available. Especially from the gospels.
Paul

In don't see how anyone could possibly interpret my latest post as "blatant christian hypocrisy."
Incidentally, Christian should be capitalized or was that just an atheist Freudian slip?

Apparently Paul Flocken couldn't recognize humor if it hit him upside the head. Homozygous liberals are like that.

Make something out of this one Paul.

"Christianity hits the spot,
Twelve Apostles, that's a lot,
Holy Ghost and a mother too,
Christianity's the one for you."

To be sung to the tune - PepsiCola hits the spot.

Panda's Thumb never ceases to amaze me. Now let's hear from that devout Christian Pim van Meurs. He must be thoroughly incensed by my heresy. I was born in 1928, not yesterday.

Yours, but not in Christ,

John A. Davison

For you, brothers, became imitators of God's churches in Judea, which are in Christ Jesus: You suffered from your own countrymen the same things those churches suffered from the Jews, who killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets and also drove us out. They displease God and are hostile to all men in their effort to keep us from speaking to the Gentiles so that they may be saved. In this way they always heap up their sins to the limit. The wrath of God has come upon them at last." (1 Th. 2:14-16)

The Rutgers documents strengthen the case, I would think beyond refute, for argument (b). The Nazis, as part their master plan, would use the church when it suited them, and persecute it when the time came.

Russell,

I get your point, and it's an absolute disgrace that anyone who actually thought of themselves as Christian could support Hitler's regime.

To correct JAD in 23496,

There *is* a Darwinian Theory which at the very least partially explains the geological fact of evolution. It proposes that organisms vary, and so varying, are differentially extinguished in times of hardship. It proposes that some of the varying characters may indeed influence survival in the *changed* environmental conditions, and that succeeding generations will display (on average) more of those characters.

Since this is used (as opposed to discussed) by a large number of professional plant and animal breeders, I feel that JAD is unqualified to discount the fact.

The suggested time scales start at thousands of years and get bigger from there. Within the time since Darwin, breeding experiments have resulted in as much change as might have been expected. Yep, a theory that is confirmed as far as experiment permits at this time. Positively dismal that JAD might not be able to recognise such.

He may protest that there are limits to such and give an example of say daisy flowers, in which any ten or twenty year breeding programme might produce flowers of a maximal size and no greater. Similar similar difficulties have been overcome by more determined breeding programmes, often selecting for some other necessary characteristic first (say woodier stems, shorter stems and stiffer leaf structures in general, and then crossing with the large-flowered varieties) admittedly not in daisies, but I do not see that the principle is not transportable.

Since variations occur, since they are heritable and since they affect the organisms involved and their lineages, JAD is not able to make the statement that the basic concepts of Darwinism are not a theory. JAD may yet protest that *certain* alterations of the genome and resulting body plan are beyond the scope of generation by allelic mutation of the various sorts known. If he is so blatantly unoriginal as to ignore that mutations include such events as insertions, deletions, truncations of otherwise normal genes, duplications of parts or all of otherwise normal genes and major chromosomal recombinations, the latter of which are common enough and do not count as "allelic selection", well, all I will say is that such obfuscation does mot merit his claimed stance as enlightener.

Rustopher.

Rustopher
I have limited my critique of the Darwinian model to the total failure of ALLELIC mutations to have anything to do with evolution. If you knew anything about my papers you would realize that, like Goldschmidt I have discarded the gene as the unit of evolutionatry change in favor of the chromosome and its internally regulated structure. That includes nearly all of the events you mistakenly claim I have ignored. This is just one more example of the brand of Darwinian distortion that is the earmark of Panda's Thumb. The basic gradualist Darwinian notion is a joke without a shred of documentable credibility. All evolutionary changes were instantaneous for the simple reason that they were all genetic changes. There is no such thing as a gradual genetic change. That does not mean they were necessarily point mutations at all. There is not a dimes worth of difference in the DNA of chimps and humans. We could be identical at the DNA level and we would still be chimps and humans. I thought everybody knew that but apparently I was mistaken. Read my paper "The Case for Instant Evolution." Rivista di Biologia96: 203-206, 2003.

There is a whole new kind of genetics, a genetics of position effect which is completely independent of Mendelism.

And yes the basic concepts of Darwinism do not constitute a theory because theories are verified hypotheses. Darwinism does not qualify and never will. It is a figment of the atheist imagination.

John A. Davison

Davison,

Re "Henry J just keeps right on demonstrating that he has not read my papers"

Actually, I did look at the first half of your "manifesto" (but skipping the rants against "Darwinism"). But you knew that since I commented on some of the points. If you really want people to read your papers, then cut down on the ranting and insulting, and start actually discussing stuff.

I didn't get to (or missed) where you explain why you think genetic changes can't continue to accumulate in a repeatedly changing environment.

Or why you think chromosome rearrangement would unilaterally prevent successful mating. (I presume that includes some or all of fusion of chromosomes, splits of 1 into 2, insertions, deletions, inversions, duplications, frame shifts.) Oh, I don't doubt that some rearrangements would prevent (or reduce success rate of) breeding, but all of them, all the time?

It's apparent that the majority of biologists do not share those two assumptions. And if either or both of those two assumptions could be demonstrated, I'd think somebody would have got famous by doing just that. And it strikes me as extremely unlikely that the bulk of biologists could go decades without considering those factors.

None of which changes the fact that you show more interest in ranting and throwing around insults than you do in actually discussing anything, and this most likely discourages people from reading your material or trusting what it says if they do read it.

Also it doesn't help your case that the "Darwinism" you "crusade" against includes claims that aren't part of evolution theory itself. Is evolution really atheistic? Nothing about accepting evolution via genetic change precludes also believing in a higher power. And to assume that a higher power couldn't use natural evolution to produce intelligent life: well, that would assume that the power wasn't "higher" after all, which sort of contradicts itself.

Is there really anything "mystical" about natural selection? In a stable environment to which a species is already adapted, it "stabilizes" the species, as you said. But given a different environment or changed environment, especially a repeatedly (but not too rapidly) changed one, the species will either adapt to that or die out. And environments do change. Not only the climate, but the neighboring species sometimes change, too.

Re "All evolutionary changes were instantaneous for the simple reason that they were all genetic changes. "

Well, of course a particular mutation would have to have occurred in one individual and then spread (or not) from there. But evolution also involves change in the average genetic makeup of the population (i.e., all the mutations, not just one of them), which is not instantaneous. Although an occurrance of founder effect might be considered instantaneous when considered on a geological time scale.

Henry

I get your point, and it's an absolute disgrace that anyone who actually thought of themselves as Christian could support Hitler's regime.

"I will beg you not to call me a christian again"

Ouch—I apologize for my mistake.

At least this gives me a chance to give a link to Landover Baptist Church's "U.S. Department of Faith Proposal to Amend United States Constitution to Conform to Biblical Principles Regarding Marriage."

Henry J. just keeps right on reciting the standard population Darwinian pablum none of which ever had anything to do with either speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. He just doesn't get it. I can't help him. Sorry about that.

John A. Davison

FRITZ STERN, a refugee from Hitler's Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled several of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. ... "When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it."

FRITZ STERN, a refugee from Hitler's Germany and a leading scholar of European history, startled several of his listeners when he warned in a speech about the danger posed in this country by the rise of the Christian right. ... "When I saw the speech my eyes lit up," said John R. MacArthur, whose book "Second Front" examines wartime propaganda. "The comparison between the propagandistic manipulation and uses of Christianity, then and now, is hidden in plain sight. No one will talk about it. No one wants to look at it."

RE: parallels between the christian right, then and now. Here in the USA, anyone raising the topic is immediately denounced by the ultra-righties as hate-mongering. I spent a couple of weeks on a ship recently, the other passengers being mainly European, Canadian and Australian. The parallel between the religious right in 1930's Germany and present day USA was a frequent topic of conversation.

Somebody needs to remind me to stop feeding the troll...

John Davison, I read parts of all the papers that you put up on your website. I can't figure out what you think happened. Do you accept common descent? Assuming you do, what beliefs do you have that are logically inconsistent with what some call "the theory of evolution?" Maybe I didn't read your papers closely enough. But I can't figure out what you think happened.

You talked something about the evolution of chromosomes. And I realize that there are what some call "chromosomal mutations." But which events have caused daughter-cells to have genomes that are different than those of their parents cells?

Do you agree that varying levels of reprodutive success has contributed significantly to the existence of every organism to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial self-replicating molecules? That some organisms have reproduced more times than some other organisms has contributed signficantly to the existence of every organism to live on earth. You agree with that, right?

Some organisms having reproduced more times than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the differences among some organisms.

Somebody needs to remind me to stop feeding the troll . . .

"Paul himself, and many of the early Christians, were themselves Jews."
"The Nazis, as part their master plan, would use the church when it suited them, and persecute it when the time came."

Gee Heddle, you really got me there—I wonder which New Testament author could have motivated all the Christian kindness that Jews have received from Christians over the centuries?

Let's start with the first extant, undisputed record of maltreatment of Jews by Christians, the Synod of Elvira in 306, which prohibited sexual intercourse and contracts between Jews and Christians.

Prohibition of intercourse with Jews??? Now what Christian-based national political movement does that remind you of?

Nazis not Christian based? Yes, they persecuted some Christians, but their stated goal was not to elliminate dissent of their view of the Church, because after all, they were Christians.

Let's roll out anoth wonderful image, Hitler represented as Christ in this Nazi propaganda poster:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/29/Dove.jpg

Now who was this propaganda supposed to appeal to? The Christians that were persecuted by the Nazis? Or the German Christian majority that supported Hitler and Nazism?

Unfortunately, for every lame explanation that you can offer about Biblical anti-Judaism (not anti-Semitism, that came later) or lame evasion of Hitler's Christianity, there's just one more awful fact or shocking image to trot out to shoot down your denial of these facts.

Roger,

Actually, the only thing that is clear is that you will continue to distort in order to feed your own tiresome fantasies. You haven't addressed anything, such as how Paul could pen so-called anti-semitic gospels while at the same time lamenting the fact that he could not trade his own salvation for that his countrymen. Nor have you addressed the Rutger's research. You just ignore it.

Who was the propaganda supposed to appeal to? Why misguided Christians, of course, as both Russell and I have pointed out. I did not ever claim that persecution took place, but only that it was part of the master plan.

The council of Elvira, by the way, was not an ecumenical council. It was a local council in Spain. Not that that matters--but it should not be confused with the great ecumenical councils that would follow.

As for Christian kindness to the Jews, I again ask whether acts of anti-Semitism are greater in what is effectively post-Christian europe, or the US? If Christians are anti-Semitic the answer should be obvious.

Since I fully appreciate the resistance you ideologues have to my insistence on expressing my self through the words of my intellectual predecessors here is another one for you to digest and enjoy as it descibes my contempt for Panda's Thumb to perfection.

"Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jamming common sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest."
Thomas Henry Huxley

John A. Davison

Re "Henry J. just keeps right on reciting the standard population Darwinian pablum"

Well, of course I "recite" (paraphrase, actually) from what I've read about the subject over the last ten years. What else would one be expected to do?

After all, some of the articles from that POV give plausible explanations, and describe some evidence on which their case is based. Those arguments I've read against evolution via genetic change have done neither of those two things.

Henry

Hugh Ross is in the media - expounding his great new idea about how UFOs are really demons spreading inaccurate science. Really. I've written about it here .

I hope no one else besides Henry J thinks that I am against "evolution via genetic change." Where he may have gotten that idea escapes me. Of course all evolution involved genetic change. That in no way demands that those changes had to come from outside the evolving genome. quite the contrary all evidence argues against any role for the introduction of specific information into the genetic constitution during periods of evolutionary change. All real evolution has resulted from endogenous forces which apparently had no relationship to the environment. That is to say that evolution was emergent and self-generated, exactly as is the differentiation of the individual from the fertilized egg. Don't take my word for it.

"However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind...
Pierre Grasse, page 209

Oh freddled gruntbuggly, Thy micturations are to me As plurdled gabbleblotchits On a lurgid bee. Groop, I implore thee, my foonting turlingdromes And hooptiously drangle me with crinkly bindlewurdles, Or I will rend thee in the gobberwarts with my blurglecruncheon See if I don't!

— Prostetnic Vogon Salty

"For there are many unruly men, vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision, whose mouths must be stopped; men who overthrow whole houses, teaching things which they ought not, for filthy lucre's sake." (Titus 1:10-11)

— Paul

Riv Biol. 2004 May-Aug;97(2):269-312. Related Articles, Links Evolution by epigenesis: farewell to Darwinism, neo- and otherwise. Balon EK. Department of Organismal Biology, Ecology and Evolution, Institute of Ichthyology, University of Guelph, Ontario, Canada. ebalon@uoguelph.ca ABSTRACT: In the last 25 years, criticism of most theories advanced by Darwin and the neo-Darwinians has increased considerably, and so did their defense. Darwinism has become an ideology, while the most significant theories of Darwin were proven unsupportable. The critics advanced other theories instead of 'natural selection' and the survival of the fittest'. 'Saltatory ontogeny' and 'epigenesis' are such new theories proposed to explain how variations in ontogeny and novelties in evolution are created. They are reviewed again in the present essay that also tries to explain how Darwinians, artificially kept dominant in academia and in granting agencies, are preventing their acceptance. Epigenesis, the mechanism of ontogenies, creates in every generation alternative variations in a saltatory way that enable the organisms to survive in the changing environments as either altricial or precocial forms. The constant production of two such forms and their survival in different environments makes it possible, over a sequence of generations, to introduce changes and establish novelties--the true phenomena of evolution. The saltatory units of evolution remain far-from-stable structures capable of self-organization and self-maintenance (autopoiesis).

Charlie Wagner

I am aware of professor Balon and we have exchanged correspondence in the past. I agree largely with what he says. My major disagreement has to to do with my conviction that evolution is no longer occurring. The most fatal feature of the Darwinian scheme was the assumption of uniformitarianism, a concept traced to Charles Lyell and blindly accepted by both Darwin and Wallace. Like the development of the individual, which also is self regulated and self terminating, so has been evolution.

I also do not accept gradualism as a factor in macroevolution. All evolutionary steps were instantaneous, without intermediates and discrete. The fossil record will permit no other interpretation.

Thanks for the reference.

John A. Davison

Dr. Wagner, I really liked your takedown of Carl Zimmer's pseudoscience on The Loom.

Could you please tell me what your Second Denial is? In case anyone doesn't know, the really good ID Theorists deny evolution, and also some other feature of so-called "basic, fundamental science". Johnson denies evolution and HIV. The guy at fixedearth.com denies evolution and heliocentrism. Now Jay Richards denies evolution and relativity. What's your Second Denial, Dr. Wagner?

btw, I don't know what mine's going to be yet. Lots of options. I could deny that flouride prevents tooth decay. Or that red blood cells transport oxygen. Or that insulin goes wrong in Type II Diabetes. So hard to just pick one thing.

Hiya, Timmy!

I'm beginning to see the light, too, now that the Darwinian Atheist scales have mercifully dropped from my eyes.

Let's just go for broke once and for all and deny... (drum roll, please.)

the microbial theory of disease!

It's just a "theory" after all.

Those so-called doctors think they're SO clever. Just wait till we vote the funding right out from under those smarty-pants! Then we'll see equal time devoted in medical school to legitimate unbiased (nonnaturalistic) medicine. That's right, PRAYER-based medicine! And what's best is that those pesky poor folk won't have to worry the County Hospitals about picking up their bill, courtesy of the God-fearing taxpayer. Know why?

Because prayer-based medicine is absolutely free! Hooray!

That's right. You can do it in the comfort of your own home, or rent-controlled hovel, as the case may be.

Re "I hope no one else besides Henry J thinks that I am against "evolution via genetic change.""

I thought "front loading" meant you expected the important parts of the dna were supposed to already be there, and just had to be turned on at the appropriate time? That sounds to me like it's contrary to the idea of changes occurring because the dna accumulated changes over time.

Henry

I see that Balon argues in much the same way as JAD does, copiously invoking authorities and using quotes. To be fair, Balon uses more recent authors, but it's not all that different. Gould always had problems with the un-Marxist nature of Darwinism, and there are always cranks hoping to make names for themselves as well. Those are not his major faults in using authorities, however, for what does matter is that although citations are crucial in scientific writing (including essays), it is properly done in order to refer to data and (hopefully) scientific interpretations of those data, and not in order to simply reference opinions.

