The Bathroom Wall

Creationists Suck

Shades of JAD! I was unable to access the Bathroom Wall comments for the past several days - had to use the main page link, which took me to the previous BW page, with comments from 25 March through 05 April. Links to the other threads worked fine. How do I pull up the comments I missed?

Creationists look for absolutes, if it can't be proved absolutely true [and nothing can be], then it could be absolutely false....so reject it.

It is like they need the security of knowing that they can count on something in some absolute fashion. They are even willing to foregoe rational thought in order to maintain this false sense of security....it kinda reminds me of a small child that always needs his "blanky".

Clicking on the "the previous wall" link above takes me to Comment 21883, 25 March through Comment 23194, 04 April.

Gee Ken, that was very insightful. You must be really, really smart.

Oooohhh, we have a winner! I was ready to bet that the first crank to visit the new BW would be JAD...

Crank? Would that be me? Nah, I'm just a humble scientist.

Gee Ken, that was very insightful. You must be really, really smart.

— David Heddle

I must admit that I have a flare for stating the obvious....it's a gift.

Scientist? Possibly.

Humble? No way.

Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?

A steady stream of the faithful and the curious, many carrying flowers and candles, have flocked to an expressway underpass for a view of a yellow and white stain on a concrete wall that some believe is an image of the Virgin Mary.

Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?

I hear the noise of straw being frantically collected by our resident Apeman...

You can catch John Davison's speaking schedule for the summer here

http://www.johndavidson.com/

Not sure why they keep spelling his name wrong. I heard a rumor that DaveScot might be joining him at the Cerrito, CA conference in May.

Although not on the schedule, it's virtually guaranteed that Davison will make an appearance for at this one leg of this summer's Trollapalooza.

ANGLE (4/19/05): Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein, who helped break the Watergate story, says journalism nowadays is squandering the public's trust, insisting the, quote, "triumph of the idiot culture in news, particularly TV news, has weakened journalist drive for the truth." At a press convention in Kansas, Bernstein said, quote, "The consequences to a society that is misinformed and disinformed by the grotesque values of this idiot culture are truly perilous. For the first time in our history," he went on, "the weird, the stupid, the coarse, the sensational and the untrue are becoming our cultural norm, even our cultural ideal."

Nothing can be proved absolutely true? Does that apply to macroevolution?

— Evolving Apeman

I hear the noise of straw being frantically collected by our resident Apeman.

— Aureola Nominee

Malkuth, you have become quite the apt pupil. Bravo

RE #25914: ROFL

And if we tried to explain the origin of that noise in entirely naturalistic terms, life would be ultimiately meaningless and we'd have to resort to deviant behaviors in order to deal with the emptiness in our lives.

— Malkuth

You can squirm, Evolving Strawman, but you can't hide...

Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?

I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

"You can catch John Davison's speaking schedule for the summer here"

quite the mullet on that ol boy.

Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?

"I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?"

the same as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, when no-one is present.

I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?

— Aureola Nominee

A minor quibble: "rarefactions", nor "refractions" ;-)

Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?

— Evolving Apeman

Posted by steve on April 20, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s) Creationists Suck

My turn: If a tree falls in the woods and there's no-one there to hear it, will someone prate about such inconsequential things as the tree?

Graffiti Time:

As I sit here broken hearted,
Paid my dime and only farted,
Next time I'll take a chance,
Save a dime, but s**t my pants.

Is there truth in this?

Apparently, I was both proven wrong by Flint and had a serious minor quibble corrected by Aureola Nominee (I've apparently mixed up terms regarding two entirely different kinds of waves, one of which probably isn't even a wave).

As for absolute truth, I'm going to have to say that we can provide evidence for it but can't prove it absolutely true. We can, however assume a few things regarding absolute truth:
1.) Absolute truth exists.
2.) Even if we can't ascertain it, we can make models close to the absolute truth which are good enough--that is, until we can make better models of the world.
3.) Evolving Apeman hasn't ascertained it.

Absolutely!

If Apeman's God didn't hear the tree fall, then YOUR life is meaningless.

Is it absolute truth that there is no absolute truth?

Evolving Apeman hasn't ascertained it.

Neither can anyone else for that matter, they can only pretend.

Evolving Strawman, congratulations! You've finally said one true thing!

Because you deny absolute truth, you absolutely know nothing.

— Evolving Apeman

"I like this game! Wait, I got one too: what is the sound of one hand clapping?" the same as the sound of a tree falling in the forest, when no-one is present.

What if apeman farts in the woods and no-one claps?

— Gary Hurd

News on the Kansas hearings:

A Topeka civil rights attorney has volunteered to represent Science.

He plans to present witnesses, and has been ordered to submit his witness list by May 2.

"Board member Connie Morris said she was planning on "praying over" the list of witnesses."

Oh man, I made the mistake of googling Old Man Davison's name and got punched in the eyeball of that God-awful visage. Wow, if there ever was an ark, Johnny sure as hell couldn't get on it, because what would condescend to mate with him?

The animals, which have a life span of up to about 50 years, will be allowed to mate and have families -- and develop cultures that will be studied for generations to come, Savage-Rumbaugh said. .... The bonobos will be able to cook in their own kitchen, tap vending machines for snacks, go for walks in the woods and communicate with researchers through computer touchscreens. The decor in their 18-room home includes an indoor waterfall and climbing areas 30 feet high.

So . . . .even the absolutes aren't absolute . . . .looks like we are in agreement.

Of course with Darwinian fundamentalists, macro-evolution is assumed, its "just a matter of time" before we figure out how it actually happened.

— Evolving Apeman

Evolving Strawman:

Are you trying to argue that mathematics is anything but a human construct? Man, oh man, and you claim to be a scientist...

What a great beginning for a "developing culture."

Evolving Strawman,

having to look at all your squirming, misrepresenting, and semantic dancing around is physically painful.

Your arguments are half-baked, your knowledge is conspicuous for its absence, and even your insults are weak.

In short, you are not even particularly interesting as an idiotic troll.

Over and out.

"You jerk off?"

"Does a bear sh*t ni the woods?"

"No. No. No. Does a bear jerk off?"

"I sh*t in the woods, but I can't jerk off"

--The Big Chill

Apedude:

One other point....knowing HOW something occurs is not necessary to determine that it in fact DOES occur. Macroevolution has been clearly demonstrated to occur with complete independance from any mechanism that might explain HOW it occurs.

Knowing that apples fall does not first require an understanding of Newton's Laws of Motion.

I love it when Darwinian Fundamentalists compare their observations of Macro-evolution to that events like an apple falling. Ken if your lucky you'll live to a 100 years. An apple falling from a tree lasts a second or two. The great apes, "our supposed distant cousins" that GWW is all excited about studying diverged from us how many human lifetimes ago?

As a more honest scientist, I concern myself with drawing grandiose inferences only from data that can be measured.

BTW, Aureola are your really going to let me have the last word. I think you find my arguments irresistable. You just haven't figured out why. Perhaps that spark of doubt in the back of your soul may see the folly of your nihilism one day. Here is a "your welcome" for that day, when I'm no longer in your picture.

Are you trying to argue that mathematics is anything but a human construct?

I'm sure there will be some publications out in a few years how our "ancestors" had wisdom in their simple cultures before "religion" could pollute it.

Of course with Darwinian fundamentalists, macro-evolution is assumed, its "just a matter of time" before we figure out how it actually happened.

— Apeman

As a more honest scientist, I concern myself with drawing grandiose inferences only from data that can be measured.

As we can all see, the story of Evolving Apeman (EA) is quite tragic. Working with others in the field of ignorance prevention (IP), we have developed a proposal to help prevent the tragic story of EA from happening in the future.

Won't you please help?

post your comments and suggestions here:

http://groups-beta.google.com/group/evolution-ngo

thanks for your consideration in helping to end world ignorance.

p.s. (don't mind the "adult" warning - It's a default for this beta group - I'm trying to get rid of it)

I believe that macroevolution, which most certainly did take place in the past, did so by the rerepression of prescribed information, a process which required no genetic input from the environment and most certainly did not involve allelic mutation or natural selection.

John A. Davison

GWW:

You may have misunderstood my comment (about the obviously artificial nature of mathematics) for one from that obnoxious troll.

But I forgive you. ;-)

In a Darwinian world there could be no phyla or any other taxa. It would be and would have been a gigantic mishmosh which it most certainly is not and never has been. There are no intermediates between phyla just as there are no intermediates between species or any of the other taxonomic levels. The entire living world is characterized by profound interruptions which is what makes the Linnaean system possible. It is the very antithesis of arbitrary. It is defined almost to perfection by discrete features which by their very nature can not have had been gradually transformed one from another. From the very first bifurcation that separated the protostomes from the deuterostomes, evolution proceeded by a series of convulsive all-or-none irreversible transformations for which intermediate or gradual states are neither demonstrable nor conceivable. Does anyone think there is an intermediate condition between the extremes represented by whether the embryonic blastopore becomes the mouth or the anus? I hope not.

It is this feature of evolution that enables taxonomic keys to be completely unambiguous as they proceed from one binary alternative to the next and untimately to the positive identification of every organism involved in that particular taxon. It is particularly obvious in the birds, the area of specialization of Ernst Mayr who described himself as a "dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian." It is hard to believe that he ever said such a thing isn't it? But he did.
"The Growth of Biological Thought" page 132

John A. Davison

Aureola -- you are correct!

I spare no one -- even by accident. ;)

Thanks for the forgiveness. And my apologies if my remarks inadvertantly provided coal for the trolltrain.

It would be and would have been a gigantic mishmosh which it most certainly is not and never has been.

I am not pulling any chains. I am still trying (don't ask me why) to enlighten those who are incapable of it. I am trying to explain why the Darwinian model is the biggest farce in the history of science and all GWW can do is take exception with my use of mishmosh instead of his preferred mishmash. Doesn't that speak volumes about just how deluded the evolutionary establishement really is? Of course it does. It is hard to believe isn't it? But there it is for all to see from the Great White Wonder himself, the man with a thousand aliases.

In case anyone wonders, my most recent post here was meant for the Down With Phyla Thread hosted by Nick Matzke, where I was met with one block after another until my index finger became paralyzed alternately punching the back and the post buttons. I am a slow learner I guess.

How do you like them Broccolis?

John A. Davison

I am not pulling any chains. I am still trying (don't ask me why) to enlighten those who are incapable of it. I am trying to explain why the Darwinian model is the biggest farce in the history of science and all GWW can do is take exception with my use of mishmosh instead of his preferred mishmash. Doesn't that speak volumes about just how deluded the evolutionary establishement really is? Of course it does. It is hard to believe isn't it? But there it is for all to see from the Great White Wonder himself, the man with a thousand aliases.

In case anyone wonders, my most recent post here was meant for the Down With Phyla Thread hosted by Nick Matzke, where I was met with one block after another until my index finger became paralyzed alternately punching the back and the post buttons. I am a slow learner I guess.

How do you like them Broccolis?

John A. Davison

I figure by now I own Panda's Thumb. I am only sorry that DaveScot isn't here to share this glorious moment with me. He certainly helped to make this possible.

How do you like them Okras?

John A. Davison

JAD:

For the sake of our eyes, already tired of reading your mishmash of poorly digested notions plus misguided certitude, write this down somewhere:

It's not "post-back-post-back-post-etc";

it is "post-wait-wait a little more-back-back-reload".

" I am still trying (don't ask me why)"

WHY! WHY! WHY!

really.

Davison writes: I believe that macroevolution, which most certainly did take place in the past, did so by the rerepression of prescribed information, a process which required no genetic input from the environment and most certainly did not involve allelic mutation or natural selection.

I believe that piece of fissonable U235 with the mass of your grey matter wouldn't yield enough energy to blow your nose.

I like my beliefs better then your beliefs.

When you learn to stop talking about your beliefs, and instead about your evidence, you can call yourself a scientist.

The fact of macro-evolution has been demonstrated [and I do not need to live long enough to see it for myself when there is plenty of evidence to support its existence] independant of any mechanism that may be responsible for that fact.

anyone want to have some fun?

go here:

http://www.biblelandstudios.com/nuke/

check out the story titled "eye of the storm".

then go to their forum and educate them.

cheers

@ea:

i'll stop trying to defend my "nihilistic atheism" the moment you get brain surgery to repair that apparent defect you have in your cortex.

otoh, if i stop defending my nihilistic atheism, will you shut the hell up and let me get back to my darwinian fundamentalism?

:p

did anyone catch the debate between shanks and nelson on npr last night?

i missed it.

there does not seem to be any record of it i can find on the justice talking site.

anyone who caught it remember details?

Weinstein said it all:

"I like my beliefs more than your beliefs."

Of course he does. That is why he remains a Darwinian. He has no choice. There is no longer any question that the way we view our world has a genetic component just as do our political preferences, our belief or lack of same in a Creator, our choice of toothpaste, our IQ and our eye color. In fact there seems to be nothing that escapes our genetic heritage, absolutely nothing.

I don't care a fig about anyone's beliefs including my own. I am only concerned about evidence. That is what science is all about. In the manuscript, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," I presented both indirect and direct evidence, much of it in the several authors' own words, in support of that hypothesis. If one chooses to ignore or even peruse that evidence, that is just fine with me. I'll bet even that has a genetic basis. To paraphrase an old saw:

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him comprehend."

How do you like them sweet potatoes?

John A. Davison

Posts #25978 and #26008
I meant derepression not repression. A simple typo. Sorry about that.

John A. Davison

JAD wrote: "Does anyone think there is an intermediate condition between the extremes represented by whether the embryonic blastopore becomes the mouth or the anus? I hope not."

Thanks Sandor. You fit right in here.

Who is next?

In the manuscript, "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis," I presented both indirect and direct evidence, much of it in the several authors' own words, in support of that hypothesis. -J. Davison

There is nothing philosophical about a species. Two forms are different species if their hybrid is sterile partially or completely. If not they are the same species. That definition, proposed by Theodosius Dobzhansky, a Darwinian through and through, is a valid, reasonable and, above all, testable definition of species which conforms very nicely with the Linnaean nomenclature developed long before the Darwinian fairy tale appeared, a fairy tale that has done nothing to further our understanding of evolution and much to deter it.

John A. Davison

Clearly you don't understand that evolution is a mechanism. The only thing that has ever been demonstrated is biological diversity. You can falsely conclude common descent via macroevolution. You can resort to your "anti-theory of the gaps" approach. Yes you certainly can.

— Evolving Apeman

One of my frustration with this site is having to constantly explain evolution 101 to Darwinian Fundamentalists. They are so caught up in trying to defend their nihilistic atheism, they don't bother to learn the basics of science.

— Evolving Apeman

You too Bill. Just one more member of the groupthink herd. Thanks for exposing yourself.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Ken

Your Evolution 101 outline does not contain a single grain of evolutionary reality. Not one.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Your Evolution 101 outline does not contain a single grain of evolutionary reality. Not one.

— John A. Davison

Sticks and stones, John, sticks and stones.

But, you are right and I'll admit that I have exposed myself as an educated, literate scientist with a fully-charged baloney detector and it was going off like a parking lot full of car alarms reading your codswallop. At least L. Ron Hubbard had the decency to write science fiction, and call it that, in addition to his lunatic screeds. I'm trying to tell you, John, balance, balance. You know you're on the wrong track when even the ID crowd doesn't reference your work. Take my advice, add the subtitle "A Comedy by John Davison", throw in some E. coli jokes and I think you'll find you have a new career. Come on! Let's get started. Two E. coli and a penguin go into a bar and the bartender says . . .

Let's see now . . . ..Evolution 101: 1. Imperfect replication ensures that offspring will be slightly different from their parents. 2. Some of these differences will be heritable and will make a difference [due to environmental conditions] in the individuals' chances for reproductive success. 3. The individuals with more offspring will pass on their heritable traits more often than those that have fewer offspring, the population changes [evolves] as a result. 4. The process continues with the next generation. I think that covers the basic mechanisms of mutation and natural selection . . . .without giving too much detail.