What I also see in Balon is a false dichotomy, either "saltations" or "gradualism". From the literature one finds that both are acceptable (as long as the saltations aren't too intense). In fact I mentioned chromosomal rearrangement on the Y-chromosome as being an example of what may have split us from the apes on this ARN thread:

http://www.arn.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php/ubb/get_topic/f/13/t/002038/p/1.html

Another very significant chromosomal mutation occurred when two chromosomes fused in the human line, so that we have 46, vs. the apes' 48.

However, while chromosomal rearrangements may very well cause speciation in at least certain cases, adaptation is another issue entirely. It is likely that chromosomal mutations do cause speciation events not only in plants but also in vertebrates, such mutations only impede or prevent successful interbreeding, and do not supply the information needed for coping with the organism's environment. A chromosomal reversal might cause speciation (without necessarily preventing cross-fertility), and then adaptation in another direction is the likely scenario for the divergent population.

Balon seems to pointedly avoid dealing with the genetic evidence, preferring to merely bring up epigenetic factors that show the well-known fact that genes aren't everything. That they're very significant is more than obvious from the evidence of genetic diseases, agricultural breeding, various gene knock-out experiments, and lab work with organisms such as Drosophila. There doesn't seem to be any point in elaborating on these subjects.

What I also see in Balon is a false dichotomy, either "saltations" or "gradualism". From the literature one finds that both are acceptable (as long as the saltations aren't too intense).

— Glen Davidson

I would like to see a single documented example of a gradual transformation leading to speciation. It sure hasn't wprked with any domestic animals that I know of. For an extreme failure look at dogs or goldfish. Just asking.

John A. Davison

Domestic breeders weren't afaik trying to cause speciation. They were only trying to develop features they considered desirable. And 6000 years is a fairly short time period geologically speaking.

All evolutionary changes required no more than seconds to take place, just like any other heritable change in the genome. Get with the program Henry J or don't. That choice is yours.

John A. Davison

Dr. Davison:

Assuming that your theory is correct, why is it that you believe the process has now stopped.

:)

Socrateaser
I believe it has stopped because obligatory sexual reproduction is incompetent as an evolutionary device. It can only produce varieties or subspecies. The other reason is because we are witnessing species extinction at the rate of some 20,000 per annum without a single replacement being verified. Evolution, when it did occur and it most certainly did, implemented devices no longer in operation. I have postulated one of these in the form of the Semi-meiotic hypothesis which is yet to be tested. Until it is it remains valid and even if it should fail it could be simply that evolution, just as ontogeny always does, brought itself to a standstill when the ultimate pupose had been reached, namely the production of rational man. Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny and will until it is proved to be otherwise.

I hope this answers your question.

John A. Davison

Yes, thanks.

So, in layperson's language can you tell me what is the minimum amount of evidence that you would accept as necessary to falsify your theory?

:)

Anyone want to comment on the dinosaur bone which was found in Montana that still had soft tissue? Do you think it's the real deal?

we are witnessing species extinction at the rate of some 20,000 per annum without a single replacement being verified

Re "All evolutionary changes required no more than seconds to take place, just like any other heritable change in the genome. Get with the program Henry J or don't. That choice is yours."

Individual mutations might be regarded as occurring that fast. Are you claiming that multiple mutations might occur all at once without anything to weed out the bad ones?

Re "I believe it has stopped because obligatory sexual reproduction is incompetent as an evolutionary device."

Even if that "because" were true, there are lots of species that don't use sex. Should I take it you think those are still evolving? But also, isn't part of your hypothesis that a sexual species may switch gears so to speak, and start using that semi-meiotic process? If you think that's happened before, why think it won't happen again?

Re "implemented devices no longer in operation."

What's the justification for believing that? Why think that biology today is somehow different at some basic level than biology tens of millions of years ago?

Re "I have postulated one of these in the form of the Semi-meiotic hypothesis which is yet to be tested."

How often do you think the Semi-meiotic thing happened? Once per genus? Family? Or once per chromosome rearrangement? Could it happen without a chromosome rearrangement? Would all chromosome rearrangements require a Semi-meiotic phase, or just some types of them?

Re "the ultimate pupose had been reached, namely the production of rational man."

Then why are we outnumbered by beetles?

Re "Ontogeny remains the best model for phylogeny and will until it is proved to be otherwise."

The DNA that influences growth of individuals has been observed to exist. No such data repository has been observed for development of new taxa, right? Plus it would require some presently unknown means of conserving that data against accumulating mutations. How can you claim this as a model (let alone a "best" one) without any knowledge of how that was done? Also, how can you reconcile front loading with the fact that a nested hierarchy classification system works as well as it does?

Henry

is because we are witnessing species extinction at the rate of some 20,000 per annum

without a single replacement being verified.

How often do you think the Semi-meiotic thing happened? Once per genus? Family? Or once per chromosome rearrangement? Could it happen without a chromosome rearrangement? Would all chromosome rearrangements require a Semi-meiotic phase, or just some types of them?

— Henry

You'll have to do better than that.

Charlie Wagner is right on with respect to the cessation of evolution. A new genus has not appeared in 2 million years and a new species not in recorded historical times. Evolution like differentiation from the egg has been a steadily declining phenomenon both in extent and frequency. Like ontogeny, phylogeny has involved the progressive loss of potency until today for all practical purposes it is finished just like ontogeny is when the adult form has been realized.

I do not agree that living things are able to create new forms in response to environmental conditions. Everything they have produced was front-loaded just as a computer must be. To claim otherwise is without foundation. The whole thrust of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is based on the comparable reality that a computer can never produce anything more than what was it initially was programmed for. Creative computers are a pipe dream.

I am sure this will produce a rabid hissy fit of some sort so I will stop right now and wait for the inevitable insults and denigrations. That is about all this group is capable of. Once the spleens have been properly vented, I will resume my exposure of the biggest hoax in the histroy of science.

John A. davison

Your concerns might be valid on the species level as a result of diversification of existing forms. But if you go up the ladder and look carefully at the phylum level, it becomes clear that (at least with respect to animals) there were more phyla in the Cambrian than there are today. If evolution were occurring, one would expect to see some new phyla from time to time. All of the major phyla appear in less than 10 million years and no new phyla have appeared in the last 500 million years." Insofar as animals are concerned, no new body plans have appeared since the Cambrian."

Charlie Wagner is right on with respect to the cessation of evolution. A new genus has not appeared in 2 million years and a new species not in recorded historical times. John A. davison

It's not a ladder you dolt, evolution's best concrete representation is a tree. Tree trunk breaks into limbs, breaks into branches, breaks into twigs, breaks into twiglets, breaks into leaves. If evolution was really represented by a ladder you would only expect to find ONE phylum anyway, not the handful we do still have on this planet.

— Paul

Charlie,
Re #23959,
The paragraph you pasted there didn't address the questions of mine that you pasted above it.

Re "no new phyla have appeared in the last 500 million years."
Wondering what exactly that means - just that for all the phyla that we've identified, we've also identified possible predecessors older than 500 million years ago? Does it mean anything more than that?

---

Davison,
Re "I am sure this will produce a rabid hissy fit of some sort"
Nope, just strong disagreement. Well, that's all from me, anyway.

Re "a computer can never produce anything more than what was it initially was programmed for."
That isn't true. Computers can be made to learn from their surroundings, and from their mistakes.

Henry

A "dolt" is a stupid person, a person who is not very bright. The evidence shows that not to be true: http://www.charliewagner.net/mensacard.jpg . . .

damn shame, too, half the people in that organization are smart, funny, interesting people. the other half have multiple screws loose. Guess which subset is more likely to show up at the meetings.

The large differences should appear much later, after a very long history of small variations.

But, instead of starting out with one, or a few species that diverged gradually over millions of years into families, orders classes and finally phyla,

the fossil record shows exactly the oppposite: the large number of phyla appear at the very beginning, fully characteristic of their groups when they first appear, and with no apparent precursors from whence they arose.

I take issue with the depiction of the history of life as a tree,

Does Paul Flocken have any credentials as a student of evolution? Has he ever published anything in a refereed journal about the great mystery of organic evolution or are his only contributions limited to denigration of others who were so stupid as to disagree with him on silly little forums like Panda's Thumb? Just asking. If he won't produce his credentials perhaps someone else will do it for him. Speaking of credentials, where are Henry J's or is he just another blowhard as well?

John A. Davison

The paragraph you pasted there didn't address the questions of mine that you pasted above it.

— Henry J

for all the phyla that we've identified, we've also identified possible predecessors older than 500 million years ago?

Charlie,

I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. I sincerely hope that the prognosis is positive and your recovery quick and uneventful.

Bob

And while in preview mode I had the chance to learn from Henry J that you couldn't even be bothered to WRITE the comment you posted. Tell me, how intelligent is it to get caught in plagiarism?

— Paul Flocken

plagiarism n 1: a piece of writing that has been copied from someone else and is presented as being your own work 2: the act of plagiarizing; taking someone's words or ideas as if they were your own.

I'm sorry to hear about your health problems. I sincerely hope that the prognosis is positive and your recovery quick and uneventful.

If evolution were occurring, one would expect to see some new phyla from time to time.

Think hard, Charlie. Why do you "expect" new phyla to arise if there is no need? If there is a need, what is it?

Speaking of going back to school, it is our schools that are the primary culprits in perpetuating the Darwinian hoax. Generation after generation of brainwashed boobs just keep right on pontificating in blind abandon, repeating the same old Darwimpian pablum that their teachers forced them to recite in glorious unison, while accompanied by metronomic head nodding in a kind of Darwimpian Gregorian chant. There has been one-hundred and forty-six years of this intellectual stasis, maintained with a religious fervor unrivalled even by all the pomp and ceremony of the Roman Church, oblivious to the devastaing testimonies of some of the greatest minds of all times who were all treated with the contempt that only religious fanatics can muster. Panda's Thumb is crawling with these unregenerate mental troglodytes, these Phillistines, still spouting mysticism, still unconcious and still perfectly insulated by virtue of what can only be a congenital defect which renders them not only blind but also deaf to what Einstein called the music of the spheres.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Charlie,

Re "If you're inferring that there was something dishonest or inappropriate about "pasting" you're wrong."

I was referring to the fact that your answer didn't address the questions of mine that you quoted. Ergo, why quote questions that you weren't responding to?

As for "new" phyla, Paul covered that: a phylum is a large group of related species sharing some characteristics that make it distinct from all the other phyla. A half billion years ago the predecessors of today's phyla weren't any more different from each other than orders or maybe classes are today; it took them hundreds of millions of years to accumulate the differences that cause us to call them different phyla.

John,

Re "Speaking of credentials, where are Henry J's or is he just another blowhard as well?"

You claim to be trying to illuminate people, expose the hoax or whatever, but how can you do that if you keep ducking questions about how your hypothesis is supposed to work?

Paul,

Re "and genuses(geni?)"
Genera.

Henry

Why doesn't Henry J get together with RB(Avida)H and illuminate us all about creative computers? I don't believe that for a millisecond. Nobody in his right mind does either. Computers can only collate and integrate what is put into them by the programmer. My programmer was the Great Front Loader in the sky who is apparently no longer with us and doesn't need to be either.

It is not how my hypothesis is supposed to work that is the problem. It is how it worked (past tense). You see evolution is over and until you recognize that you are living in a fantasy world right along with every other Darwinian mystic who insists otherwise. I have already explained how I think it worked which you and others would recognize if you had read and comprehended my papers and those of my sources.

If the Darwimpians were interested in proving me wrong they would be rushing into the laboratory in droves testing my stupid hypothesis and reporting its inadequacy right and left in the scientific journals of the world. Why aren't they? I'll tell you why. They are so insecure they are afraid to even dream of such a thing. That is why. It could be their downfall and they know it. Ideologues are like that. It turns out that isn't necessary anyway as we already know enough to reject Darwinian foolishness on entirely other grounds.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Hi Charlie,

Yeah, sometimes I'm a two-finger typist - one on each hand. My fingers remember just enough of the high school typing class to generate some seriously undecipherable gibberish if I don't stop and proof on a regular basis. They head in the right direction but don't necessarily end up on the right keys. I can appreciate the frustration of having only one hand to work with.

Again, best wishes,
Bob

Re "Why doesn't Henry J get together with RB(Avida)H and illuminate us all about creative computers?"

The Avida thread has already done that. Try to pay attention.

Henry

Henry J

I payed all kinds of attention to the Avida thread. All that happened was that I got a sore thigh from slapping it so much. The Avida thread is no longer extant anyway and for good reasosn. It was pure science fiction just like every other derivative of the Darwinian fairy tale.

Thanks for demonstrating your eternal dedication to the biggest hoax in the history of science. That explains a lot.

John A. Davison

I take issue with the depiction of the history of life as a tree,

Ernst Mayr states in his book "Populations, Species and Evolution" (pg 361) "A new taxon does not arise as an order, class or phylum. It arises as a new species and eventually becomes a new genus that we assign to a new order only because its subsequent descendants show the degree of distinctness and of discontinuity (after much extinction) that by convention is considered to signify ordinal rank." This means that the species is the starting point for evolution in the neo-darwinian view. Now, if we look at the fossil record to verify this, we find the very opposite to be true. When new forms appear, they are fully characteristic of their phylum and class. Only after some period of time do they give rise to new families, orders and genera. The species is the end-point of this diversification, not the beginning. There appears to be something very wrong here. Your "tree of life" has its leaves planted in the ground and its roots high up in the sky. In my view, the "archetype" came first, fully characteristic of its design. It then proceeded to "diversify" into many varieties of this quintessential form. And this view is fully compatible with what we see in the fossil record .......................................................From the website of Charlie Wagner.

Roger Appell,
It's ok about the mistake. After you wrote, I went back and re-read my post and realized it was very unclear. I'm not the least bit surprised at the frenzies fundies can whip up, and I don't think the gay civil rights effort brought this on themselves in the least way. That's why I used the "put their foot into it" image. The leaders and litigators of the movement have been exceedingly smart cookies for several decades, slowly, patiently, chipping away at mainstream acceptance, and winning carefully chosen court cases. I think their enthusiasm simply got the better of them and, thusly blinded, they stepped into something they could have negotiated around instead.

Henry J,
Genera. Thankyou for the FYI.

Paul

After reviewing your website a little more thoroughly...

— Paul Flocken

The Linnaean system is as sound as a dollar and always has been. It was based on the realization shared by Cuvier, Owen, Agassiz and many others that contemporary species are immutable, discrete and completely lacking in tranistional forms. The genus is particularly convincing in the Linnaean system. The vast majority of those creatures discovered after Linnaeus fit unambiguously into the genera he had already established. It was only in the fossil record that it became necessary to establish many new genera which was in itself a demonstration that gradualism never had any role in evolutionary change. Evolution WAS always the production of novel forms from preexisting forms which differed drastically from their evolutionary descendents. Every form in the so-called "horse series" had to be placed in a distinct genus. Evolution was entirely saltational and never incremental. We can't even be certain about which were ancestral to which. Again these are not only my ideas but those of Leo Berg, Otto Schindewolf and Richard B. Goldshmidt, among others too numerous to mention but all carefully ignored by the evolutionary establishment.

Nobody ever misunderstood Ernst Mayr. He made it indelibly clear in his own words that he was a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian.
Ernst Mayr, "The Growth of Biological Thought" page 132.

He also rejected Linnaean taxonomy when he finally realized it could never be accomodated in his warped mystical concept of evolution. He was also a vicious nasty unforgiving old fool who dominated his generation through a form of intellectual fascism unequalled in modern times. He hated anyone who dared question his "Olympian assurances" to borrow a phrase from Pierre Grasse. He abandoned science in his thirties to retire to an endowed chair at Harvard to spend the rest of his life dictating and pontificating from that altar of atheism that still characterizes the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. It is rivalled only by its sister institution, Oxford, across the pond, the home of Richard Dawkins, another mindless arrogant egomaniacal atheist who also retired from science in order to fill the literary world with nothing but science fiction. Stephen Jay Gould rounded out the triumvirate. Only Dawkins remains to reap the full benefit of what happens to homozygous damn fools. I can hardly wait. If he were Japanese he would have killed himself long ago.