Ken Shackleton:

You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place.

Kenneth

I have clarified my assertions and those of my many predecessors in my papers. Natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, only with the maintenance of that which had appeared and that typically for only relatively short periods of time. You obviously are not familiar either with my papers or those of my sources.

So far I'm bowling a perfect game. Set them up in the other alley.

Now, let's see, who is next?

John A. Davison

JAD, I think it's only fair to inform you that you're being made fun of, since you don't seem to have caught on.

I have some questions for you though... Based on the definition you use for "species", and your assertion that there are no intermediaries, what do you think of wholphins? Do you believe that Atlantic bottle-nose dolphins and false killer whales are the same species or two separate species? There are other incidents where hybrids of two closely related species are sometimes fertile, and sometimes infertile. Very rarely, even a fertile mule is born. Do you have an explantation for that?

There are species which have characteristics which vary across their geographic range, and in some cases, members from extreme ends of that range are do not interbreed. How would you characterize those? What is your opinion of ring species?

I have clarified my assertions and those of my many predecessors in my papers. Natural selection had absolutely nothing to do with evolution, only with the maintenance of that which had appeared and that typically for only relatively short periods of time. You obviously are not familiar either with my papers or those of my sources.

— John A. Davison

You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place.

— Flint

Time for our lesson boys and girls. If Ken's defintion of evolution was correct we could easily falsify evolution: 1. Offspring our ensured to be different from their parents because they receive a seperate chromosome from each parent. Imperfect replication plays a trivial role, and in humans we typically call it disease. 2. Which nuclear DNA is not heritable? What other role does DNA play other than to directly or indirectly increase reproductive success? Even altruism can be explained by evolution. A rodent gives a self-sacrificng alarm call to warn his close relatives (with similar DNA) of a predator. 3. Humans are among species with the fewest offspring, I'm sure natural selection can argue reasons for that. All aspects of humanity can be explained by evolution and none can be falsified. How dare I call Darwinism a religion! Tomorrow I'll teach you about science 101, but now I must get back to my publications.

— Evolving Apeman

Imperfect replication plays a trivial role, and in humans we typically call it disease.

Since I have been blocked here also, adieu. have a nice groupthink.

Clearly you don't understand that evolution is a mechanism.  The only thing that has ever been demonstrated is biological diversity.  You can falsely conclude common descent via macroevolution.  You can resort to your "anti-theory of the gaps" approach.  Yes you certainly can.

Why don't you guys get together and get your system fixed? As long as I can get through I shall.

Who is next?

Astronomical and geophysical evidence indicate that the Earth originated about 4.6 billion years ago. At first the young earth was not suitable for life, owing to heat and exposure to radiation. Astronomers estimate that it became livable about 3.8 billion years ago, and life apparently originated about that time, but we do not know what this first life looked like. Undoubtedly, it consisted of aggregates of macromolecules able to derive substance and energy from surrounding inanimate molecules and from the sun's energy. Life may well have originated repeatedly at this early stage, but we know nothing about this. If there have been several origins of life, the other forms have since become extinct. Life as it now exists on Earth, including the simplest bacteria, was obviously derived from a single origin. This is indicated by the genetic code, which is the same for all organisms, including the simplest ones, as well as by many aspects of cells, including the microbial cells. The earliest fossil life was found in strata about 3.5 billion years old. These earliest fossils are bacterialike, indeed they are remarkably similar to some of the blue-green bacteria that are still living (What Evolution Is, p. 40).

Gene duplication has generally been viewed as a necessary source of material for the origin of evolutionary novelties, but it is unclear how often gene duplicates arise and how frequently they evolve new functions. Observations from the genomic databases for several eukaryotic species suggest that duplicate genes arise at a very high rate, on average 0.01 per gene per million years. Most duplicated genes experience a brief period of relaxed selection early in their history, with a moderate fraction of them evolving in an effectively neutral manner during this period. However, the vast majority of gene duplicates are silenced within a few million years, with the few survivors subsequently experiencing strong purifying selection. Although duplicate genes may only rarely evolve new functions, the stochastic silencing of such genes may play a significant role in the passive origin of new species.

Why don't youb guys get together and get your system fixed?

Here is a link to illustrations of different dogs:

http://www.akc.org/breeds/breeds_a.cfm

Some dogs are quite different than others, for instance. chihuahuas and Saint Bernards. Also, how old is the youngest ancestors that chihuahuas and Saint Bernards share? I'm sure less 100,000 years old. That is a blink of an eye in terms of geologic time. Organisms have been reproducing on planet earth for 3.8 billion years.

Of course, my understanding that chihuahuas and saint bernards share a common ancestor that is less than 100,000 years old does not, by itself, enable me to determine that humans and dinosaurs share common ancestors. But that is not the only relevant data available to me. We also have fossil data, embryology, genetic data, etc. We also know that billions and billions of organisms have come into being through sexual reproduction. When organisms sexually reproduce, the offspring is always a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than either of its parents. And we know that billions and billions of organisms have come into being through cell division. When cells divide, the daughter-cell often is a little different (in terms of genotype and phenotype) than either of its parents.

A silly (but still instructive) contrast: Over the last 500 years, no extraterrestrial has used a high-tech device to turn dust -- poof! -- directly into any elephant on planet earth. In the meantime, lots of elephants have been born by their mothers.

@flint:

"You omitted something important, I think. We must presume that all organisms produce more offspring than the environment can accommodate. Otherwise, essentially all would be selectable, and no filtering could take place."

well, I think you need to clarify that a bit. selection can still act on individuals in populations below carrying capacity. unless by saying "the environment can accomodate" you mean the environment acting as bilogical as well as physical? Incomplete unless you include predation, disease, parasitism, mate choice, etc. as selection pressures as well as intra/inter species competition for resources.

I'm sure you can see where confusion would arise.

So-called mutations occur frequently.  RNA-based lytic viruses average 1 new mutation per division.  Humans average about 1.5 new mutations per divisions among coding genes and maybe 100 muations across the entire genome.  Mice average about 1 new mutation per division among coding genes.

Sir_Toejam:

I doubt there is any real confusion here. In sexually reproducing species, on the average each mated pair must replicate themselves, which means two of their offspring must survive to breed again. This requires that (again on the average) each pair must produce more than two offspring, because of the conditions you mention (predation, disease, etc.) Two or fewer, the species won't survive very long. Greater than two and some sort of selection must winnow the number back down to two (if any more than two survive to breed on average, a resource shortage will shortly ensue).

In a nutshell: For natural selection to work, (a) there must be winners to breed; and (b)there must be losers who do not.

Longhorn:

I'm always uncomfortable with discussion of the "first cell". Do you suppose the first molecules meeting the minimal biological requirements (replication, capability to evolve) were cells?

Sexual reproduction is incapable of doing anything more than producing varieties or subspecies. Many organisms can't even manage that.

"For natural selection to work, (a) there must be winners to breed; and (b)there must be losers who do not."

i like this far better as a general statement.

Re "I'm always uncomfortable with discussion of the "first cell". "

Wonder if that's analogous to "first mammal" or "first primate" - i.e., somewhat arbitrary between those almost but not quite meeting some definition, and those who just barely meet that definition.

Henry

Finally, here is a link to an article on gene duplication that appeard in the year 2000 in Science Magazine.  When cells divide, sometimes the daughter-cell consists of a larger number of nucleotides than does it parent-cell.  http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5494/1151?ijk . . .

Sexual reproduction is incapable of doing anything more than producing varieties or subspecies.

Longhorn: I'm always uncomfortable with discussion of the "first cell". Do you suppose the first molecules meeting the minimal biological requirements (replication, capability to evolve) were cells?

But, John, what reason is there to believe that (1) sexual reproduction/genetic recombination, (2) varying levels of reproductive success and (3) massive lengths of time has never resulted in significant differences between organisms?

@long:

"Toejam posts:

Longhorn:

I'm always uncomfortable with discussion of the "first cell". Do you suppose the first molecules meeting the minimal biological requirements (replication, capability to evolve) were cells?

er, that wasn't me that posted that, fyi. it was flint.

cheers

All the point mutations in the world will never transform one species into another. If there is any lesson to be learned from centuries of artificial selection it is the futilty of that procedure as a transforming factor.

Furthermore, there is no reason to even postulate any real overall change in the genetic structure for many evolutionary series. The primate karyotypes clearly favor position effect as the primary evolutionary factor. We are practically identical with our living primate relatives at the DNA level and the differences that due exist maay well be of a neutral character. All I can do is refer you to my paper and the references it cites.

Since evolution may largely have resulted from chromosome restructuring, this can also explain why all evolution has been instantaneous as it most certainly seems to have been judging from the testimony of the fossil record. The restructuring of chromosomes through pericentric and paracentric inversions, translocations and fusions seems also not to involve the introduction of any new information which also supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

I predict that one day it will prove that the two most important words which describe past macroevolutionary change will not be "mutation" and "selection" but the words "position effect."

How do you like them carrots?

John A. Davison

I'm tired of being a vegetarian, John, could you throw us a few bones to end your babblings with, please?

Sorry, Toejam.

Flint, I guess I'll direct the same question to you: What is better language to use to refer to the first self-replicators that divided in such away that the daughter had a different molecular structure than the parent?

Cheers, Toejam.

Are you a Chelsea supporter by any chance? Quite a good season they are having.

well, i would be, if i was a fan to begin with. :)

I'm on the other side of the pond. I'm more of a Laker's fan (well at least I WAS, before this year, at any rate).

cheers works here too.

er, cheers,

All I can do is refer you to my paper and the references it cites. Since evolution may largely have resulted from chromosome restructuring, this can also explain why all evolution has been instantaneous as it most certainly seems to have been judging from the testimony of the fossil record. The restructuring of chromosomes through pericentric and paracentric inversions, translocations and fusions seems also not to involve the introduction of any new information which also supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

JAD,

You sly devil, you - you did it again. You bid us adieu in Comment #26080, and before the cheers died down and we could get it together to organize a going away party for you, you popped up again with Comment #26082. You're a sly old fox, you are, you are.

Glad you're finally off the apples, but the whole fruit and vegetable series is really getting tiresome and silly, as is the shameless self-aggrandizement. On the other hand, the amusement does remain, so I'll just kick back and enjoy your self-reverential maunderings without attaching any import to them. Did you used to be someone who commanded respect? More's the pity then.

Notes for evolution 101:

Re "1. Make an observation,"
Generally a large number of observations would be needed before a pattern would be seen.

Re "3. Devise a test that will try to DISPROVE the hypothesis."
Look for situations in which the previously observed pattern would be unlikely if the hypothesis is wrong.
(If it fails in some cases, either rewrite the hypothesis, set limits on applicability, or discard it.)

---

Evolution 101b

Fossils show that most species with fossilizable parts are basically modified copies of earlier species in or near where they live.

Usually the same earlier species is indicated for species in the same taxonomic group.

Genetic comparisons show that species in the same taxonomic groups generally have DNA that is modified copies of a common source.

The degree of genetic difference between species is usually greater for species presumed to be more distantly related.

It's very unlikely for a species to have a large amount of DNA not shared by its close relatives, but nearly identical to that of a more distantly related species.

---

Henry

How do you like them carrots?

Whether singing Country, Pop or one of his original compositions (he has 14 albums to his credit) or playing guitar or banjo, he moves the audience to laughter ... Davidson feels the intimacy of performing live in concert is the most important factor in connecting with the audience, along with delivering his signature anti-evolution musings in a pinched voice that sounds almost exactly like a balloon expelling its contents.

For creationists the obvious answer [to: why do we use only 10% of our brainpower?] is that Adam and Eve were mental giants and that savants and prodigies are echoes of a time when we were able to access these currently unused abilities of our brains.

I am perfectly content to have no one attach any import to my convictions. That way I get all the credit when they prove to be correct. Of course when I say I mean I along with Broom, Berg, Grasse, Schindewolf, Mivart, Bateson, Osborn, Agassiz, Cuvier, Owen, Goldschmidt, Linnaeus and all the others who have never been recognized by the ruling Darwinian establishment. Not one of them, before or after Darwin, could ever have believed there was a role for chance in either the origin or the subsequent evolution of life on this planet. Yet the entire Darwinian fantasy is founded four square on just that. It's hard to believe isn't it?

Panda's Thumb is even now trying to dismantle the entire Linnaean system in a frantic last ditch attempt to sustain the most hideous hoax in human history. When I attempt to defend the Linnaean system my words are automatically sent to the dungeon know as the Bathroom Wall. It is EvC's "boot camp" all over again. I should be flattered I suppose.

How do you like them pineapples?

John A. Davison

Dr. Davison -

I've been thinking about PEH, and I have some questions:

1) If evolution happens instantaneously, does that mean that an adult creature suddenly morphs into another species, or did unsuspecting mothers give birth to something that was another species? (Sounds like my own kids, actually. No, not really.)

2) The new species would need at least two members in order to propagate. Did the PEH change suddenly kick in throughout the whole old species, resulting in mass births of creatures that were alien to their parents (as in the 1960's)?

3) Were all mothers in the old species so distraught that they died of shame, thus causing the extinction of the old species?

4) Who suckled the first mammals? Or were they forced to eat chewed-up worms and bugs?

5) Just how big are the instantaneous changes that occur when a new species appears? Could a hippopotomus give birth to a giraffe?

6) What makes you think that PEH evolution is over? Maybe babies with cleft palates are a new species and we keep "fixing" them surgically, not realizing that we're holding back the tide of evolution. After all, there's nothing in the Bible about cleft palates, so maybe they're a recent phenomenon.

7) Which came first, the chicken or the egg? (Guess it was the egg.)

8) How do *you* like them apples? Stewed? Peeled? With honey and garlic?

@airbear.

"Yeah, right. They couldn't even follow basic instructions to keep their mitts off that fruit of the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. And they didn't even know they were naked!
"

lol. ahh, but the difference between bibleland and the Discovery blathertute is that bibleland has an open forum...

@airbear.

I assume their 10% analysis comes from the above conclusions from Childress' "world renowned" explorations:

"While Childress does not fit the evidence into a creationist worldview, it leads him to search for a world history that can account for the evidence we find of sophisticated technology from long ago. Bibleland Studios believes that ancient technology resulted from Adam and Eve's massive intellect being passed on to their offspring, even to the generations after the flood. This means that lost ancient technology came from our forefathers some 4500 years ago, not aliens and not an older evolved human race."

what's even funnier is that that they start off the segement by talking about humans being around "millions" of years ago, then talk about technology from humans 4500 years ago.

some VERY confused folks over there.

I thought you guys might get a kick out of it.

:p

cheers

All the point mutations in the world will never transform one species into another. If there is any lesson to be learned from centuries of artificial selection it is the futilty of that procedure as a transforming factor.

Does Panda's Thumb really keep blocking/banning John A. Davison or is he jusr paranoid?

Air Bear

I have addressed your questions in detail in the Manifesto. I suggest you read that. You can find it at my home page www.uvm.edu/~jdavison

As for the failure of selection:

"I know from my experience that I can develop a plum half an inch long or one two and a half inches long, with every possible length in between, but I am willing to admit that it is hopeless to to try to get a plum the size of a small pea, or one as big as a grapefruit. I have daisies on my farm little larger than my finger nail and some that mesure six inches across, but none as big as a sunflower, and never expect to have."
Luther Burbank from his autobiography, Partner of Nature, page 92.

The notion of speciation as a result of selection never even crossed his mind and it shouldn't cross anyone elses mind either. That it still does is beyond me. Natural selection prevents change rather than promoting it.

How do you like them grapefruits?