The binomial nomenclature and taxonomic system devised by Linnaeus is one of the soundest principles in all of biology and paleontology. Without it nothing makes sense and with it everything does. A Darwinian world would be a fuzzy mishmosh completely at odds with reality. That anyone could still entertain, as so many of the denizens of Panda's Thumb still do, that there is even a scintilla of truth in the Darwimpian fairy tale is a scandal and living proof that they suffer from a predetermined, prescribed if you will, genetic malaise from which some of us have been fortunate to be unafflicted.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

In don't see how anyone could possibly interpret my latest post as "blatant christian hypocrisy." Incidentally, Christian should be capitalized or was that just an atheist Freudian slip?

I am not a very good Christian...

Does Paul Flocken have any credentials as a student of evolution? Has he ever published anything in a refereed journal about the great mystery of organic evolution

or are his only contributions limited to denigration of others who were so stupid as to disagree with him

To punish me for my contempt for authority Fate made me an authority myself. Albert Einstein

The Linnaean system is as sound as a dollar and always has been.

Thanks Paul for being so frank. I now understand why you remain a Darwinian mystic. You have no education, no interest in it and a sad personal experience with it.

You are just your typical garden variety unfulfilled intellectual zero who, unable to make it in the intellectual world, has decided to turn against every one who has. You are nothing but one more arrogant blowhard like Wayne Francis, Henry J and Pim van Meurs. Speaking collectively as you all do, you are nothing but one more trivial member of the groupthink so well represented at Panda's Thumb, a fraternity of ignorant naysayers and nasty minded uncivilized morons. Get some help.

How do you like them apples?

As I used to say over at EvC, Who is next?

John A. Davison

About the email to me from a Mr. Springer:

First, arguing about this via email seems like it would be a waste of time.

Second, the remarks he was answering were made by a different poster rather than me; I didn't say it's a tree rather than a ladder.

Third, I seriously doubt that the person for whom he meant the email was saying that there aren't creatures functionally similar to those that were at the "base" of the tree. (Though presumably the living descendants would have accumulated genetic differences in the interim.)

Henry

Salty,
Didn't you say you were leaving? What's keeping you?

Life's top 10 greatest inventions - NewScientist

nothing really surprising but interesting none the less.

That reference "Life's top 10 greatest inventions" is typical Darwinian nonsense. Eyes both compound and verebrate did not "evolve" from light-sensitive pits over millions of years at all. They were produced on demand at the proper time right on schedule, utilizing stored information that had been there from long before.

Where are those intermediates between the light-sensitive pits and the true eye? I'll tell you where. Nowhere.

Until the gradualist Darwinian model is recognized as the fiction that it so obviously is, there is no hope for progress in the understanding of evolutionary change. Every step of that progress was a profound interruption of continuity, a saltation, the very antithesis of the Darwinian model. It was made possible because the necessary information was already present, latent, ready and waiting.

At the very end of Leo Berg's Nomogenesis he compares 10 differences between Darwin's view and his own of evolution and how it occurred. Here are some of those comparisons, Darwin first, alternating with Berg.

D - Based on chance variations.

B - Based upon laws.

D - By means of slow, scarcely perceptible, continuous variations.

B - By leaps, paroxysms, mutations.

D - Species arising through divergence are connected by transitions.

B - Species arising through mutations are sharply distinguished from one another.

D - Evolution implies the formation of new characters.

B - Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.

I happen to agree with every one of Berg's statements and I present them as an antidote to the Darwinian fairy tale.

Leo Berg, acknowledged as the greatest Russian zoologist of his generation, was, in my opinion, also the greatest evolutionist of all time. He was a prophet and a visionary who foresaw exactly what molecular biology would one day prove beyond any doubt. He was able to do that by being, as a Russian, insulated from the mindlessly blind, atheistically inspired, so called age of enlightenment that had enveloped the west during the 19th century.

Incidentally Bob Maurus, I'll leave either when you ban me or when I feel I have satisfactorily given you the lesson of your life on the failure of Darwimpianism, the biggest hoax in the history of mankind.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Re "Life's top 10 greatest inventions - NewScientist nothing really surprising but interesting none the less."

Great article.

Re "[multicellularity] evolved at least 16 different times."
That many? I wasn't sure if animals and fungi separately evolved their multicellularity or not.

Re "Dan-Eric Nilsson [...] has calculated that it would take only half a million years for a patch of light-sensitive cells to evolve into a compound eye."
I've heard that. Makes sense, as there's lots of ways in which minor changes could be applied to a light sensitive patch to get improvement of vision.

Re "Biologists believe that eyes could have evolved independently on many occasions, though genetic evidence suggests one ancestor for all eyes."
Really? The retina structure at least would seem to have evolved separately between chordates and mollusks. (Though that wouldn't rule out the retina cells themselves having a common origin, which I suppose it what is meant here?)

Re "Take the Portuguese man-of-war. [...] what seemed like one tentacled individual is in fact a colony of single-celled organisms."
Does this mean that the cells each do their own reproduction, instead of having a centralized system for that? Interesting.

Henry

Why doesn't Henry J produce all those ways that a light sensitive patch might "evolve" little by little over the course of milliions of years into the vertebrate or arthrpod eyes, eyes that are completely different and accordingly must hevae reached their present state by entirely different increments. Don't be shy Henry J. Surely, if it makes so much sense as you claim you should have no difficulty telling us where the components came from, like the lens and the suspensory ligament and the rods and the cones and connections to the central nervous system. Let's hear it from Henry J.

Or is this just more Darwimpian bravado?

John A. Davison

John:

Take it up with Dan-Eric Nilsson of Lund University in Sweden - he's the researcher. Study his results, then you explain to us what's wrong with it. Until you do that, you're the one with nothing but "bravado".

Henry

John A. davison, I wonder why you think he should. After all, you have refused to show any kind of verifiable fact for any of your alegations, under the pretense that "you prefer attack to defence". Of course, the conclusion everyone reached at that point is that you have *no* back-up to any of those so-called (by you) facts that lead you to believe that evolution is not happening right now (?) and that somehow your Internet essay remains correct despite the very serious accusations against it (that, again, you have refused to acknowledge, much less answer, because "you prefer attack to defence").

When I was at school, if I had presented the answer to any science exam question without showing my work, I would have been given (logically and justifiedly) a cero. If I had then went to say that the teacher could read a paper that had a huge, gaping, horribly big fallacy right at the start, I would've probably been sent back a year. And yet you seem to present the "I prefer attack to defence" as if it was a stroke of genius. Basically, your only defence is argument from authority ("I am a scientist (?), thus I am right, and everyone else must be wrong"). Such a pathetic attempt to self-justification becomes particularly blatant when you try to discredit Paul's words just because he admitted not having finished higher university. That places you in the same sack as people who doubted Mendel's genetic theories or Einstein's Relativity (a sack, I suspect, you belong to in more than one way) - not that Paul has shown amazing knowledge so far. He doesn't need to, given who he is facing (Paul, admit it, you'd have more difficulty shooting fishes in a barrel :) ).

At any rate, I am not posting to speak to you - it has been proven useless again and again. Just posting to let any newcomer know that davison here is all bluff and no content. Ignore him - his signal/noise ratio is cero. You'd find more information in a piece of vacuum. And other such examples of completely empty arguments you can think of. My reasons are exmplained above: he won't defend his statements, he won't acknowledge the fact that his frequently refered to manifesto is utter crap - nor is he willing to defend it, either, and in general his participation in this forum is because the only way he feels superior to everyone else is when he gets banned from forums. Ignore him.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

It helps a lot Grey Wolf by demonstrating that you are without a clue as to the contributions of some of the greatest evolutionary minds of two centuries. By adhering to the materialist Darwinian hoax you prove beyond any doubt that you are just one more garden variety atheist liberal Darwimp oblivious to the reality that Intelligent Design surrounds you everywhere you look. What is really amusing is the manner in which you blame me for the truths that have been revealed by others long before me, on whose base I have built my own hypotheses. When you so unceremoniously attack me you are really attacking William Bateson, Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Reginald C. Punnett, Henry Fairfield Osborn and Otto Schindewolf. The sad part is that you don't even realize it. I have been little more than their most recent spokesperson. I am willing to bet that you have read none of their books and papers. If you had you would have long ago abandoned the Darwinian pipe dream you so obviously embrace.

You are nothing but another loud-mouthed, uneducated pontificator gratifying his ego by lashing out blindly at those he is incapable of understanding because he is totally unaware of their works.

Since when do statements require defending? Truths require no defense and every statement I have ever made has a sound foundation in either the testimony of the experimental laboratory or the fossil record and you know it. I have presented only undeniable truths most of which were not discovered by me. I challenge you or anyone else to find a matter of fact that I have in any way misrepresented in my papers. Good luck because you are going to need it.

Since you obviously need something to attack, attack Darwinism. It is the most assinine, infantile, groundless pile of intellectual compost ever put together in historical memory. It is the most failed hypothesis of all time. And here you and just about everyone else here defending it. I know why.

The real reason you attack me and my sources, since we are one and the same, is because you don't like what we have to say. That is the only reason. That has always been the reason ideas have been rejected. They don't appeal to your sensitive soul. Well that is just tough buster.

I find it very revealing that you find it necessary to tell everyone else to ignore me after you have just done the opposite. What a hypocrite. Practice what you preach and please do ignore me as I intend to ignore you and all others like you here at Panda's thumb or at EvC or at "brainstorms" or at ARN or any of the other venues that are nothing but sounding boards for infulfilled mindless ideologues like yourself not one of whom ever had an original idea in his entire life. You bore me.

While I intend to ignore your attacks, I will continue trying to shake you and all those others just like you out of your Darwimpian coma every time I see you making some damn fool statement that is totally without substance; like, for example, trying to convince me that the eye evolved gradually over several million years. You must think I was born yesterday. Wake up.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw

Man. MSNBC talks to both "Ken" Hovind and Ken Ham, because their reporters are stupid Assfaces.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7296549/

http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/

Grist for the mill.

I have presented only undeniable truths most of which were not discovered by me. I challenge you or anyone else to find a matter of fact that I have in any way misrepresented in my papers.

Perhaps the most compelling feature for the Darwinists resides in their persistent conviction that all of evolution is the result of blind chance.

Grey Wolf is right. I know virtually nothing about computers. I have relied largely on DaveScot for my understanding of what computers can and cannot do. Unfortunately he has been banned apparently forever so I can't expect much help from that quarter.

I am competent to comment on the Avida model so endorsed by RBH and others however. It makes the original assumption that Natural Selection was a factor in directing evolutionary change by either rejecting or accepting allelic mutations.

That is wrong for two reasons.

First there is no evidence that allelic substitition has ever played a role in evolution beyond the production of varieties by man who deliberately retained these mutations through artificial selection as is so well demonstrated by animal and plant husbandry as practiced over centuries. These processes have never led to speciation and when carried to extreme have led to extinction. One example that comes to mind is the Spanish pointer (as I remember) which would hold a point in the field for 8 hours. It is now extinct for fairly obvious reasons.

The second reason is because Natural Selection was a conservative force, not a creative one, in the past as it so obviously is still today. That is why every member of every species is so faithfully similar to every other member of that species. It is especially evident with birds which sport so many identfying characters. It is hilarious that Ernst Mayr, an ornithologist no less, should be the one to propose that populations are the units of evolutionary change. That is pure mythology. The individual has always been the instrument of all genetic change. It is in single cells of the individual's germinal line that all heritable genetic alterations have originated. Populations never had anything to do with speciation beyond the formation of subspecies in those few forms where even that can be demonstrated. For most organisms subspecies don't even exist.

Every single facet of the Darwinian model is dead wrong. Until that is recognized our understanding of evolution is hamstrung by a blind refusal to recognize what has become obvious to some of us, a group in which I am but a recent and very proud member. Evolution is finished and, when it was going on, it was employing mechanisms which are no longer in operation. I am confident those mechanisms will soon be identified and verified in the experimental laboratory which is where all real science must be done. That process has already begun.

John A. Davison

Could anyone explain (in laymans terms please) why there should be a tree of life where every single living organism is related at the base?
Rather than a "forest" of life where groups of organisms are related at several different bases?
Surely if life evolved from inorganic matter once, it could do so several times.

If I have understood what I have read so far, then the 1st life on Earth can be traced back to around 3.5 Billion years ago when the Earth was 1/2 a Billion years old. Does anyone know of a reason why it should never have happened again?

Steve (Stephen Elliott)

I'm sure much more informed people than myself will comment here, but let me suggest one reason why it's possible life might not have begun from inanimate matter in the last 2 billion years: since then, we've had an oxidizing atmosphere. Miller-Urey-type experiments (which aren't currently in favor) work very differently if you have a reducing atmosphere instead of an oxidizing one. Life might have started with surfur-reducing chemoautotrophs, however, in which case an oxidizing atmosphere isn't a concern.

You might not have meant, why did it not happen multiple times, though, you might have meant, why do we think it happened only once? Well, genetic sequencing shows such astounding similarity between even the most distant of organisms, such as man and bacteria, that common descent is held by the vast majority of scientists. But it's not impossible that it happened more than once, early on.

A leading expert in artificial intelligence and neural networks argues that cognition in humans and many animals occurs in a very different, non-algorithmic and less complex way than has been widely assumed until now.

Luckily enough real research shows that speciation is quite a common occurence and that the forces of natural selection AND variation are quite capable in explaining the observed data. That Nosivad appears to be unfamiliar with the many examples of speciation and the effects may be understood by his focus on early/middle 19th century resources.

Could anyone explain (in laymans terms please) why there should be a tree of life where every single living organism is related at the base? Rather than a "forest" of life where groups of organisms are related at several different bases? Surely if life evolved from inorganic matter once, it could do so several times.

Ummmm... I met davison's challenge, he didn't meet mine. Do I win anything? If I can choose, I'd want admission of *this* fact from davison, but then I might cause the end of the world so, on second thought, maybe not.

Grey Wolf

If I have understood what I have read so far, then the 1st life on Earth can be traced back to around 3.5 Billion years ago when the Earth was 1/2 a Billion years old. Does anyone know of a reason why it should never have happened again?

Posted by steve on April 12, 2005 04:48 PM (e) (s)

I'm sure much more informed people than myself will comment here, but let me suggest one reason why it's possible life might not have begun from inanimate matter in the last 2 billion years: since then, we've had an oxidizing atmosphere. Miller-Urey-type experiments (which aren't currently in favor) work very differently if you have a reducing atmosphere instead of an oxidizing one. Life might have started with surfur-reducing chemoautotrophs, however, in which case an oxidizing atmosphere isn't a concern.

You might not have meant, why did it not happen multiple times, though, you might have meant, why do we think it happened only once? Well, genetic sequencing shows such astounding similarity between even the most distant of organisms, such as man and bacteria, that common descent is held by the vast majority of scientists. But it's not impossible that it happened more than once, early on.

Thanks for that.
I have only recently become interested in evolution. Believe it or not it was an ID book that piqued my curiosity.
Trying to read "Biology" by Campbell and Reece at the minute. Bought it after a recommendation on this forum. Pretty hard going considering I have work getting in the way.

I was under the impression though that the atmosphere became Oxidised about 1/2 Billion years ago rather than 2 Billion.

Anyway, thanks for the reply.

Stephen Elliott

Origin of life stuff is interesting, but its not well understood yet. Evolution is very interesting and well understood. Here are some good books about it:

http://evolutionblog.blogspot.com/2005/04/evolution-books.html

http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/a_book_list_for_evolutionists/

There is a grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.

— Charles Darwin, The Origin of the Species, pp. 459-60, Penguin 1985

It was Darwin's wife Emma that made him put in that business about the Creator breathing life into one or a few forms. That was missing in the first edition. I think she was worried about his soul. It is also significant that Darwin never accepted the cell theory of Schleiden and Schwann. He actually stated in his last book that he didn't know where cells came from because "I am not an histologist."

Leo Berg postulated:
"Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, e. g, polyphyletically."
Nomogenesis page 406.

Who is to say he was wrong? Not I.

Everything about the origin or origins of life is shrouded in mystery. The fact that evolution followed those origins is undeniable. What is certain for me, and many others at least, is that chance had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. It was all just as prescribed and preprogrammed as the development of a human being from a single cell, the fertilized egg.

So much for Darwinism.