John A. Davison

Why does it always say that an error occurred even when the post actually went through. Does everyone have that problem or is it just old paranoid me?

"Even a paranoid can have enemies."
Henry Kissinger

I think it pretty much happens to everyone, John. Try composing in Works or WP, saving it there, and doing a copy-and-paste into the Comment block and Post it. When the Error message shows up, click on Back to get back to the thread and see if your post is there. You may have to hit the refresh button to update the Recent Comments list on the main page.

"It's not paranoia if They really are out to get you."
Anonymous

There may have been multiple biogenesis events. But all "complex organisms" that have lived on earth over the last 3.8 billion years descended from the very same cell (or cluster of self-replicators) that was on earth about 3.8 billion years ago. Humans, dinosaurs, mice and bacteria share common ancestors.

Evolving Apeman: "entropy" doesn't mean what you think it means.

To all my correspondents,
I've recovered from my recent illness sufficiently and have had the time and energy to update my website and blog. Stop by and say hello!

http://www.charliewagner.com
http://enigma.charliewagner.com

Ahhhh, how I love the smell of Second-Law-of-Thermodynamics-misrepresentation-arguments in the morning...

"Read my Manifesto" has got to be the laziest possible cop-out of a response to sincere questions.

Some advice, Dr. Davison: people don't like to be lectured at via the form of "the Manifesto". People don't ask questions in order to get an agenda foisted upon them.

Regardless of the sense of your ideas, your attitude is a real turnoff, and is possibly a large part of the reason you are so thoroughly ignored.

(Just my opinion, of course.)

The failure of abiognesis has a long history beginning in the 17th century with Redi who put gauze over meat. Guess what? No flies. Next in the 18th century Spallanzani did it by boiling and sealing nutrient broth and finally by Pasteur in the 19th century. His flasks open to the air are still sterile and on display at the Sorbonne in Paris. Three successive centuries of demonstration never deterred the atheists who, to this very day and represented right here on Panda's Thumb, are convinced life not only arose by chance but, once present, proceeded to evolve through the same mechanism. It is hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them plums?

John A. Davison

Thank you for prostylatizing me with your Darwinian Fundametnalism.

Bob Maurus

I dearly wish the Darwimps were out to get me. They have never been out to get their critics. We just don't exist and never have. I am ready for them with a load of Darwimp shot. All they have to do is show up, put it in hard copy and duck. If you want to see a real devastation of Darwinism read Grasse's "Evolution of Living Organisms." Mayr, in the Growth of Biological Thought " listed it in his Bibliography but did not mention him in the text, a typical Darwinian ploy. I think Gould did the same thing with his opus magnus, "The Structure of Evolutionary Theory."

John A. Davison

John, stop being lazy. The onus is on the dissenter. Evolutionary scientists have put in the work to convince the vast majority of biologists through reason and evidence. Posting crap on the internet and saying "come disprove me Darwimps!" will only get the exact response it's gotten: none. Stop wasting everyone's time.

Menudo Recipe - John Davison Style

A large saucepan (see note below)
1 calf's foot (about 1 to 1 1/2 pounds)
2 pounds JAD Manifesto*
1 large onion
3 cloves garlic, peeled
6 peppercorns
2 teaspoons salt, or to taste
4 quarts of water
A comal or griddle
3 large chiles anchos
A spice grinder
A large chile poblano, peeled or 2 canned, peeled green chiles
The calf's foot
1/2 cup canned hominy (1 pound) drained (see note below)
Salt as necessary
1 scant teaspoon oregano

Have the butcher cut the calf's foot into four pieces. Cut the Manifestointo small squares. Put them into the pan with the rest of the ingredients. Cover with water and bring to a boil.

Lower the flame and simmer uncovered for about 2 hours, or until the Manifestoand foot are just tender but not too soft. This is tricky because the Manifesto is pretty soft to begin with.

Meanwhile, toast the chilies well. Slit them open and remove the seeds and veins from the chile poblano, cut it into strips, and add to the meat while it is cooking. Remove the pieces of calf's foot from the pen, and when they are cool enough to handle, strip off the fleshy parts. Chop them roughly and return them to the pan.

Add hominy and continue cooking the menudo slowly, still uncovered, for another 2 hours.

Add salt as necessary. Sprinkle with oregano and serve (see note below).

This amount is sufficient for 7 or 8 people. It should be served in large, deep bowls with hot tortillas and small dishes of chopped chile serranos, finely chopped onion and wedges of lime for each person to help himself, along with Salsa de Tomate Verde Cruda to be eaten with tortillas.

*with heartfelt apologies to tripe.

John,

Conversely, Please post any documented, verifialbe evidence that proves that Creationism is nothing more than a fairy tale.

Just one piece...

Sandor,

Note also that JAD is ingenuously pretending that all mutations are "point" mutations, more correctly point substitutions, he is deliberately unclear about whether this includes insertions and deletions, let alone recombinations events, triplet expansions, chromosomal rearrangements, duplications and the occasionally active pseudogenes they produce etcetera.

Rustopher.

How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg? The scientist answers: Four, because a tail isn't a leg no matter what you call it.

....still waiting.

What's the matter? Are we really running out of straw, that the strawman-maker-in-chief must resort to grasping at single straws?

Please, tell the Purchasing Officer of Panda's Thumb to place an order for a couple dozen truckloads of straw.

By the way, who's our usual supplier? The Disclaimery Prostitute?

....still waiting....Also...

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

Re "I am perfectly content to have no one attach any import to my convictions. That way I get all the credit when they prove to be correct."

Ah HA! Now we know his plan - actively discourage others from paying attention to what he's saying, then if/when evidence does show up for it he plans to say he told us so.

Henry

Henry,

I assure you nobody on the planet, this or any other, is working on JAD's stuff. Credit's going to be a long time coming.

Meanwhile, soup's up!

NEW YORK As protests outside the hospice housing Terri Schiavo in her final days mounted last week, numerous newspaper reports, many based on an Associated Press account, mentioned or quoted 10-year-old Joshua Heldreth and/or his father, Scott Heldreth. Josh was one of several youngsters arrested for crossing police lines in Pinellas Park, Fla., in an effort to take water to Schiavo. None of the stories revealed that Scott Heldreth, a religious activist and anti-abortion crusader, is a registered sex offender in Florida-- until The Charlotte Observer mentioned it on Sunday. A widely published AP story on Sunday by Allen G. Breen had painted a warmer picture of the Heldreths, noting that it was young Josh who insisted that his father take him to the protests from their home in North Carolina, not the other way around. "God's with me," Josh said.

Great example Flint, you Darwinian fundys love to condemn yourselves with your own words.

What Louis Pasteur and the others who denied spontaneous generation demonstrated is that life does not currently spontaneously arise in complex form from nonlife in nature; he did not demonstrate the impossibility of life arising in simple form from nonlife by way of a long and propitious series of chemical steps/selections. In particular, they did not show that life cannot arise once, and then evolve. Neither Pasteur, nor any other post-Darwin researcher in this field, denied the age of the earth or the fact of evolution.

— Steverino

All you Darwimpians here just close your ears to the holy truth as revealed by such luminaries as JAD, David Heddle and ME. Enjoy your groupthink while we go somewhere we're appreciated. Oops back here again. I wonder how I'm posting this while I'm banned here. Maybe I should quote Einstein or someone else.

How do you like them asparagus?

I always find it amazing the love/hate relationship Darwinian Fundamentalists have with abiogenesis.  They need it to give a plausible start to their narrative, but they hate it because their isn't a shred of evidence that supports its occurance.  Of course, unlike macro-evolution, abiogenesis a hypothesis that can be scientifically studied.  A basic understanding of chemistry would help you realize why attempts to create life have utterly failed.  Entropy prevents A)spontaneous abiogenesis or B)a spontaneous mechanism that is complex enough to create even the simplest form of life.

In fact, it was Pasteur that showed that abiogenesis doesn't occur.

How many legs does a dog have if we call its tail a leg? The scientist answers: Four, because a tail isn't a leg no matter what you call it

For an adherent of the religion that's supposed to be all about Joy and Love, the Apeman seems remarkably angry and hateful.

How do you like them asparagus?

However, some organisms having reproduced more times than some other organisms has contributed significantly to the differences between all organisms to live on earth subsequent to the first primordial cell(s).

Mr. Apeman, altruistic behaviour has definite value in increasing the survivabilty of a species. Also do you see any selective advantage to developing intelligence? Well some of us have developed intelligence and so are able to empathise and treat others decently. Others need the threath of eternal torture to keep them in line. However I always suspected that creationists are less evolved lthan the rest of us.
How do you like them umbrellas?

Re:
Shouldn't that be "asparagi"?

Depends if the Intelligent Space Alien Designer designed Virii or Viruses
How do you like them virii?

Evolving Apeman, interesting work is being done on the issue of abiogenesis. Here is a link to the press release on an article on abiogenesis that was published in the October 8, 2004 issue of Science:

http://www.scripps.edu/news/press/100704.html

Here is a link to an article by the BBC on some other work that has been done on abiogenesis:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm

Russell:

When did the Strawman-maker-in-chief ever claim to be a follower of a religion of Joy and Love?

He's openly confessed to being scared yellow of the possibility that no Bronze-Age-tribal-chieftain-writ-large is micromanaging reality... he thinks that, should that not be the case, he would lose his moral compass and find no reason to continue doing what he's been doing here.

(Of course, he's oblivious to the notion that what he's been doing here is making an ass of himself and harassing people, so any change in THAT behaviour pattern would be for the better...)

Why do I have to obey the "golden rule"? Whether I do or don't is simply a matter of my genes and environment. Their is no scientific basis for morality. As a Darwinian Fundamentalist you should know better.

John, you haven't answered my question, or you missed it.

What is your opinion of ring species?

Shouldn't that be "asparagi"?

Almost all discussions of prebiotic chemistry assume that amino acids, nucleotides, and possibly other monomers were first formed on the Earth or brought to it in comets and meteorites, and then condensed nonenzymatically to form oligomeric products. However, attempts to demonstrate plausibly prebiotic polymerization reactions have met with limited success. We show that carbonyl sulfide (COS), a simple volcanic gas, brings about the formation of peptides from amino acids under mild conditions in aqueous solution. Depending on the reaction conditions and additives used, exposure of ?-amino acids to COS generates peptides in yields of up to 80% in minutes to hours at room temperature.

Long Time Lurker,

What you miss is the idea Scientists, real scientists (not the ones with dubious Phd.'s or an agenda), have always viewed Evolution as a chapter unfinished. They continue to search, research and discover new facets of Evolution and are always open to new discoveries...hence, they have an open mind and follow the data to wherever it leads.

The same cannot be said for Creationist, like yourself. Your close mindedness prevents you from viewing data and facts with an objective position because you have already made up your mind and closed your minds door to information.

I liken you to the child who covers his ears with his hands and sings...."la la la la la...." because they don't want to hear the truth.

In support of Creationism, can you supply one fact that can be validated or verified?

Hmmmm....

Mr. Steverino, I must say that Long Time Lurker doesn't sound like a Cretinist to me. Maybe your sarcasm detector needs a little adjustment?

fwiffo, I missed it.

Ring specoes are an interesting example of subspeciation in which the extremes probably might not produce fertile hybrids. But even that has not been experimentally tested. The real criterion for separate species is hybrid sterility which is often assumed but rarely experimentally tested. The Datwinians aren't even willing to test Darwin's finches for fear of what they might find. Speciation has a firm and testable physiological basis which is rarely examined critically. I hope that answers your question.

John A. Davison

fwiffo, I missed it.

Ring specoes are an interesting example of subspeciation in which the extremes probably might not produce fertile hybrids. But even that has not been experimentally tested. The real criterion for separate species is hybrid sterility which is often assumed but rarely experimentally tested. The Darwinians aren't even willing to test Darwin's finches for fear of what they might find. Speciation has a firm and testable physiological basis which is rarely examined critically. I hope that answers your question.

John A. Davison

What about wholphins? Are false killer whales and Atlantic bottlenose dolphins the same species? Lions and tigers will occasionally mate in captivity producing ligers or tigons, which are sometimes fertile, and sometimes infertile. Are tigers and lions the same species or separate species? Very rarely, a fertile mule is born (as oxymoronic as that sounds). Are donkeys and horses the same species because they can sometimes produce fertile hybrids?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7490426/

Einstein and Darwin.

Now back to your regularly scheduled progam, Wasting Time With John Davidson.

"Mr. Apeman, altruistic behaviour has definite value in increasing the survivabilty of a species. "

no, selection acts on individuals, not groups. That's why true altruism is so rare.

The failure of abiognesis has a long history beginning in the 17th century with Redi who put gauze over meat. Guess what? No flies. Next in the 18th century Spallanzani did it by boiling and sealing nutrient broth and finally by Pasteur in the 19th century. His flasks open to the air are still sterile and on display at the Sorbonne in Paris.

— John A. Davison

For an adherent of the religion that's supposed to be all about Joy and Love, the Apeman seems remarkably angry and hateful.

Apeman, altruistic behaviour has definite value in increasing the survivabilty of a species. Also do you see any selective advantage to developing intelligence? Well some of us have developed intelligence and so are able to empathise and treat others decently. Others need the threath of eternal torture to keep them in line. However I always suspected that creationists are less evolved lthan the rest of us.

We should keep working to try to learn the series of events that resulted in the existence of the first self-replicators on planet earth about 3.8 billion years ago. It's interesting.

Air Bear

You are using evolution in the present tense. Evolution isn't happening but evolution happened. Exactly how it happened is still unknown, but we know a great deal about how it didn't happen. It didn't happen gradually so it must have happened suddenly. Since transitional forms are largely missing they probably never existed. Species transitional forms do not exist now so they probably never did. Since sexual reproduction cannot support evolution now it probably never did so we must look for other mechanisms, one of which I have proposed with the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (Davison, 1984), which has yet to be tested. Natural selection is powerless as a speciating device so it in all probablility never was. The same can be said for sexual reproduction. The environment generally has no effect on genetic expression either in ontogeny or phylogeny so it probably never did. As near as we can determine by experiment and by the testimony of the fossil record all evolution was endogenously driven by internal factors about which virtually nothing is as yet known. In other words there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in the Darwinian model that ever had anything to do with evolution, a phenomenon of the past.

How do you like them strawberries?

John A. Davison

Professor Leiter has a post on recent efforts to re-empower the State Board of Education to censor textbooks. This power was used in the past to (unsuccessfully) attempt to remove information regarding biological evolution from Texas textbooks, which are often adopted by other states.

Leiter has some good information on the procedural mechanisms being used to re-introduce censorship, and some even better information on how to do something about it.

Maybe we need a dedicated thread for announcements of breaking news and such?

Happy Earth Day.

How do you like them strawberries?

This imminent discovery is a major part of your Darwinian Fundamentalism creed. For you it's like waiting for the rapture. It's so exciting. Once we create life then we will have confirmed it once and for all WE ARE OUR OWN GODS!!!... I would say have a happy weekend everyone, but I'm not sure how that would give me a selective breeding advantage such that my genes are passed on instead of yours.

Once we create life then we will have confirmed it once and for all WE ARE OUR OWN GODS!!! . . .

That's right, we are just on the verge of discovering how self-replicators developed 3.8 billion of years ago.  This imminent discovery is a major part of your Darwinian Fundamentalism creed.  For you it's like waiting for the rapture.  It's so exciting.  Once we create life then we will have confirmed it once and for all WE ARE OUR OWN GODS!!! BTW is there any other areas of science where we presume the hypothesis is true despite any evidence whatsoever.

Re:
"Long Time Lurker,

What you miss is the idea Scientists, real scientists (not the ones with dubious Phd.'s or an agenda), have always viewed Evolution as a chapter unfinished."