John A. Davison

I suggest it might be wise to wait until after the hearings before judging their legitimacy. I don't recall Gregor Mendel participating in mainstream conferences. He even published in his own journal, The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn. The conferences that led to the "Modern Synthesis" are conspicuous with those that were not invited to participate, Goldschmidt, Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Punnett,Grasse, all in the height of their powers and not one a Darwinian. If the Darwinians do not choose to defend themsemlves at the Kansas hearings we can only wonder why. I would have been delighted to attend and have suggested as much to the Kansas Board of Education.

John A. Davison

I don't recall Gregor Mendel participating in mainstream conferences. He even published in his own journal, The Proceedings of the Natural History Society of Brunn.

— John A. Davison

"The conferences that led to the "Modern Synthesis" are conspicuous with those that were not invited to participate, Goldschmidt, Berg, Broom, Schindewolf, Punnett,Grasse, all in the height of their powers and not one a Darwinian.

"If the Darwinians do not choose to defend themsemlves at the Kansas hearings we can only wonder why."

"I would have been delighted to attend and have suggested as much to the Kansas Board of Education."

John A. Davison,
If you are saying evolution is predetermined, can I take it that this includes extinctions? Or did no life form become extinct due to disasters but rather evolved to the next stage?

Continuing along those lines where does free-will come into it?

Surely you are not claiming that life forms are the equivalent to pixels in God's video game.

Stephen Elliott

Extinction with very few exceptions is the natural consequence of a purely sexual reproductive mode. Sexual reproduction tends to result in the accumulation of deleterious genes. Large animnals which leave very few descendents are particularly vulnerable to this fate as the fossil record so clearly demonstrates. Nearly all living fossils produce very large numbers of ofspring so that Mendelian segregation and recombination alone will serve to produce viable progeny. The Oyster, Ostrea, is a good example, a form that has remained unchanged for millions of years.

Of course natural disasters must have played a role in extinction but the survivors invariably included some forms capable of advancing. Those periods of advancement are no longer involved. We witness not the mechanism of evolution but the products of it. There is absolutely no reason to believe that macroevolution is any longer occurring or even can any longer occur. Lyell's principle of Uniformitarianism does not apply to the living world. It was a strategic error for Darwin and Wallace to assume that it did.

As for free will, I seriously question it just like Einstein repeatedly did as I have posted. I am not at all sure that we are not the products of "God's video game" as you suggested. That would seem to be a reasonable inference from the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Thank you for pointing that out. In any event I must agree with Leo Berg when, referring to ontogeny and phylogeny, he concluded :

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."

If not chance then what? That is the question I have asked and attempted to answer with the Prescribed Evolutionaty Hypothesis.

John A. Davison

Mr Davison seems to choose to ignore the fact that none of the participants of this conference has actually done any RESEARCH that supports ID.

— John

Gee whiz folks I didn't mean to evoke such a hissy fit. Your collective groupthink response speaks volumes as to the posture of Panda's Thumb. Thanks for being so candid although I should have known.

The failure of the evolutionary establishment to attend the hearings is a perfect demonstration of the weakness of its ideology. These issues are not really political at all inspite of all your protestations to the contrary. They deal with how man is going to regard his position in the universe. Is he an accident as Dawkins and Gould have proclaimed with their arrogant "Olympian assurance" or is he the terminal product of a plan, a prescribed plan if you will, as I and others before me have implied in their writings. That is what the Kansas hearings are really about and it is wonderful that these issues are finally being laid four square before the public in open forum. The failure of the Darwinian, chance happy, mutation drugged groupthink to participate is a transparent confession that they are chasing a phantom, a phantom they can no longer defend, not even in a public forum.

It is a cheap shot to suggest that Lysenko had any place in my evolutionary views. He was a charlatan and just about everybody knows it.

John A. Davison

JAD: "I would have been delighted to attend and have suggested as much to the Kansas Board of Education."

So, John - why do you think they've not jumped at the chance to have you appear, wave your Manifesto at the cameras, and win the day for them?

Are the Creationists as blindered as the Darwimpians? Is the planet now populated by ignorant dolts and cretins, unable to recognize and appreciate brilliance? Does the last intelligent man on Earth ever get lonely?

Hi Bob. In the interest of not letting the subject of Davison himself be a part of this thread, I'd like to move your comment to the Bathroom Wall for further discussion there - but I don't know how to do that. Perhaps you could simplify things by reposting your comment at the Batheroom Wall and referencing Davison's post here. I would appreciate that.

Thanks.

It is a cheap shot to suggest that Lysenko had any place in my evolutionary views. He was a charlatan and just about everybody knows it.

— John A. Davison

Teleology is obvious to me just as it has been to many others. It is only the atheist Darwinians that deny it out of hand. If Elsberry cannot see a difference between a Godless communist teleology and the variety I, Robert Broom, St George Jackson Mivart, Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse have proposed, the owner of Panda's Thumb is in dire straits. Perhaps he should transfer the franchise to someone more tolerant toward alternative views of organic evolution. It remains a mystery whether or not anyone will admit as much.

I am impressed that he also found it necessary to seek for, discover and mention a typo in my lengthy post.

Indeed I do regard Intelligent design as self-evident. Once that is accepted the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis becomes acceptable as the only reasonable working model for evolution. It is already receiving support albeit unexpected from both molecular biology and karyology as I have documented.

John A. Davison

Teleology is obvious to me just as it has been to many others. It is only the atheist Darwinians that deny it out of hand.

— John A. Davison

If Elsberry cannot see a difference between a Godless communist teleology and the variety I, Robert Broom, St George Jackson Mivart, Leo Berg and Pierre Grasse have proposed, the owner of Panda's Thumb is in dire straits.

— John A. Davison

I am impressed that he also found it necessary to seek for, discover and mention a typo in my lengthy post.

— John A. Davison

Wesley, I think you misspelled "properly".

David Heddle, I think you once again missed the boat.

For the quote miners and out-of-contexters, who are also biblical literalists:
Remind them that the Bible says LITERALLY and verbatim "There is no God." Ps 53:1.

That's every bit as fair as pulling quotes from Gould or Dawkins to make it sound like they doubt evolution.

I wonder, why do you think we should listen to you at all, Mr. davison? So far, you have:
- Not once presented a single bit of evidence in favour of anything you have defended
- Refused to do the above on extremelly flimsy reasons
- Been found to lie often
- Been known to make guesses about matters of fact and get them completely wrong
- Spoken of topics of which you have later been forced to admit you have no knowledge of. These topics you gave facts that you were also unable to support

Please tell me why should we listen to anything you have to say. The fact that you claim to be right is useless, since you are a liar. The fact that you have papers written is useless, for they contain errors non-experts can find. The fact that you are in this forum is useless, since you can't defend your own claims.

Mind you, I have long reached the conclussion I'm asking from you. I just wonder if you're at least honest enough to admit it to yourself.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who thinks that davison's ignorance is self-evident, and wonders if that makes it, by davison's rules (and in davison's world), a scientific fact

If Elsberry is neither a Darwinian nor an atheist perhaps he should tell us all just exactly what he is. Does he have an identifiable perspective of any sort or is he just some kind of nihilist who gets his kicks denigrating others who have taken a firm position like Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Reginald C. Punnett, Alexander Petrunkevitch, St George Jackson Mivart, William Bateson, Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and last and most recently John A. Davison. I am in the company of some first class minds. Who are Elsberry's intellectual heroes or doesn't he have any need for such. Is he a force unto himself, above the fray, answering to no one and running Panda's Thumb with an iron hand? So it would seem to me if not to others.

I see Grey Wolf has called me a liar but fails to identify the lie. Please tell me of the errors in my papers so I can correct them in future papers. I am just getting warmed up and all Grey Wolf can do is reduce my name to lower case and mouth meaningless drivel. He is just another illiterate uneducated Darwimp, an infantile fraternity boy pledging his eternal devotion to the groupthink known far and wide as Panda's Thumb. What a monumental joke PT really is.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Einstein rejected all of philosophy and so have I. All that matters is what can be demonstrated. If it can't survive the experimental laboratory or the testimony of the fossil record it must be summarily dismissed. So much for atheist Darwinism, the biggest hoax in human history.

Isn't all of philosophy as if written in honey? Something may appear clear at first, but when one looks again it has disappeared. Only the pap remains.
Albert Einstein

Philosophy includes metaphysics.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Well no one mistook you either for a philosopher or for a scientist, JAD. But it's probably just as well that you bring in your arguments from authority on which to "base" your mere resort to prejudice, instead of moving to systematic philosophical thought. It's not like we couldn't tell, though.

I'm sorry, but if you look at JAD's publication history, one can only conclude the man has become mentally unstable.

I wonder how any of us would react if something similar happened to us?

I actually wrote to the president of UVM and asked them to check in on him, as he did achieve emeritus status at UVM.

I personally feel sorry for the man.

cheers

Were them apples designed in their present forms? Was the general apple "kind" designed, from which they have deviated, perhaps radically, within the last 4,000 years? Was the basic biochemical machinery of life designed, and them apples are just one of the evolutionary accidents that have resulted from its functioning? Were the physical constants of the Universe designed so that all sorts of stuff could happen, maybe including apples, but not necessarily? Or was primeval matter somehow "front loaded" with some indefinable quality which made the eventual appearance of Granny Smiths inevitable?

Would you like to pick one of the above and thus offend the majority of creationists and IDers who think it's one of the others? Or just go with a vague "there's evidence of design" so as not to tick off even the crackedest of pots under the ID tent?

An evolutionary arms race between predatory garter snakes and their newt quarry is turning out to be something of an illusion. At the molecular level, another battle rages. And in this second, miniature realm, it's the newt who's the aggressor.

To be regarded as mentally unstable by a loser like Sir Toejam is the greatest compliment imaginable. Toe Jam is just one more example of the sort of intellectual degenerate that Elsberry, in his infinite wisdom, has been able to attract to Panda's Thumb, the very last outpost of Darwimpian damn foolishness still extant in cyberspace. It is crawling with such as Pim van Meurs who can post nowhere else, Scott (Mad Dog) Page, the man with a a thousand aliases, and various and sundry college dropouts, unfulfilled egomaniacs and miserable failures in the game of life, none of whom has even a clue about the great mystery known as organic evolution. Elsberry should be very proud of his achievement. He has done what Micah Sparacio at ISCID couldn't do. He has actually accomplished his lifelong dream of surrounding himself with others as blind as himself to the real world in what I can only describe as Elsberry's last stand against the forces of rationalism and common ordinary horse sense to which he and his loyal followers somehow remain completely oblivious. If I hadn't witnessed it first hand I would never have been able to believe it was possible.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

NEW YORK (AP) -- Irked by the success of the nationwide Day of Silence, which seeks to combat anti-gay bias in schools, conservative activists are launching a counter-event this week called the Day of Truth aimed at mobilizing students who believe homosexuality is sinful. Participating students are being offered T-shirts with the slogan "The Truth Cannot be Silenced" and cards to pass out to classmates Thursday -- the day following the Day of Silence -- declaring their unwillingness to condone "detrimental personal and social behavior." The driving force behind the Day of Truth is the Alliance Defense Fund, a Christian legal group that has opposed same-sex marriage and challenged restrictions on religious expression in public schools. The event is endorsed by several influential conservative organizations, including the Christian ministry Focus on the Family and the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission. Mike Johnson, an Alliance Defense Fund attorney from Shreveport, Louisiana, said organizers were unsure how many students would participate in the Day of Truth, but expressed hope it would grow in coming years as more people learned about it. Johnson said the event is meant to be "peaceful and respectful," but made clear it is motivated by belief that homosexuality is wrong. "You can call it sinful or destructive -- ultimately it's both," he said.

Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't.
anonymous

Facts can be very stubborn things.
anonymous

Write those down.

So much for Darwinism.

John A. Davison

So much for Darwinism.

...last stand against the forces of rationalism and common ordinary horse sense to which he and his loyal followers somehow remain completely oblivious...

Bob, you crack me up.

Reminds me of one of my favorite Star Trek movie lines, spoken by immortal Dr. McCoy:

"You! What planet is this??!!"

(City on the Edge of Forever)

... whenever the forces of rationalism should elect supertroll JAD as their standard-bearer, I will operate my sub-etha-sensomatic even if the only vessel in close proximity happened to be full of Vogons...

Would Prof. Davison or one his supporters explain how his Prescribed Evolutionary Hyopothesis predicts or explains drug-resistant strains of bacteria?

Comment #24761 Posted by Day of Silence on April 13, 2005 07:00 PM (e) (s) Those asinine loud-mouthed creationists hard at work: ...

— Day of Silence

... Chase Harper, who was disciplined last year for refusing to change out of a T-shirt that read, "Homosexuality is Shameful." ...

— CNN

Why is there so many personal insults on this site?
Surely an argument can be had without resorting to assaults on character.
Such vitriol detracts from a point to be made, it does not enhance it.

Stephen Elliott

I see Grey Wolf has called me a liar but fails to identify the lie. Please tell me of the errors in my papers so I can correct them in future papers.

Check out the talkorigins Post of the Month: March 2005 - it seems to fit in with some of the recent exchanges around here.

Henry

Re "Surely an argument can be had without resorting to assaults on character."

People who have an argument can present it. But people who don't have an actual argument, and on some level know this, but do feel strongly that their view has to be defended, well, those people are kind of stuck.

Henry

Do you guys realize that Davison might be on his last legs? If we are to believe him, he is over seventy-five. Perhaps that is why he is so insistent on imparting his wisdom to us. He doesn't have much time left.
We have to accept that he could go at any time, and be prepared to continue on without his valuable input.
Though we cannot expect the real thing forever, perhaps we can make a realistic John A. Davison simulator, or JADS. It would be like a chat room bot except that it would post on the forum. It would be rather simpler to program, though; instead of randomizing (within grammatical constraints) in response to other posters, it could just post a random sequence of these preset words and phrases: Darwimpian, rationalism, random chance, front-loading, mythology, blind, oblivious, the biggest hoax in the history of science, Robert Broom, St George Jackson Mivart, Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse, perscribed, groupthink, So much for Darwinism, myth, belief, Godless, predetermined, Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, fantasy, Darwimps, homozygous, atheist, mysticism, enlighten, ask not for whom the bell tolls, unsubstantiated, ideology, dogma, and expose.
Occasionally JADS would tack on a random quote by Einstein, and on about a third of the posts it could write "How do you like them apples." This little QED would be meaningless since it would be randomly attributed to a random sequence of words and catch phrases, but that is no different from the way the human namesake of the program uses it.

I suggest Grey Wolf find lies in my published papers which is the only thing that really matters. The nonsense that so typifies Panda's Thumb has no significance whatsoever. It is merely a sounding board for frustrated intellectual zeroes who are incapapble of presenting their views, assuming they even have any, in a professional journal. Send me a reprint, an attachment, an abstract, anything to indicate you have any creativity whatsoever. Until you do I'll just continue to ignore you and all others like you. Have a happy smug groupthink. Darwinism sucks.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

...this was JADS, right? Damn, it's very hard to tell. Lack of interactivity can be so machine-like...

The quote *is* from one of your papers papers, Davison. It' interesting you keep misreading the post over and over again. Or maybe you don't even know what you have written in those papers. Then again, maybe Aureola is right and that was the first test run of JADS. Damn you, Harq! Now we will never be able to tell if it is your bot or Davison behind those posts.

Davison, you can find my thesis in my university's library. I can send you, if you want, the whole thing in an e-mail. It's an expert system for detection (and identification) of Malaria in suspect blood samples, and I doubt you could follow even the abstract, given your expressed knowledge of computers. It's big, though, so I won't spam you with it before you tell me so.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

What's your opinion, GW: would JADS (or the original JAD, for that matter) pass the Turing test? ;-)

Were them apples designed in their present forms? Was the general apple "kind" designed, from which they have deviated, perhaps radically, within the last 4,000 years? Was the basic biochemical machinery of life designed, and them apples are just one of the evolutionary accidents that have resulted from its functioning? Were the physical constants of the Universe designed so that all sorts of stuff could happen, maybe including apples, but not necessarily? Or was primeval matter somehow "front loaded" with some indefinable quality which made the eventual appearance of Granny Smiths inevitable? Would you like to pick one of the above and thus offend the majority of creationists and IDers who think it's one of the others? Or just go with a vague "there's evidence of design" so as not to tick off even the crackedest of pots under the ID tent?

DaveScot and I are both posting over at SciAm doing our level best to give John Rennie a stroke. So far we have the field all to ourselves which is a good thing don't you know. I thought you should know because I don't have time to handle two forums at the same time. Excuse me as I have to get back to more important matters at Scientific American's and respond, should there be any responses, to Rennie's desperate attempts to save the Darwinian myth. I'll check back now and again to see if anything has changed. I am sure you will miss me. Tata for now.

John A. Davison

Actually, it is an interesting question, Aureola (although I suspect you made it in jest :D ). Turing test, in its essence, places a human against two faceless entitites. One hides a computer, another a human. If the person is unable to say - after a conversation - which is which, the computer is said to pass the Turing test. It was proposed by Turing as a way to test the intelligence of computers. (There are issues - some quite serious - of the relevance of the test, but lets not go into those now).

Now, based on my conversations with JAD, and the other conversations I have seen him participate in, I doubt he would pass the Turing test unless he changed a great deal his way of conversing. The most important reason is that he doesn't address what other people ask of him, but instead goes back to a seemingly pre-loaded set of cliches that he just repeats - as Harq so wisely pointed out. The few times he addresses something someone else says, from what I've seen, it is just one point instead of all, which in itself operates very much like the famed "AI" that was on the net a while back - it was quite like speaking to a shrink, since it would simply ask you about your feelings about words deftily plucked out of your last comment. JAD is sort of like that, except that he only has one topic: how the interlocutor is an atheist (liberal) darwimp because he refuses to listen to his knowledge of every conceivable topic, even those he doesn't have any knowledge in.

You know, I remember my AI teachers going on at length about Turing tests and other ways of measuring artificial intelligence. It had never occoured you could use it against a man and find him lacking, though. Thank you for an interesting mental experiment, Aureola.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

There is one topic in which I am the world's greatest living expert. There never was a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Just about everything else is problematical except of course for the Darwimps and The Fundies. They know everything else by what I can only conclude is instinct coupled with very poor taste in their reading material.

Hope that helps.

John A. Davison

I very definitely believe in a "designer God," no question about it. I see no evidence for that God's presence or need to be present, but that there was one cannot be denied by any rational observer, unless that observer happens to be a Darwinian mystic that is.

John A. Davison

don't mystics have powers of some kind?

what level darwinian mystic do i have to be before i can cast the fireball spell that will destroy trolls?

but that there was one cannot be denied by any rational observer

If Just Bob or anyone else cannot see the evidence of Intelligent Design everywhere he might look there is absolutely nothing I can do to help them. The Darwimpians, so beautifully represented here at Panda's Thumb, are not only blind but absolutely certain that Intelligent Design does not and cannot exist. It is extremely difficult to see something that you are convinced does not exist. Once the reality of design and purpose are accepted as obvious, which to me they are, everything falls into place and a whole new hypothesis for organic evolution automatically emerges with a clarity that cannot be denied. It is truely sad that my perspective must be met with such intractable opposition, an opposition which in my opinion is purely ideological in nature and oblivious to the realities revealed by both the fossil record and centuries of human experimental and practical experience.

It is no wonder that William Wright was able to write a book with the provocative title of "Born That Way," a title suported by the wealth of evidence it contains.

"Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

New David Attenborough special from the BBC - a two part radio show about the "aquatic ape" theory. Interesting parallels to ID in the sense that the theory is and has been controversial and the proponents have found it hard to fight the orthodoxy, particularly as outsiders.

However, I don't see aquatic ape proponents wanting to teach the theory in high schools or requiring stickers on text books pointing out that the arborial ape is just a theory...

Go to http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/ and search for "Scars of Evolution". Well worth a listen.

Second part will be available Tuesday.

I agree that it was a mistake for the Fundies to insist on asking for equal textbook time just as it is stupid for the Darwimps to react as they have. That is why I have deplored both camps in forums but have avoided it in publication. Since both factions are way off base the only sensible thing is to let the Darwimpians continue to commit professional suicide as they have been doing for a century and a half now. Sooner or later they will manage to pull it off. Of that I am certain.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

John A. Davison

I agree that it was a mistake for the Fundies to insist on asking for equal textbook time just as it is stupid for the Darwimps to react as they have. That is why I have deplored both camps in forums but have avoided it in publication. Since both factions are way off base the only sensible thing is to let the Darwimpians continue to commit professional suicide as they have been doing for a century and a half now. Sooner or later they will manage to pull it off. Of that I am certain.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

John A. Davison

I agree that it was a mistake for the Fundies to insist on asking for equal textbook time just as it is stupid for the Darwimps to react as they have. That is why I have deplored both camps in forums but have avoided it in publication. Since both factions are way off base the only sensible thing is to let the Darwimpians continue to commit professional suicide as they have been doing for a century and a half now. Sooner or later they will manage to pull it off. Of that I am certain.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

John A. Davison

I agree that it was a mistake for the Fundies to insist on asking for equal textbook time just as it is stupid for the Darwimps to react as they have. That is why I have deplored both camps in forums but have avoided it in publication. Since both factions are way off base the only sensible thing is to let the Darwimpians continue to commit professional suicide as they have been doing for a century and a half now. Sooner or later they will manage to pull it off. Of that I am certain.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

John A. Davison

Sorry about all those repeats. Why don't you just stop blocking me?

JAD,

And here I thought you were just so inordinately proud of what you'd said that you reposted it several times for effect. Pardon my mistake.

No one's blocking you here. Try refreshing after you post, or hit the back button and see if the post registered.

It pretrty much happens all the time, to all of us, I assume.

Bob

Yep. Happens to me all the time too. It didn't occur to me that the powers that be were out to thwart me. I kind of assumed they had better things to do. But then JAD sees a lot of things I don't.

Grey Wolf:

my remark was of course made in jest, but it was based on my observation that JAD's modus operandi reminded me very much of ELIZA... except for the fact that at times he seems even less interactive than that smart piece of software was.

The trolls on Panda's Thumb should start their own group blog. They could call it The Panda's Bum.

Evolving Apeman could misspell some old creationist claims. Charlie Wagner could write a perl script to post the same argument every few hours. John A Davidson (who was great in That's Incredible) could starting signing his name in big letters, which would really boost his ego. David Heddle could flesh out his theory of why his argument doesn't need to know probabilities, and true to form, he'd do this with several poker hand analogies. Paul Nelson could make sure no posts have been tampered with. Robert O'Brien could declare that no one in the universe was fit to disagree with them. And William Dumbski could show up and make sure the comments were turned off.

ELIZA! That was it. I raked my brain trying to remember that when I was writing the post. Thank you, Aureola.

Please note that JAD said he was leaving, and proceeded to post some seven consecutive times. And he has still not aknowledged or even try to defend the fact that I pointed out a lie in one of his published articles - nor does he seem to be working towards defending his own claims, as I challenged him to. After a couple more days, I think I'll have to declarre myself the winner in our little exchange - unless someone is willing to be the impartial judge (or JAD manages to answer my challenge like I answered his...).

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Steve: you've left out DaveScot, who would claim that all computer programs must be front-loaded into computers, even those whose end result are circuit boards which we can't explain *how* they manage to work with only 37 logic gates :D

Grey Wolf

Hey guys, especially Grey Wolf, Henry J, RB(Avida)H and any and all of the other thousands of advocates of Creative Computerism, that sine qua non of Darwimian mysticism, that final solution to the Creationist problem, I cordially invite you to examine the April 15th edition of Yahoo News.

Don't even think of trying to offer a reasonable rebuttal. It is not on the program. Read it and weep.

John A. Davison

If Just Bob or anyone else cannot see the evidence of Intelligent Design everywhere he might look there is absolutely nothing I can do to help them.

JAD, unless you identify the news item you are refering to more clearly, I am going to have to tell you that nothing in that webpage is of any help to your situation whatsoever, nor even particularly related to any of the topics we treat here.

I wonder if this is just another hand-waving attempt to hide the fact that so many of your statements have been challenged and you have been unable to properly defend them?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who notes that the closest story he could find is about US Congress taking an interest in Identity theft, and wonders if what JAD wants to say is that he is just pretending to be an idiotic liar

JAD is even more delusionally disconnected from reality than usual.

Exactly what the heck are you talking about, mister? Neither the front page nor the Science section of Yahoo News have anything even remotely pertinent to computer simulations, Avida, genetic algorhythms or the like.

JAD, unless you identify the news item you are refering to more clearly, I am going to have to tell you that nothing in that webpage is of any help to your situation whatsoever, nor even particularly related to any of the topics we treat here.

I wonder if this is just another hand-waving attempt to hide the fact that so many of your statements have been challenged and you have been unable to properly defend them?

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf, who notes that the closest story he could find is about US Congress taking an interest in Identity theft, and wonders if what JAD wants to say is that he is just pretending to be an idiotic liar

I think JAD is refering to the story on the wholpin (dolphin crossed with a whale) that just gave birth.

...and why should the wholpin story make anyone weep, pray tell me?

GTC, I don't see that news item in yahoo news either, but even assuming you were right, why would he feel that it somehow strengthens his position on computers and/or is a blow against AVIDA or even genetic algorithms?

Actually, I have spammed this place enough today (sorry, btw, for my double post before). JAD; either post a link to the story you are refering to, or say which one it is, or I will assume that, like everything else you seem to say in this board, it is a falsity used to remove the attention from the fact you've been caught at using lies as arguments and facts.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Hey, it was just conjecture on my part. I think he is going back to some of his old arguments about how species are not separate unless they can't interbreed or something like that. Trust me, I'm not claiming to know what is going on inside that mess that JAD calls a brain.

In case anyone is interested, here's the link to the story that I think JAD wants us all to weep over...

wholphin

GCT:

[sarcasm]Now I get it! It's just as obvious as Intelligent Design![/sarcasm]

...don't worry, I know you were merely trying to guess what JAD might have thought.

. . . don't worry, I know you were merely trying to guess what JAD might have thought.

— Aureola Nominee

If you can't find the demonstration that there is no such thing as a creative computer, you are not much of a computer expert are you? Scan the whole damn April 15 issue until you find it and then, like a good little boy, report back to me. Now do as you are told. Creative Computerism, also known as Avidaism is the joke of the century. How anyone could be so deranged as to even consider such a thing is a travesty. Get some help.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

GCT:

Your brain omelette was for nothing, after all. ;-)

Try

http://tinyurl.com/dvve7

Do as you are told for a change.

Your brain omelette was for nothing, after all. ;-)

— Aureola Nominee

Ohhhhhh... I'm shocked. Shocked, I say!

A non-peer-reviewed paper being gibberish concocted to show conference organizers that acceptance standards should be much stricter proves...

what, JAD?

That your own papers might have slipped by an attention-deficit-disordered reviewer? That a computer programmed to cut-and-paste keywords did not magically produce meaningful text?

Wow, what a sudden burst of insight!
...not.

It's interesting how JAD, even though he clearly has absolutely no clue in how a computer works, the logic that guides one and the limits it has, is trying to support his baseless and undefensible claims about computers. The article talks about a random phrase generator having produced a text. This hurts evolution and Avida and supports your position very little indeed. You might as well brought up an article on the latest videogame, or on a word processor.

JAD, seriously, what was your point with this article? You first say that Avida is useless because it is front loaded, which is not. Then you state that this is a must for all computer programs, which is ridiculous. I challenge you to provide me with the front loading for the most famous (to me) genetic algorithm product, which makes you admit you have no idea of what you're talking about. And now you claim that because Avida is not front-loaded, it is useless, in face of all evidence, articles and research. And you still have not managed to provide any reason - logical or not - for any of your claims. JAD, you're lying. As always.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

I do not lie. If you were to make that accusation in hard print I could probably sue you. You are nothing buy a mindless unfulfilled coward clutching at a meaningless Creative Computerism in a vain attempt to support a randomly generated evolutionary sequence when there is not a scintilla of evidence in favor of such an absurd notion. Nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny ever had anything to do with chance, absolutely nothing. You and RBH make a perfect pair. You both fantasize that a computer can substitute for natural selection when natural selection itself was anti-evolutionary in the first place. How deranged can one be? You can front load Avida forever and it will still be useless. It is a figment of your limited imagination and nothing more. Now you are telling me that it doesn't even need to be front-loaded. Do you have any idea how insane that is?

It is hilarious that you or anyone else should accuse me of making claims. You make claims that are grounds for certification. You live in a totally fantasy world of your own creation granting unlimited power and intelligence to nothing more than an electronic filter, a mindless automaton that can do nothing more that spit back what some damn fool put into it. Where is DaveScot when I need him? Oh, I forgot. Elsberry banned him when he got too close to home.

I don't even dream of doing what that big Front-Loader in the sky did millions of years ago but you would and so would RB(Avida)H. Now there was a real front-loader and one for whom I have enormous respect. You clowns are trying to mimic something that was anti-evolutionary in the first place, namely allelic mutations, none of which ever had anything to do with evolution anyway beyond ultimately causing an extinction which was mandatory for the next wave of evolutionary progress. Now even that has ceased and all we see now is extinction with not a single documented replacement in human history. Evolution is finished folks and has been for a very long time. Get used to it. I have.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

You both fantasize that a computer can substitute for natural selection when natural selection itself was anti-evolutionary in the first place.

It is hilarious that you or anyone else should accuse me of making claims.

Where is DaveScot when I need him? Oh, I forgot. Elsberry banned him when he got too close to home.

JAD, in the last three or four days I have documented at least 6 lies in your words in this very forum. Others have pointed out even more lies. You have admitted to such lies. The fact that you now say you do not lie is, again, a lie. JAD, the fact remains that you do not know what a computer is, and certainly you do not know what a computer is capable of. You have many options:
- Show how genetic algorithms have been front-loaded with the solution they gave
- Admit you were lying when you said they had to be front-loaded
- Admit you misstated what evolution theory says
- Show why coming up with solutions humans couldn't design is not creative

The fact that you continue to rely on insults and grand declarations is clear evidence that you don't have any real facts to back you up. What is more, I'm starting to get a feeling of desperation from you. Are you afraid that your life's work of disclaiming evolution will never achieve the recognition what you so desperately want? I am, I think, about one forth of your age. By the time I am your age, I probably will long have long forgotten your insults to me. Since there is nothing else to remember from you - particularly no facts, only hand wavings that fail to hide your empty "logic" - you will have long passed into obscurity.

You can call me as many names as you want, JAD, but that doesn't change that you're a liar, and I have correctly pointed out your lies to you. You couldn't possibly sue me, but if you did you would surely loose, since you have
a) misrepresented facts in published articles
b) stated facts which have been shown to be false
c) continued to state those facts after you had been shown those facts to be false
d) refused to provide defense for your lies
e) lied about a-d above

Meanwhile, all I have done is point out that you aren't in any position to state facts about computers, and give you links to articles which clearly show computers coming up with designs that were not front loaded into them.

JAD, the last six times I've posted I have added no new information, mainly because I'm answering you, and I'm still waiting for you to come up with something new, or provide some kind of fact to back up anything you've said so far, particularly any of the computer science statements. I'm young, I can continue to repeat myself, changing my wordings, until you've long been buried, but that won't make your lies any less false.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Longhorm,

(Continued from : FYI: Intelligent Design on NPR)

Re "Henry, I'm not sure I see your point."
Well, that one wasn't much of a point - just that the molecules that wound up in an elephant were probably at some point in the past present in dirt or dust.

Re "(relative to the velocity of earth)"
Um - what's the velocity of earth got to do with it? :)
Re "When you say "God is ultimately responsible," how are you using the word "God?""
I'm assuming that the primary assumption of Creationists is that God is responsible for existance of the universe.

Re "Why wouldn't you call the claim "scientific?" And how are you using the word "scientifc?" "
That would depend on the particular claim, I suppose. There's probably not an exact border between scientific and not so.

Re "But what do you mean "ad-hoc assumption?"
An additional assertion not logically implied by previous assertions, not directly supported by evidence, but needed to support some other assertion or viewpoint.

Henry

good photo of a liger

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/23/Liger_hobbsatrest.jpg

Re "(relative to the velocity of earth)" Um - what's the velocity of earth got to do with it? :)

I'm assuming that the primary assumption of Creationists is that God is responsible for existance of the universe.