Mr. Steverino, I am not really a creationist. However you bring up an interseting point regarding Evolution as a work in progress. Now I'm not a scientist but I always thought that all of Science is a work in progress. Which is very i get extremely bothered by creationist tactics singling out evolution. For example in the recent case in Cobb county, creationists brought up what seems like a reasonable point with their sticker i.e. that the material should be approached critically with an open mind. Now I fully agree that all Science should be approached critically and with an open mind but what really bugged me was that evolution was being singled out as something "less valid" than the rest of Science.

Sir Toejam, are there any theories on the origins of altruistic behaviour in humans? Is empathy just a side effect of higher intelligence?

I think JAD set a new record for circular arguments in post 26289. I counted at least seven.

There is nothing circular about that which has not and cannot be demonstrated, namely Darwinian evolution. Nothing in the Darwinian scheme has any substance whatsoever. The entire thing was a fabrication, an invention and a hoax. It remains so to this very day. It is simply the only intellectual refuge for the kind of mentality that cannot accept that which is obvious to any unbiased observer. Order, purpose and finality surround us everywhere. The inability for some poor souls to recognize that must have a genetic basis as it is otherwise incomprehensible. Some like qetzal, another denizen of EvC, have not been blessed with the ability to hear what Einstein called "the music of the spheres." Like nearly all pure white cats, qetzal and his cronies at EvC with whom I am all too familiar, are simply congenitally deaf to what some of us hear loud and clear. When you return to your home base be sure to give my warmest regards to those that, so unable or unwilling to comprehend my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, found it necessary to ban me for life from their private little groupthink. I notice, since my eviction, EvC has lapsed back into the coma in which I found it some time ago. The same fate awaits Panda's Thumb when they resort to the same desperate tactics of summary banishment which I fully expect at any time now. It is the last resort of a failed dogma. I have already been banned from every thread save this one. There are many similarities between the Bathroom Wall and EvC's "Boot Camp."

As for your seven circular arguments, don't try to ridicule me me with them, state them with your reasons. I'll be happy to shoot them all down. You bore me to tears. You are just one more Darwimpian blowhard here just as you were at EvC, an unfulfilled zero who never had an original idea in his life And for that reason alone cannot tolerate anyone who has.

How do you like them rutabagos?

John A. Davison

Sir Toejam, are there any theories on the origins of altruistic behaviour in humans? Is empathy just a side effect of higher intelligence?

Amazing, an overwhelming number, the majority, 99% of scientists, real scientists with real degrees...doing real research...but only John A. Davidson knows the real truth. Why is that?

"Nothing in the Darwinian scheme has any substance whatsoever. The entire thing was a fabrication, an invention and a hoax. It remains so to this very day. It is simply the only intellectual refuge for the kind of mentality that cannot accept that which is obvious to any unbiased observer."

Who is the unbiased observer, you? How about you post a fact, data, or something that can be validated or verified to support Creationism. Just one piece of information will do.

As for your seven circular arguments, don't try to ridicule me me with them, state them with your reasons.

"Let me answer that for Sir Toejam. Toejam and I tend to see eye to eye on these matters."

ROFLMAO.

now that was funny.

Folks, I'd like to step in here. Davison is not well. It would be best for him for you all to leave him alone - just ignore him and he will eventually go away. It is really a bit inhumane to continue to bait him. You know he won't change, and I don't really think his presence adds anything here.

Returning to lurking...

Whoa, AN, FCD!

I thought I was the Flame Thrower here! Being quite the chef I attempted to "cook" JAD's work in a savory menudo, quite a feat since he's cooked his goose already, so to speak.

But to accumulate a mile-thick blanket of oblivion on top of a tripe soup is, well, over the top.

The main problem with JAD's excrement is that he doesn't understand the first thing about science. Makes you kinda wonder what they teach in Vermont. He draws a conclusion on an Etch-a-Sketch then sits back and waits for someone to "prove" him right. Helluva deal. Wish I'd thought of that scam.

As I pointed out earlier, even the IDiots don't support him, and they'll use anybody. Well, nearly...

"Sir Toejam, are there any theories on the origins of altruistic behaviour in humans? Is empathy just a side effect of higher intelligence?"

yes, basically they just extend from those proposed to explain apparent instances of altruism in animal species. However, human sociobiology is a bit more complex than your standard bat, so cultural selective pressures exist that are very hard to tease out in humans.

"emapthy" is a human term used to describe a particular human emotional state; and so only applies to humans, unless you can show a similar set of emotional states in another species (a VERY hard thing to do).

If you want to check out the theory of altruism as applied to animal behavior, I suggest starting by learning about WD Hamilton's work on kin-selection, and then reading Robert Trivers' further work on kin-selection and altruistic behavior. Almost any good college level text on animal behavior will cover these.

here is a little bit on Trivers' history, and what he appears to be up to these days, for anyone interested (heeee's baaaack!)

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/trivers04/trivers04_index.html

cheers

Man has practiced intensive selection for centuries, yet has failed to produce new species by this means.

The primary demonstrable differences that distinguish us from our closest primate relatives are revealed in the structure of our chromosomes. They consist of several reorganizations of homologous chromosome segments in the form of translocations, pericentric and paracentric inversions and a single fusion which result in the human complement of 46 chromosomes while the Chimpanzee, Gorilla and Orang each have 48 (Yunis and Prakash [1982]).

Also there are very small differences in both DNA and protein composition between ourselves and our living relatives (Andrews 1987), further supporting the view that conventional (point) mutations may be of little or no significance in the evolutionary process.

Furthermore, recent studies clearly demonstrate that such chromosome reorganizations do not occur randomly as the Darwinian model would assume.

The great genetic complexity of a primitive form such as Acropora millepora raises an interesting question concerning the nature of the evolutionary process. Is it not possible that evolution might have involved, to some extent at least, the loss rather than the gain of information?

To correct JAD's deliberate misinformation in post 26328:

Darwinian evolution can be demonstrated. That the experiment is a long one is not denied by the theory. JAD is perhaps unaware of this, parading his ignorance like a ribbon, or perhaps he is deliberately misinforming.

Darwinian theory has considerable substance. If JAD was honest, instead of a barefaced liar, he would admit that mutations of many types occur, that they affect phenotype both drastically and subtly, that they are heritable and that they affect the capacity of organisms to survive and reproduce. JAD is attempting to deliberately misinform when he does not preface certain of his comments with statements to this effect.

Darwinian theory is the result of many more years of diligence than JAD has ever been capable of. It *is* an invention, a very good one. It is not a hoax. I have personally induced mutations, recorded effects on phenotype, determined the mutations involved and their influence on the protein structures produced and traced their inheritance and the associated phenotypes, as have many others. To use the word hoax indicates that JAD is unaware of the pervasive body of facts that support heritable and cumulative genetic change. Maybe he is not a deliberate and informed liar, perhaps he is just ignorant. Whichever it is, he remains so to this very day.

The rest of his post is simply the sort of content-free dribble I hear from addled cranks on street corners concerned with imaginary conspiracies and CIA plots.

JAD, *you* bore *me* to tears. You have a right of free speech and you waste it with your provable lies. Free speech was not intended or designed to protect demonstrable lies. I fully support your banishment from Panda's Thumb were it to come about. You contribute nothing and have already divorced yourself from actively useful science.

When your deliberate misrepresentations of fact and judgement are exposed, *you* are the individual who makes no acknowledgement. *you* are the individual who trots out pithy little phrases like "the instant of conception" or "mendelian allellic selection blah blah" which almost sound informed to anybody without a dictionary or a science text. A common ploy of the professional creationists. Who gives you these little gems? Your Pastor? Somebody who uses words more than facts, and thinks well turned phrases count more than facts.
You seem absurdly concerned with godlessness, which also makes me think your agenda is not your own. Since a god hasn't been trotted out for all to see, godlessness is as natural as bipedalism in human and certainly not a concern.