That would depend on the particular claim, I suppose. There's probably not an exact border between scientific and not so.

An additional assertion not logically implied by previous assertions, not directly supported by evidence, but needed to support some other assertion or viewpoint.

http://www.theiowachannel.com/irresistible/4382236/detail.html

wholphin gives birth.

Posted by steve on April 15, 2005 09:46 PM (e) (s) http://www.theiowachannel.com/irresistible/4382236/detail.ht . . . wholphin gives birth.

Grey Wolf becomes tiresome. He spends much to much time accusing me of all sorts of things of which I am entirely innocent. He is entirely wed to his Creative Computerism, so much so that he cannot even conceive that it is a hoax, a scandal and a mindless invention that has and had no application to anything concerning evolution. Like every other Darwinian mystic his mind is saturated and can no longer entertain any doubt about anything that is stored there, perfectly ensconced for all time.

All I have done is to do what my several predecessors have done which is to show the complete inadequacy of any model that relies on chance to explain anything concerning a process that isn't even going on any more. I won't list those names again as I have done it too many times already. None of us exist anyway as the Darwimpian literature clearly indicates. Grey Wolf, unlike Dawkins, Mayr, Gould, Provine, Ayala and the countless other mystics hasn't had the sense to keep his mouth shut but insists on making a perfect ass of himself every time he posts.

Creative Computerism is nothing but a last ditch attempt to rescue the most failed hypothesis of all time from its certain oblivion. It is an infantile fantasy generated by infantile minds and promoted on infantile internet forums, forums dominated by uneducated naive losers who apparently have nothing else to do with their empty lives.

What really galls the Darwimps is not only have we collectively exposed, time after time over the period of a century and a half, the Darwinian hoax, but I, in particular, have committed the unforgivable sin of proposing a new hypothesis to explain that which Darwimpianism has can never explain, the emergence of any new structure during the evolutionary scenario. There is only one conceivable basis for the production of a novel structure and that is the necessity for the blueprint of that structure to precede the structure itself. That is all that the Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis proposes and there is already plenty of evidence indicating exactly that.

To continue to adhere to an hypothesis founded entirely on chance can have only one explanation. It must be etched indelibly in the minds of those so afflicted as just one more beautiful demonstration of a prescribed, predetermined evolution. Some of us have somehow escaped this fate.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

I recommend all to visit SciAm forum where DaveScot and I reign supreme with not a peep from the Darwimps including their fearless leader John Rennie. He really must resign as he his proving to be both a liability and an embarrassment to the magazine he edits.

John A. Davison

Dawmimps, eh? Wonder why Berlinski isn't writing an article on Davison.

I thought though that Killer Whales (Orca) where not actualy whales but a species of dolphin.

Dembski's primary fault was reducing Intelligent Design from a self-evident requisite for any understanding of evolution to the level of a debate. Debating Intelligent Design is like debating pregnancy. All that remains is to disclose how that Intelligent Design was front-loaded, stored, and released during the millions of years during which evolution took place, a process no longer in progress. Exactly the same challenge confronts the students of ontogeny which proceeds in a completely analogous fashion.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Dembski's primary fault was reducing Intelligent Design from a self-evident requisite for any understanding of evolution to the level of a debate. Debating Intelligent Design is like debating pregnancy. All that remains is to disclose how that Intelligent Design was front-loaded, stored, and released during the millions of years during which evolution took place, a process no longer in progress. Exactly the same challenge confronts the students of ontogeny which proceeds in a completely analogous fashion.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

The application of the common term "whale" depends on the context. In the larger context, all the Cetacea are "whales". Killer whales are within the Delphinidae, and thus are called "dolphins" if the context is distinguishing Delphinidae from the rest of the Cetacea.

A taxonomical view of Cetacea

Dembski's primary fault was reducing Intelligent Design from a self-evident requisite for any understanding of evolution to the level of a debate. Debating Intelligent Design is like debating pregnancy. All that remains is to disclose how that Intelligent Design was front-loaded, stored, and released during the millions of years during which evolution took place, a process no longer in progress. Exactly the same challenge confronts the students of ontogeny which proceeds in a completely analogous fashion.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Dembski's primary fault was reducing Intelligent Design from a self-evident requisite for any understanding of evolution to the level of a debate. Debating Intelligent Design is like debating pregnancy. All that remains is to disclose how that Intelligent Design was front-loaded, stored, and released during the millions of years during which evolution took place, a process no longer in progress. Exactly the same challenge confronts the students of ontogeny which proceeds in a completely analogous fashion.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

I see I have been blocked from commenting on PvM's
Dembski thread. Fear will do strange things to ideologues. Am I blocked here as well? Testing, testing.

John A. Davison

A bit of advice for Elsberry. You had better get rid of PvM, the biggest sockpuppet in all of cyberspace. He is not doing your forum any good. Trust me.

John A. Davison

Poor Nosivad, he thinks that he is special enough to be blocked. In fact all comments have been closed on that thread. Thanks for your advice btw, that basically guarantees my further contributions on PT. After all, when Davison wants to censor my contributions, they must be hard hitting...

:-)

One of the really annoying things about Davison is his habit of hitting that "Post" button over and over and over. Not only is the content of each "composition" the same old content-free garbage, but we get to see - in this last case - four copies of it. When trying to just scan the list of comments on the front page, to see if maybe anyone worth the time of day has posted something, the whole panel is monopolized by Davison. But I guess his stated purpose here is not to teach, not to learn, but to annoy.

Re: Comments 25323, 24, 28, and 29. Looks like the prof has overly impressed himself with his brain farts again.

I've applied an MT hack to try to staunch verbal diarrhea in the form of duplicate comments. We'll see if that does the trick.

PZ, ... disemvoweling is childish. I would say it is beneath you, but I don't think anything is beneath you. You play at science, at best a science reporter, and call people stupid, idiot, moron, etc. That is the extent of your contribution.

You seem to have nothing original to offer.

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 16, 2005 01:37 PM (e) (s) The application of the common term "whale" depends on the context. In the larger context, all the Cetacea are "whales". Killer whales are within the Delphinidae, and thus are called "dolphins" if the context is distinguishing Delphinidae from the rest of the Cetacea. A taxonomical view of Cetacea

Stephen Elliott: I'm completely baffled as to why you think anyone thought your comment stupid, ignorant or mistaken. I wrote that you were right. (I just learned that interesting fact a few months ago). And Dr. Elsberry just provided a lot more specific information. No insults. No slights. What's the problem?

Stephen Elliott: Maybe I just didn't understand your question. It's basically just one of those issues of families within families within families... (like dachshund/dog/carnivore/mammal/vertebrate)

Orcas, dolphins, rorquals etc. are all "whales" in the same way that monkeys, gorillas and humans are all primates. But I [not a marine biologist] did not know the term was used that way. The official name for the whole large family is the order Cetacea . Delphinidae is the name of a family within that larger group; generally thought of as "the dolphins".

When I first saw the "wholpin" headline I thought it was about a "non-dolphin" whale (a sperm whale or something) successfully mating with a dolphin. I guess the orca/dolphin offspring would be more like a human/chimp offspring. Pretty darn interesting, but perhaps less surprising than a human/spider-monkey offspring.

As Grey Wolf always says: "hope that helps"

In acoustics, the Fresnel zone is the "near field", as opposed to the Fraunhofer zone, which is the "far field". The far field is the region where an acoustic source can be considered to act, broadly, as a point source for the frequency in question. For a projector of a given size, the transition between near field and far field is further away as the frequency of interest increases.

I had to look up "noise temperature", though. :-) My training in acoustics has been practical rather than systematic.

The wholphin at Sea Life Park in Hawaii is a hybrid cross (unintended) between a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Both species are in family Delphinidae, and so could both be called "dolphins" in the common terminology.

What I'm saying is that "whale" and "dolphin" are not technical terms, and don't match up neatly to taxonomic groups. Figuring out what "whale" or "dolphin" means depends on the context. A "killer whale" is a "dolphin", but neither is "whale" a misnomer, since it is in the Cetacea. Does that help?

The ONLY reason for my duplicate posts is because I have been systematically blocked time and time again. To pretend otherwise is a flagrant lie, something I have learned to expect from Darwimps wherever I have encountered them but especially here at Panda's Thumb.

If PvM's thread had been closed then why was the posting window still open and why did I keep getting the usual messages. You know - "an error occurred" or the one about "abusive posters". I wasn't born yesterday but 28,105 days ago. the simple truth is that Pim van Meurs is a liar. If that thread is closed it has been closed since my last attempt to post there. One does not post on closed threads.

If Elsberry continues to support Pvm and his shabby degenerate tactics I can only say that I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

John A. Davison

The ONLY reason for my duplicate posts is because I have been systematically blocked time and time again. To pretend otherwise is a flagrant lie, something I have learned to expect from Darwimps wherever I have encountered them but especially here at Panda's Thumb.

If PvM's thread had been closed then why was the posting window still open and why did I keep getting the usual messages. You know - "an error occurred" or the one about "abusive posters". I wasn't born yesterday but 28,105 days ago. the simple truth is that Pim van Meurs is a liar. If that thread is closed it has been closed since my last attempt to post there. One does not post on closed threads.

If Elsberry continues to support Pvm and his shabby degenerate tactics I can only say that I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

John A. Davison

I see another "error occurred."

The ONLY reason for my duplicate posts is because I have been systematically blocked time and time again. To pretend otherwise is a flagrant lie, something I have learned to expect from Darwimps wherever I have encountered them but especially here at Panda's Thumb.

If PvM's thread had been closed then why was the posting window still open and why did I keep getting the usual messages. You know - "an error occurred" or the one about "abusive posters". I wasn't born yesterday but 28,105 days ago. the simple truth is that Pim van Meurs is a liar. If that thread is closed it has been closed since my last attempt to post there. One does not post on closed threads.

If Elsberry continues to support Pvm and his shabby degenerate tactics I can only say that I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

John A. Davison

I see another "error occurred."

followed by another.

this time by the abusive one.

The ONLY reason for my duplicate posts is because I have been systematically blocked time and time again. To pretend otherwise is a flagrant lie, something I have learned to expect from Darwimps wherever I have encountered them but especially here at Panda's Thumb.

— Salty

If PvM's thread had been closed then why was the posting window still open and why did I keep getting the usual messages. You know - "an error occurred" or the one about "abusive posters".

— Nosy

I wasn't born yesterday but 28,105 days ago. the simple truth is that Pim van Meurs is a liar. If that thread is closed it has been closed since my last attempt to post there. One does not post on closed threads.

— Nosivad

If Elsberry continues to support Pvm and his shabby degenerate tactics I can only say that I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

— Nosy

The ONLY reason for my duplicate posts is because I have been systematically blocked time and time again. To pretend otherwise is a flagrant lie, something I have learned to expect from Darwimps wherever I have encountered them but especially here at Panda's Thumb.

If PvM's thread had been closed then why was the posting window still open and why did I keep getting the usual messages. You know - "an error occurred" or the one about "abusive posters". I wasn't born yesterday but 28,105 days ago. the simple truth is that Pim van Meurs is a liar. If that thread is closed it has been closed since my last attempt to post there. One does not post on closed threads.

If Elsberry continues to support Pvm and his shabby degenerate tactics I can only say that I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

John A. Davison

I see another "error occurred."

followed by another.

[...] I have warned him of an impending doom for Panda's Thumb.

— John A. Davison

The main page says that the alst two comments were by PvM and Davison, respectively, while this page has the last few all by Davison... plus, the main page says there are more comments than are listed on this page.

I've tried reloading the page several times and see no new message. Frankly, something wrong with my browser.

Actually, I'm having similar troubles with other pages beside the main page... such as the Dembski topic. Frank J made the last comment but that comment won't show.

I'd ask how I could possibly fix the problem, but I'd probably be unable to see a response. I should probably try clearing out my cache.

I'm just posting this to see if posting it will in any way cause me to be able to see the comments I don't see now. I know of no mechanisms which would cause this to occur, but experimentation never hurts.

John Davison,

I really enjoy your repeated postings on PT, but I think your "How do you like them apples" comment is getting a little old. With that in mind, I humbly submit for your perusal a few other fruit-related phrases as possible replacements:

1) Life is just a bowl of cherries
2) I've got a lovely bunch of coconuts
3) Yes we have no bananas
4) I'm a pathetic old crank basking in the feeble light of a minor academic career - Here's a mango.

Feel free to use any you wish.

Your pal,

Savagemutt

The site has been getting probes every couple of seconds from crackers who can't figure out that this site is not hosted on IIS. I've added a redirection line to simply return the main page instead of "favicon.ico". Let's see if that helps with the system.

I am no longer interested in having any of you Darwimps take me seriously. I have abandoned that enterprise. From now on my sole goal is to expose you as the biggest collection of congenital imbeciles ever assembled in a single forum in the history of the internet. You have made that so easy for me you have no idea. Panda's Thumb is the internet's final fortress against the forces of sanity and reason. It is the Alamo of Darwimpianism, Elsberry's last stand if you will. If it weren't for the fact that I feel sorry for your homozygosity, I would probably regard you as my intellectual enemies but you are not worthy of that status. You are just a gigantic never-ending parade of head-nodding, chanting monks marching in circles to the beat of Elsberry's metronomic baton in perfect lock step. I thought EvC was bad until I invaded Panda's Thumb. I have been the primary force keeping you clowns awake and alive. Your fearless leader has made it impossible to post at the Bathroom Wall and I fully expect the same treatment here as well. Let's see, shall we?

John A. Dvison

Every couple of seconds? What's the norm?

I thought this thread was closed. What gives?

Every couple of seconds? What's the norm?

— Malkuth

I meant, how often to sites usually get probed by hackers? But that probably wasn't a good question to ask, since it would vary on the popularity of the site. Perhaps, I should ask, how often are sites as popular as the Panda's Thumb usually probed by hackers?

But twice amount the cracker probes than the legitimate visits? Is that normal or exceptional?

Yo, Dvison (new moniker - 25374?)

You may be so tickled pink to see your words on the screen that you post them over and over (25359, 60, 63, 66) but at least some of us wonder why you bothered to post even the first iteration.

How many times do things have to be explained to you before you get it? If you'd just shut up long enough to read the suggestions offered, you might be able to navigate this site in something approaching a competent manner. Evidently that's just too much to expect. Have you decided that, at the sunset of your span, your mission is to provide amusement to the rest of us? I hope so, as you're succeeding admirably in that endeavour.

How do you like them lemons?

Robert W. Maurus

I am no longer interested in having any of you Darwimps take me seriously. I have abandoned that enterprise. From now on my sole goal is to expose you as the biggest collection of congenital imbeciles ever assembled in a single forum in the history of the internet.

— Davison

JAD is almost as repetitive as Charlie Wagner.

How do you like them mangoes?

Steve B. Story

Hey JAD, if you use square-bracket-"b"-square-bracket, you can make your name appear in bold.

Earlier I saw Wes talking about the bandwidth of a favicon dealy. If PT wants to reduce bandwidth, and maintenance, I suggest the following. The bathroom wall is currently 600 kb. 55,666 words. Writing a simple script which would kill or archive comments older than a few days or a week would cut the bandwidth of the site, and also eliminate the complaining done by whoever manually makes a new page.

BLIND OR LAME?

The controversy on whether or not to allow the theory of "Intelligent Design" in addition to " Evolution" in public schools has stirred an interesting debate. There is an assumption among the opponents of "intelligent design" that any thesis which excludes God must be more scientific than one that acknowledges God.

Albert Einstein did not think that way. He said "religion without science is blind, science without religion is lame". Einstein was not a religious man but he came to admit that there was a lot going on in the realm of physics and in the universe that he did not comprehend . He came to acknowledge that there must be a Creator who does not have to play according to the rules of science and physics as we know them.

My daughter told me the other day that she got sentenced to detention hall one time for asking questions of the science teacher. There were things that she saw as errors and inconsistencies in evolution and wanted answers. (I wish that I had known about it). This situation typifies the thinking of evolutionists. Never mind that this school of thought has been around for 150 years, never mind that it has been through countless contradictory revisions, never mind that in spite of carbon dating and other elaborate equipment at their disposal, and never mind the fact that evolutionists vehemently disdain and ridicule all endeavors in the development of other theories in the science of species origin, they still can't even answer the questions that a middle school kid would ask in regard to its obvious inconsistencies.

Can a theory which refuses to be compared with other theories in a given field be considered rational? Evolutionists are more dogmatic about their "tenants of faith" than any Christian organization.

Another card that opponents of "intelligent design" like to play is the "separation of church and state" card.
Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to a church group when he was president (about 15 years after the Bill of Rights was adopted). In this letter he explained why he did not call for national days of prayer and fasting as did his predecessors (Washington and Adams). In that letter were the words "separation of church and state". ( Lets forget that Mr. Jefferson attended Sunday services in the same building that was used for the U.S. House of Representatives on week days). Over one hundred years later, Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black pulled this letter out of the archives to fit his agenda in a court case which involved Catholic students. Mr. Black was a former KKK member with a well known anti- Catholic bias. Now almost everyone in the U.S. thinks that the Constitution contains the words "separation of church and state".

Darwin said that everything got here by means of Evolution. Justice Black said there must be a "high and impenetrable wall" between church and state. If they said so, it must be true. Yup yup yup.

THE BULLY PULPIT 1905 vs. 2005

I recently sent a message to a U.S. Senator.
The title of this e-mail message was "The Separation of the American People from their Constitution and their History", which was written in regard to first amendment rights. In her response she wrote, "It is important that no one group try to use the 'bully pulpit' powers or government to further their own religious causes".

This response made me think of the man who originated the term "bully pulpit", which, of course, was Teddy Roosevelt. He used the "bully pulpit" of public office to accomplish a lot of things, such as almost single handedly instigating a Panamanian uprising against the government of Columbia so that the Panama Canal could be built. He also brokered a peace treaty which ended the Russian-Japanese War, introduced the first food and drug protection act, and many other wonderful things which were unprecedented 100 years ago.

A different type of "bully pulpit" is being pounded today. There is a court case going on in Dover, Pennsylvania. The local school district is being taken to task by the ACLU for introducing the theory of
"intelligent design" in addition to (not instead of) the theory of evolution.

Why would anyone take exception to a school expanding its curriculum to include "intelligent design"?
It can't be out of concern for academic standards. If you took a psychology class in college, you know that several different theories (Freud, Jung, Pavlov, etc) were presented so students could have a clear and balanced knowledge of the science. Why is there a dogmatic insistence that the science of species origin have only one theory (evolution)? Contrary to popular belief, not everyone who believes in creationism is stupid, illiterate, or "religious". There is at least as much pure scientific evidence to support creationism (or "intelligent design") as there is to support the theory of evolution.

The argument of "Constitutional integrity" (i.e. separation of church and state) is a lame one, unless you think that the 1947 Everson vs. School District decision (issued by Justice Hugo Black, a former KKK member) is more valid than the actual language and the actual intent of the Bill of Rights.
The only explanation is that these ACLU people who are pounding the "bully pulpit" of the court system have an anti-Christian agenda.

The ACLU does have, however, one thing in common with T.R. Both of them wanted the name of God to be removed from coin currency.

Teddy Roosevelt knew that gold coins were the dominant currency of the American west and he did not think that it was right that coins which were likely to be spent in a saloon, gambling hall, or bordello should have the name of God on them.

The ACLU wants the Lord's name to be removed from everything. If they could have their way, they would probably take all references to God out of the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

Teddy Roosevelt believed that the Constitution should be used to enable this country to strive for the highest things possible.

The only thing sacred to the ACLU is seeing that our society is free to strive for a low common denominator.

I wish that we had a time machine so that we could transport the Roughrider from 1905 to 2005. He could debate the best (or maybe I should say worse) attorney that the ACLU has to offer. We would have a clear illustration of how to use the 'Bully Pulpit' the right way and how to use it the wrong way.

The Bathroom wall used to be an interesting place to visit. Currently
it is more like trying to find a needle in a hay (or apple) stack.

Why not make a separate entry-list for JAD's comments e.g. The apple orchard - nothing evolves here anymore. Then it would be easy to find JADs gems for those interested, and both of them could argue directly with him.

And JAD would be free to post repeatedly to emphasize his points, without bothering the rest of us.

Erik

There is an assumption among the opponents of "intelligent design" that any thesis which excludes God must be more scientific than one that acknowledges God.

— Bob Neal

Albert Einstein did not think that way.... He came to acknowledge that there must be a Creator who does not have to play according to the rules of science and physics as we know them.

— Bob Neal

My daughter told me the other day that she got sentenced to detention hall one time for asking questions of the science teacher. There were things that she saw as errors and inconsistencies in evolution and wanted answers.... they still can't even answer the questions that a middle school kid would ask in regard to its obvious inconsistencies.

— Bob Neal

Can a theory which refuses to be compared with other theories in a given field be considered rational? Evolutionists are more dogmatic about their "tenants of faith" than any Christian organization.

— Bob Neal

Another card that opponents of "intelligent design" like to play is the "separation of church and state" card... Darwin said that everything got here by means of Evolution. Justice Black said there must be a "high and impenetrable wall" between church and state. If they said so, it must be true. Yup yup yup

— Bobby Neal

If something is evolving here anymore let's hear about it. A new genus, a new species, a new order, you name it. I want to know about it before I write another paper claiming that evolution is finished don't you know. It isn't fair to let me go right on making a damn fool of myself by claiming that everything, and I mean everything about Darwimpianism is a fraud, a scandal and a hoax. Surely some Darwimp can demonstrate where I am dead wrong wouldn't you think? Have you clowns no compassion for a senile old fool like me? Apparently not.

John A. Davison

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on April 16, 2005 04:19 PM (e) (s) In acoustics, the Fresnel zone is the "near field", as opposed to the Fraunhofer zone, which is the "far field". The far field is the region where an acoustic source can be considered to act, broadly, as a point source for the frequency in question. For a projector of a given size, the transition between near field and far field is further away as the frequency of interest increases. I had to look up "noise temperature", though. :-) My training in acoustics has been practical rather than systematic. The wholphin at Sea Life Park in Hawaii is a hybrid cross (unintended) between a false killer whale (Pseudorca crassidens) and a bottlenose dolphin (Tursiops truncatus). Both species are in family Delphinidae, and so could both be called "dolphins" in the common terminology. What I'm saying is that "whale" and "dolphin" are not technical terms, and don't match up neatly to taxonomic groups. Figuring out what "whale" or "dolphin" means depends on the context. A "killer whale" is a "dolphin", but neither is "whale" a misnomer, since it is in the Cetacea. Does that help?

The Darwinists have boycotted a public forum the sole purpose of which was to discuss the teaching of evolution in the public schools of Kansas. Not satisfied with a boycott, now they are so insecure that they attempt to stop the whole proceeding.

There has never been any conflict between Intelligent Design and the undeniable fact of a past evolution. Without the former that latter could never have occurred. The real conflict is, now as it always has been, how man is going to regard his position in the universe. It is a never ending intellectual war which as nearly as I am able to determine has a strong genetic component. Just as political liberalism versus conservatism has been demonstrated to have a genetic basis so now does an aimless versus a planned evolution. It is really just as simple as that.

I applaud the Kansas Board of Education for offering a public forum to discuss this most important aspect of how we are to interpret the world in which we all live. Those who have declined this invitation have no business trying to prevent it from taking place.

John A. Davison

PZ

Your actions define your characyer perfectly.

I now am unable to post on threads hosted by Jack Krebs, PZ Meyers and Pim van Meurs. Would any other hosts like to identify themselves so I will not waste my time composing comments which I know will never appear, not even here in the Bathroom Wall? Of course I could discover these threads myself but it would save me a lot of trouble if you would just identify yourselves, that is if you are not ashamed to do so.

John A. Davison

Think hard, Charlie. Why do you "expect" new phyla to arise if there is no need? If there is a need, what is it?

And why would I expect new books to be written? There are already enough books to fill anyone's needs. The same is true of music. What need is there for new music? There's already more than I can listen to in my whole life. Most new books and new music are merely diversifications of themes that have already been established long ago. "There is nothing new under the Sun". Yet people continue to write books and create music. Why? Likewise, most life forms are merely diversifications of the original basic body plans established back in the cambrian. Why are there millions os species of beetles? Surely, there is no need for them.

We know a great deal about what Einstein thought because he left an enormous legacy of his beliefs. They have been assembled in, among other places, Alice Calaprice's "The Quotable Einstein." I understand a newer edition is now available and another book of his quotations is coming out this year as part of the Relativity Centennial.

There is no question that Einstein was a profoundly religious man.

"Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe - a spirit vastly superior to that of man...In this way the pursuit of science leads to a religious feeling of a special sort, which is indeed different from the religiosity of someone more naive."

I for one know exactly what he meant which is why I have presented it here.

From this I can only conclude that the Darwimpians are not really seriously involved in the pursuit of science and, accordingly, may not even be scientists.

How do you like them pomegranites?

John A. Davison

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

I agree entirely. It is unfortunate that Dembski fell into the trap of Christian sectarianism. I for one have avoided that quagmire, something the Darwimpians should recognize before lumping all creationists together. Some of us are not even Christians. I gave it my best shot and came away unconvinced, much to the dismay of my daughter.

John A. Davison

Pim van Meurs has now resorted to instant deletion instead of banishment to the wall or disemvoweling. Is that on orders from Elsberry or is it just Pim (yours in Christ) van Meurs?

bob neal

I think we have a pretty good "rough rider" in the White House right now, George W. Bush.

John A. Davison

Pim van Meurs has now resorted to instant deletion instead of banishment to the wall or disemvoweling. Is that on orders from Elsberry or is it just Pim (yours in Christ) van Meurs?

JAD,

Your "partner in crime," DaveScot, took it upon himself to send me a couple of haranguing emails about my lack of respect for a 78-year old computer illiterate. I suggested he have a heart to heart talk with you about your demeanor and its repercussions, but he declined. I think he said he found you amusing - or was it enjoyable? One or the other.

Your attitude since you showed up here has been one of arrogance and rudeness, and the replies your posts have received have generally been at the level they deserved.

Your continued multiple posts are annoying - next time, just hit post and wAit till something happens, then click the back button once or twice to go to the updated thread. Your post should be there. If you then go back to the main page and refresh your post should be there also.

Your "partner in crime," DaveScot, took it upon himself to send me a couple of haranguing emails...

— Bob Maurus

A Public Service Announcement:

If you are suffering from abusive unsolicited email from a user with a Hotmail account, you can send your complaint along with the complete email including headers to

Abuse@Hotmail.com

For similar problems emanating from MSN accounts, use

Abuse@MSN.com

The end-user agreements in place for either email provider do not permit the use of their services for harassment.

Hey man, where all them evolvin' critters? I want one for a pet.

Hi P. and Wesley,

LOL - I put him on my spam blocker list. If it continues I'll notify the relevant server.

And JAD, if you read this - you don't strike me as the sort who lets others fight his battles. DaveScot's bad move, not yours.

Bob

Hey man, where all them evolvin' critters? I want one for a pet.

— John A. Davison

Pim van Meurs has now resorted to instant deletion instead of banishment to the wall or disemvoweling. Is that on orders from Elsberry or is it just Pim (yours in Christ) van Meurs?

— Nosy

The idiotic notion that populations evolve is just another pipe dream. ALL genetic change originates in SINGLE cells in SINGLE organisms. Population genetics became the mechanism when the Darwimps finally realized that individuals aren't evolving any more so they passed the buck to populations and founder effects and genetic drift and the Sewell Wright effect etc etc, absolutely none of which had anything whatsoever to do with evolution, a phenomenon of the past. Population genetics simply studies the distribution of those genetic changes once they have become established and nothing more. You can thank Ernst Mayr for the whole population genetics myth. Glued to his endowed chair at Harvard he conned and terrorized the evolutionary establishment into thinking that he was a scientist Right down the hall Gould, who had also abandoned science years previously, did the same thing.

The whole scenario was a hideous debacle, a scandal and a hoax. Dickie Dawkins, another drop out across the pond, carries on the same ridiculous fairy tale with arrogant abandon. Its hard to believe isn't it?

By the way, who is "the team?" Isn't that the same as a "groupthink?"

You are darn right I don't let others fight my battles. DaveScot was a complete surprise to me. I think it is too bad he can't post any more. He has also been banned at SciAm no doubt for the same reasons. Nothing has changed in 150 years. The Darwimps just don't have any critics. They won't hear of it because they are congenitally deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres. We simply have not and even now still do not exist. The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history.

John A. Davison

ALL genetic change originates in SINGLE cells in SINGLE organisms.

— John A. Davison

It must annoy Davison to no extent that his viewpoints are not only totally ignored by science and ID alike but that Mayr, Gould and others have shown an ability not only to present well supported hypotheses but also present them in a non confrontational manner to the public with great success.

...Ernst Mayr... ...Glued to his endowed chair...

Of course we have bulldozed habitats and the immutable species have disappeared right with them. That is the whole point. Not a new species or genus or other taxonomic unit has appeared in human history yet the Darwimps go blithely on claiming evolution is going on unabated as always. Do you realize how that must sound to a rational observer? Apparently not. All the new habitats that we have created are inhabited by the same old cockroaches, rats and mice that have always been associated with man from time immemorial. Evolution is finished and has been for a very long time. Get used to it.

Mayr, Gould, Dawkins, Ayala and the countless other Darwimpian spokespersons have demonstrated only that Montaigne was right on when he said:

"We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled."

Where did Flocken get the notion I had been detenured? That is a simple lie. If they had been so stupid as to detenure me I could have sued them out of existence and would have. That is something that I was threatened with after I had resigned and was used as an excuse not to list me as an emeritus professor which I most certainly am. There is no record at UVM that I ever taught there. That is a beautiful thing. That exposes UVM for what it is and nothing more. The administration of UVM is nothing but a tool for the Darwinian "movement." Like countless other institutions here and abroad it has trapped itself in a myth for purely ideological reasons. It is the public institutions that have been the ones most completely duped by the likes of Eugenie Scott and John Rennie. I notice that a great many University Presidents are no longer willing to leap to the support of Darwimpian atheism. Ask them why not me. I know why.

No, Pim van Meurs, I am not annoyed that I am being ignored by the Darwimps and the Iders alike. Quite the contrary, I am delighted. I am the one that has offered the new hypothesis not them. Until Intelligent Design is accepted as obvious, which to me it most certainly is, our progress in understanding both ontogeny and phylogeny remains impaired.

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."
Galileo

John A. Davison

I see you guys are quoting the same three phonies, Mayr, Gould and Dawkins, that have dominated Darwimpian mysticism for the last several years. The phylum is one of the most solid of all the taxa. No living animal or plant has ever been misplaced. The closest thing to an intermediate might be the Onycophora which combines certain features of the Arthropoda and the Annelida. For that reason it could not be placed in either phylum and so became a phylum itself. Every other phylum is as clear as glass.

This forum is getting harder and harder to take seriously about anything and I am getting a sore right arm and leg from all the thigh slapping it provokes.

John A. Davison

If you are suffering from abusive unsolicited email from a user with a Hotmail account...

Sockittome. I thrive on your abuse, just as I did at EvC, FringeSciences and "brainstorms."

John A. Davison

Phyla and Genera are solid as rock. It is only in between that things get arbitrary which is only to be expected. All of evolution was saltational, lacking in intermediates and obviously discrete just as have been all species and genera both living and extinct.

Don't forget to ship this post off to the Bathroom Wall like every other comment I am making these days. The Bathroom Wall is the Panda's Thumb equivalent to EvC's "Boot Camp." No question about it. I'm flattered to be so honored. Thank you very much.

John A. Davison

How about if you received a nasty, unsolicited email from a PT main contributor? (I.e., not one of the commenters but someone with a PT byline.)

— David Heddle

Phyla and Genera are solid as rock.

— John A. Davison

If you think it was abusive, send it on to whatever abuse reporting system their ISP has.

David Heddle once wondered (comment #15779) whether GWW's comments constituted a liability for the Evophiles. Some of us (including me) allowed as sometimes they were unhelpful. (Though I have to admit, sometimes, e.g. comment #16589, they make me laugh out loud.)

Now I'm curious. Heddle seems to be sticking up for DaveScot and Davison. Does he see these two as attractive spokesmen for ID?

I am not "sticking up" for anyone. Merely probing, as it were, the level playing field.

No one is in any position to explain what is only divulged in the fossil record or in nature generally. What we know for certain is only what can be reproduced in laboratory experiment in at least two independent laboratories. When I was a grad student they required three. It was known as the triple test. It too has disappeared into the mist of Darwimpianism.

Let there be no question. While I cannot speak for DaveScot, I am not a spokesperson for the "ID movement." I have little respect for them because they have refused to make the necessary break by denying any role for allelic mutation and Natural Selection. Until they do, they can just whistle for any support from me. Besides they are transparently sectarian, one more thing for which I have no respect. My God, like Einstein's, is not now interested in the affairs of men and probably never was. But that such a God once existed is not subject to debate, another mistake on the part of the IDists. A God of incomprehensible intelligence is the necessary starting point for any rational treatment of either ontogeny or phylogeny. The work of that God surrounds us.

John A. Davison

Does [Heddle] see these two as attractive spokesmen for ID?

Why not readmit DaveScot so he can speak for himself about ID instead of trying to pigeonhole Heddle. Just a thought. Summary banishment makes Panda's Thumb look weak.

John A. Davison

JAD:

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
Albert Einstein

You can't expect a single living specimen of one species to turn into a single living specimen of another species.

— Malkuth

No one is in any position to explain what is only divulged in the fossil record or in nature generally. What we know for certain is only what can be reproduced in laboratory experiment in at least two independent laboratories. When I was a grad student they required three. It was known as the triple test. It too has disappeared into the mist of Darwimpianism.

— John A. Davison

Why not readmit DaveScot so he can speak for himself about ID instead of trying to pigeonhole Heddle. Just a thought. Summary banishment makes Panda's Thumb look weak.

— John A. Davison

That, plus the fact that I'm really curious to know whether Heddle endorses the particular vision of ID expounded by these two "gentlemen". I don't give a rat's ass about DaveScot's opinion about anything.

Russell,

I think you know I have never endorsed any version of biological ID. That should make it clear that I don't think about Dembski, Behe, JAD or Dave Scott as a spokesman for a cause I endorse, attractive or otherwise.

I hang out with no crowd and no crowd with me. That is the way I have always wanted it. I never joined Discovery Institute or ISCID. That is the only way one can maintain a balanced view of something as mysterious as evolution. That I have managed to do as my papers very clearly testify. Where may I find the papers dealing with evolutionary mechanisms written by any member of Panda's Thumb? Don't be shy. List them for me.

Sir ToeJam. I understand you wrote to President Fogel at the University of Vermont inquiring about my status there. Did he ever write back and admit that I had taught there for 33 years? I'll bet he never even responded. I would appreciate an answer to this question. Are you up to it?

John A. Davison

I have never endorsed any version of biological ID. That should make it clear that I don't think about Dembski, Behe, JAD or Dave Scott as a spokesman for a cause I endorse.

Nah, it was kind of funny, like someone clenching their tiny fists and holding their breath.

Every macroevolutionary event, whether in the Cambrian or later, took place, like every other genetic change, with time constants on the order of seconds. No phylum ever appeared gradually and no species did either. To claim otherwise is to deny the testimony of the fossil record as well as everything we know about transmission genetics. Darwinian gradualismn is a myth, a scandal and a hoax. You may respond in the Bathroom Wall. The ball is in the Darwimpian court where it has always been.

John A. Davison

Oh, I was curious and so I reviewed a bit. I think that it was related to Heddle calling me "Gary SS Hurd," in the broader context of "evolutionists are Nazis" and then giving a weasel "I didn't mean it" excuse.

OK. Petty.

This illustrates one of the features lacking in internet communicaitons v.s. face-to-face: real consequences. I made this observation nearly 30 years ago when I was invited to be part of an experiment using the ARPA Net for a "academic conversation." I have long noticed that dealing personally with people on the margins of society, face-to-face leads to a fairly polite behavior. One that does occasionly fail, it is true. BTDT

From: Gary Hurd [mailto:garyhard@earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, April 05, 2005 4:39 PM To: heddle@fbyg.org Subject: Heddle, you are a punked liar Heddle, you are a punked liar. Oh, I already said that. I look forward to someday meeting you.

Oh Gary, Gary, Gary,

The "SS" was a red herring; you were embarrassed (as you should have been) by your own lack of professionalism. I hit a double key-- my mistake--and there was no Nazi context anyway--the thread was, as I recall, about Dembski complaining about name calling and then Wesley responding with examples of creationist name calling--to which I added your childish comment, just to level the playing field.

You used the accidental SS to divert attention from your own childish behavior.

As I said before, someone who would post an entire byline with repeated references to the "seperation" clause ought to be a bit forgiving of typos.

Do DaveScot and/or Davison have a positive or negative influence on your thinking toward (biological) ID?

Do GWW or "Dr GH" have an influence on your thinking toward evolution?

So why exactly are you looking forward to meeting me?

I hit a double key--- my mistake---and there was no Nazi context anyway---

Gary, One thing we know for sure, you have made indisputable Taliban references, and I have never made Nazi allusions, as a search of the comments will verify. Given our very different, documented track records, a reasonable person might conclude, as is the case, that this is just your attempt to stay out of the sunshine.

Oh, and I'm sure that is what your comment in your email about "looking forward to meeting me" was meant to convey. That you wanted eye contact. Uh huh. Maybe we could meet at Rev. Mike's place?

Wesley writes: "Translation: Davison can't spin the fossil evidence, therefore it can't possibly count as evidence."

Do you think he even bothered to look?

Do GWW or "Dr GH" have an influence on your thinking toward evolution?

The American far-right religious fanatics are poised to match the Afghani far-right religious fanatics.

Just this week a fundamentalist mass murderer has confessed- not only to his murders but his motivation. If not for an act of bravery by two citizen witnesses, his murders would have been compounded. One witness is still too terrified to have his identity revealed because of the creationist/radical Christian support expressed for these killings.

I read the Internet websites of these future killers every single day.

This is the American Taliban. Recall that "Taliban" comes from the Arabic word for "student." The radical right drive for "education vouchers" grew first of all from the "Christian Academies" that sprang up in responce to the desegregation of public schools in the late 1960s and 1970s. I know because I was in Georgia in the 1970s and '80s, and I watched it happen. It is now fueled by a creationist rejection of all 20th century science. As a museum director, I saw this happen in the 1990s.

Quite frankly, I think that there is merely a vanishing gap that prevents a return to book burnings followed by "heritic" burnings.

DaveScot is not a certifiable crank. He is a brilliant skeptic of the biggest hoax of all time. He is the Ann Coulter of liberal Darwimpian drivel which is the primary reason you all collectively loathe him so much. Because he had no formal training in Darwimpianism is precisely why he brought a note of sanity to this forum. The rest of you are so perfectly and voluntarily brain-washed that you remain somehow oblivious to the fact that Darwimpianism has never been anything but a monumental mistake, a fundamental error, a joke, a disgrace, an embarrassment, an indictment, a scandal and a disaster. Why do you think it is being challenged as never before? Even College Presidents have abandoned it in huge numbers, scrambling madly to avoid going down with the ship.

The good ship Lollipop is sinking fast folks. Get on your life preservers, ladies and children first. Lower away.

John A. Davison

he rest of you are so perfectly and voluntarily brain-washed that you remain somehow oblivious to the fact that Darwimpianism has never been anything but a monumental mistake, a fundamental error, a joke, a disgrace, an embarrassment, an indictment, a scandal and a disaster. Why do you think it is being challenged as never before?

DaveScot is not a certifiable crank. He is a brilliant skeptic of the biggest hoax of all time.

The good ship Lollipop is sinking fast folks. Get on your life preservers, ladies and children first. Lower away.

It is Davison, Page. In the immortal words of Archie Bunker - "Stifle yourself dingbat." All you have ever been able to do is cut'n paste. Your style defines you perfectly. Incidentally I like to have my words reprinted as often as possible. Thank you.

John A. Davison not Davidson

I just had another brilliant inspiration and I will now share it with you so you can reject it immediately. That way you won't have to wait until I publish it. As you know, I believe that, like ontogeny, phylogeny too was front-loaded. I have also suggested that both processes proceeded by all-or-none discrete steps for which intermediate or gradual transitions are inconceivable. I have also been so bold as to suggest that the death of the individual corresponds to evolutionary extinction.

Here is my latest revelation. As you know conception is an instantaneous event corresponding to the length of time it takes the male pronucleus to migrate through the cytoplasm to unite with the female pronucleus, probably not more than a minute or so. The actual moment of conception, the fusion of those two haploid nuclei, would be on the order of milliseconds.

I now proudly, even arrogantly and with the conviction that comes only with senile dementia, declare that each and every evolutionary event from the formation of the phyla down to the emergence of individual true species also were, past tense of course, instantaneous events taking place with the same time constraints as the conception of the individual: in other words instantaneously.

Feel feel to cut and paste this one to your hearts content. Any publicity is good publicity don't you know.

How do you like them pomegranites? Don't choke on all those seeds.

John A. Davison

Ho hum.

Another undergrad textbook JAD is insufficiently informed to have read.

For those who care about biology rather than JAD's self-delusion, the *process* of conception, takes nearly an hour, the fusion of pronuclei several minutes, and more than milliseconds (numerous whole seconds just to roughly reposition the chromosomes indeed) are involved in reassembling the newly diploid genome and nucleus into its normally operating structural arrangements prior to the first cell division.
Absolutely any old undergrad cell biology text will do.

Rustopher

Fusion of any two spherical bodies is an instantaneus event old boy. Think about it. What's the Rusty Catheter for, intellectual clap? I'm glad you disagree about trivia rather than the substance of my post. Those old Darwimpian undergrad biology texts are the reason Panda's Thumb exists. I's a scandal and a hoax. Thanks for the inadvertant support.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Since ,my last attempt was blocked lets try again shall we?

Since my last attempt was blocked lets try again shall we?

Here we go again folks, an error appeared.

This time I am an abusive user.

Dr. Davison,

With all respect, I'd like to suggest that Panda's Thumb might not be an appropriate outlet for your ideas. I think that the inherently confrontational nature of a group web log does not interact well with the mutual antagonism that seems to accrue between you and your correspondents.

Might I suggest that if you agree (as you seem to), that you focus on making your commentary in places where it will be given more serious consideration? Your participation in the "scandal and hoax" of Panda's Thumb does not really advance your agenda (if said agenda is to engage in serious discussions about biology).

I think the reason crocs have small hearts is the same reason that frogs have small hearts. Most of the time they are never doing anything except hanging aound waiting for a meal to drop by. They aren't worth a nickel in a sustained struggle as the alligator rasslers demonstrate every day down in Florida at the tourist traps.

Now I ask you, is there any good reason for this post to be automatically transferred to the latreen?

"Animals are not always struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all."
Anonymous

John A. Davison

Hey folks. Why does not imply purpose.

I think Lynn Margulis has developed a much more sophisticated version of Davison's latest revelation.

Natural selection maintains the status quo which is all that it ever did. It was not a creative element which is why it cannot be demonstrated to have been one and it sure isn't one now because macroevolution is finished.

Now delete this PZ baby which is now your only option.

Mammals are all mammals because they all have mammae also known as mammary glands. If you have mammae you are a mammal. What is so vague about that?

John A. Davison

All right, I've had it with this "darwimpian" crap.

In the first place, it smacks of Limbaugh's endless smug repetition of such witty gems as "feminazi." Maybe the first time you coin a smarmy neologism like "darwimp" it shows a smidgen of creativity, at least, though it shows a lack of desire for rational dialogue.

In the second place, Darwin was no wimp. Yes, he suffered mental anguish, and delayed publication of natural selection. He feared (rightly) that his discovery would be met with hostility in many quarters, including among some he respected. But when the time came, he did it. And once publicly committed, he never backed down. To my mind, courage is not lack of fear, but having the moral fortitude to go ahead despite fear and recognition of risks.

In the third place, I ain't no wimp, sonny. I'll borrow a move from Al Franken: I challenge you. Put your money where your mouth is. Let's take it outside. You an' me. I'm sure we can work out a place and time where we can meet and have it out. You name it. Bare knuckles, gloves, caged Texas deathmatch, whatever. Loser pays $500 to the winner's favorite charity. Let's see who's the wimp. Come on, wuss. Nancy-boy. Girlie-man.

BTW, it's spelled "pomegranate."

To correct JAD's dull attempt at sophistry,

There is rather more to it than just the two spheroids touching. Lots of non-optional steps. Your position is deliberate misinformation.

Rustopher

My browser finally enabled me to get to the bottom of this incredibly long thread.

Darwin probably would never have published at all if Wallace hadn't come along with the same silly idea. The difference between them is that Wallace grew up and abandoned the whole foolish nonsense. The Darwinians don't even mention his name any more just like they don't mention Julian Huxley, presumably one of their own, when he shot the whole dogma down in a single paragraph in the book "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis." Read it and weep.

As for rational dialogue, that has proven to be as impossible at Panda's Thumb as it was at EvC, Fringe Sciences and "brainstorms."

I have presented my published evolutionary papers on the internet for all to see and received not a single comment dealing with a matter of fact contained in those papers. I have encountered only instant hostility, ridicule and denigration which is still evident even now after I have been here for quite some time. I have never been asked a question relating to the substance of those papers. The questions I have been asked either cannot be answered or shouldn't have been asked in the first place. The simple fact is that my perspective is unacceptable to all of these forums because it demands the abandonment of everything that has been blindly accepted as gospel since Darwin's Origin in 1859.

My great regard for William Bateson depends in large part on his willingness to confess and recognize:

"that it was a mistake to have committed his life to Mendelism, that it was a blind alley which would not throw any light on the differentiation of species, nor on evolution in general."

Thanks for the proper spelling of pomegranate. I almost looked it up but I figured my post would not make it anyway.

It is not the touching of two spheroids that represents instant conception, it is the fusion of those two. The primary role for obligatory sexual reproduction has been anti-evolutionary, serving to stabilize the species but never to transform it. It is much too conservative a process to ever be creative. Sexual reproduction, like allelic mutation and natural selection, the cornerstones of the Darwinian mythology, had absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past.

How do you like them pomegranates?

John A. Davison

JAD,

*you* are the individual who in post 25681 made much of the "instantaneous" nature of conception. I point out that this demonstrably crap to any undergrad. *you* then (in 25690) ingenuously point out that fusion of two spheroids is instantaneous as if the membranes just popped together rather than taking time, yet continue to avoid the fact that the process of conception is rather more than this minor geometrical as opposed to biological landmark. This was the only thing to disagree on, as the rest of your post contained no substance and has been corrected before. Finally in 25830 you get to conception not being the touching of the pronuclei but their fusion, which is not instantaneous, the whole point of my original correction.

I chose to disagree on this point because the rest of the post contained no previously uncorrected content. You deliberately misinform to amuse yourself. You are a liar JAD, and not a very good one. Your more elaborate attempts at self-delusion are your own problem, I am satisfied that you are a liar in small things, easily checkable by any student.

Your most recent post simply recounts yet again a position I have corrected before.

Rustopher.

The last time I tried to post here I was rewarded with persistent repetitive blocks which finally discouraged me from any further attempts. This one is just to see if anything has changed.

The last time I tried to post here I was rewarded with persistent repetitive blocks which finally discouraged me from any further attempts.

— Salty

This one is just to see if anything has changed.

— nosivaD

It is the Darwimps that have not changed. They still are convinced, as Darwin was, that evolution proceeded by the selection by nature of randomly generated variations. Nothing could be further from the truth. It is I who have changed in several steps, the last of which has convinced me that the entire evolutionary sequence was predetermined, planned and now has been finally executed and is over with. I realize this rubs the establishment the wrong way but I have yet to encounter a single piece of tangible evidence indicating that it is in any way wrong. What is more, I have received no evidence from any source, including Panda's Thumb, that:

1. allelic mutations are creative.
2. natural selection is creative.
3. macroevolution is in progress.
4. sexual reproduction is or was involved in evolution. Its role seems to be entirely anti-evolutionary.

In short, there is not a single aspect of the Darwinian model that can be supported by laboratory experiment or the undeniable reality of the fossil record. Evolution, a phenomenon of the past, remains a giant mystery, but not for very much longer. I am now convinced that the entire scenario can be largely summarized with two little words -

"position effect."

How do you like them Brussel Sprouts?

John A. Davison