If you don't like what is in the undergrad textbooks that point out your deliberate lies, the onus is rather on you to convince others. Whingeing here and elsewhere on the net will help you none, especially when undergrads can perform as exercises experiments that demonstrate that you do in fact lie and misrepresent. I have performed such experiments and blankly call you a deliberate liar, presumably intending to misinform and delay otherwise useful discussion and debate. When you lie within areas of my expertise, I will call you a liar. I invite any and all to do likewise. If I miss opportunities, it is because I have real and positive work to perform and loved ones to attend rather than the tiresome chore of slowing the pernicious spread of misinformation from you and your ilk.

Rustopher.

(using undergrad knowledge to stick it to JAD the liar since sometime last week)

There is no modern evolutionary theory. Theories are verified hypotheses. There is not a single facet of Darwinism that has been verified. Not one. All the selection of mutations has never resulted in the transformation of one species to another either in the laboratory or, as nearly as one can ascertain, in nature. Considering the thousands of proteins involved it is not surprising that there might be thousands of allelic differences involved in an evolutionary sequence, not any of which can be demonstrated to have any creative significance. The vast majority are neutral as near as we can tell.

It is qetzal that is all bluster. He recites standard Darwinian pablum as if it were the gospel truth never to be questioned. The simple truth is that neither Lamarckian nor Darwinian evolution has any credibility whatsoever. They are both matters of faith unsupported by the experience of hundreds of years of the most intensive selection which has never transformed anything into more than a subspecies or a variety.

Sexual reproduction cannot result in anything new. All it can do is reshuffle what is already there. I have arrived at the PEH by the time honored means of the elimination of alternatives which have historically been Darwinism and Lamarckism. Neither has withstood tthe scrutiny of the fossil record or the laboratory. Both are monumental failures with no explanatory power whatsoever. Neither can account for the sudden appearance of new structures a failure recognized by Mivart even in Darwin's own day. The history of evolutionary science has been a history of denial on the part of the establishment that they have ever had any critics. I am but a more recent example.

Julian Huxley, one of their own, has claimed evolution was finished as I have documented time and time again. the Darwinians cannot abide the thought that they have dedicated their lives to a complete myth. They lash out blindly at any hypothesis that criticizes and exposes the failure of their precious mutation/selection fantasy neither of which ever had anything to do with creative evolutionary change. Grasse knew it, Berg new it, Broom knew it, Schindewolf knew it and I know it.

The basic issue resolves into the question of where did the information come from that made evolution (past tense of course) possible? Having exhausted all other possibilities I have concluded that it was already there and, exactly as is the case with ontogeny, it has been progressively derepressed completely independent of any environmental influences just as Schindewolf claimed. If qetzal disregards the conclusions of Schindewolf I suggest qetzal start explaining why Schindewolf is wrong. The simple truth is qetzal is not criticizing me at all. He is disregarding some of the finest minds of two centuries. In typical arrogant Darwinian fashion he dismisses that which cannot be dismissed. Macroevolution is over and done with. Chance had absolutely nothing to do with it just as chance now has absolutely nothing to do with ontogeny and never did have. The entire Darwinian hypothesis has failed every test to which it has been subjected. It is without question the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. Bateson knew it, Berg knew it, Grasse knew it, Schindewolf knew it, Punnett knew it, Broom knew it, Goldschmidt knew it, Osborn knew it, Mivart knew it and I know it too. It is only the Darwinians that don't know it. They can't know it because they are genetically incapable of abandoning a world view that undoubtedly has a strong genetic component, just as does every other aspect of the human condition.

Incidentally I want to know what the difference is between something being random and undirected. I regard that which is random as being very definitely undirected. If that is the kind of reasoning qetzal is forced to present then qetzal needs some real help. That is just one more example of the kind of double talk that has come to characterize the Darwinian establishment in their final death throes.

A careful reading of qetzal's tirade against me reveals that in fact he has agreed with a large portion of what I have presnted in the PEH. He has presented absolutely nothing of substance against it, absolutely nothing. He just doesn't like it. It is as simple as that.

You bore me qetzal just as you and your cronies bored me when I was posting over at EvC. You are just another garden variety Darwinian blindly supporting a failed hypothesis.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for atheist Darwinism.

How do you like them parsnips?

John A. Davison

PLEASE JOHN! end your missives with something other than vegetable matter. I'm getting too much roughage. How bout a nice t-bone, or a shishkabob perhaps?

To correct JAD the deliberate liar in post 26355,

There is in fact a modern theory of evolution by natural selection. The old theory had no knowledge of the means of inheritance. The modern one does. There are numerous facets of Darwinian theory that are extensively verified. Since JAD the ignorant has not heard of them and will pretend just such, I will list a few: The existence of mutations. The heritability of mutations. The capacity of mutations to alter phenotype. The selectability of mutations via the phenotypes they produce. The tolerance of the mechanism for random mutations. These are key facets and they are easily demonstrable by any undergrad. JAD the liar might pretend otherwise, but I and many others *have*, as undergrads. JAD the ignorant might pretend not to have heard.

Selection of mutations has resulted in some nominal members of a species being largely infertile with typical members of that species and infertile with more distant subspecies. This is compatible with the timescales that are clearly involved and suggested by Darwin. The theory makes no promise to JAD that a speciation will begin, progress and gracefully complete itself in his lifetime. JAD is ingenuously ignoring the fact that several "species" contain divergence to greater and lesser degrees. He is also deliberately ignoring the fact that some recognised separate species are so fractionally past the arbitrary point of "speciation" as to occasionally generate fertile hybrids, and yet more produce sterile hybrids. Clearly the process of speciation is not so discrete and quantised as JAD would pretend. That selection of variants can achieve this has been demonstrated in several breeding programs and clearly indicates that further divergence can also be achieved by continuing application of the same method. By not noting this, by phrasing his statement in the absolute, JAD the liar is attempting to misinform.

Considering the thousands of proteins involved, it is not surprising that there might be thousands of allelic differences involved in speciation. Since about 100 occur in the germ line of any given mammal in a generation, thousands over many generations are clearly possible. To correct JAD's conflation, each and every one might have creative significance ranging from insignificant to permitting a new substrate specificity to significant alteration of body size, organ size, diet, resistance to disease, or fatality. The vast majority are neutral given no other changes, an assumption that JAD carefully forgot to state.

qetzal will defend himself, I think. The simple truth is that major components and outcomes of Darwins theory are demonstrated and used by students, researchers and breeders daily, and JAD's attempt to state otherwise is a lie, or ignorance. The simple truth is that such methods are slow and have produced as much variation as is feasible in the time available. This corresponds closely with anticipated rates and there is no practical or theoretical reason recognised by active practitioners that further variation and selction will not generate thoroughly doumented speciation. As with other contemporary examples, such a new species may continue to be regarded as a member of the originating species as a matter of convenience of nomenclature.

JAD's little political speech only has a few glaring errors. He ignores that the most major rearrangements of chromosomal structure occur during gametogenesis. Recombination events do not merely shuffle the deck of genes, it shuffles the deck of exons and introns, recombining separate mutations formerly not present together in the one cistron, more rarely generating chimeric genes, it extends and reduces repeating segments, some of which are functional and dosage dependent. It also allows a new superior allele or new gene locus to propagate rapidly through a breeding population, which is hardly a detraction for the theory. To correct JAD's little fantasy, Darwin himself indicated that he developed his theory at least partially in response to observations of the fossil record in striking geological formations. These formations indeed provide a clear picture of biological alteration over time, an acceptable short definition of evolution.

It is even possible for Julian Huxley to have not fully grasped the timescales and possibilities for future change in both the environment and in organisms, let alone the possibilities of intensive breeding given a knowledge of the genetic material. Darwinians can't abide the shallow carping of creationists and deliberate liars like JAD, who pretend that published literature and knowledgeable personal experience don't count.

The question of where the information content came from is very elegently embedded in the theory. In the environment, which imposes the conditions leading to selection. As to expanding a genome, there are large numbers of pseudogenes and these are often partially active and certainly open to variation and selection. Every now again a new one occurs as is extensively documented. Larger genomes are clearly possible as a result.

JAD is not just being a pain to us, he is deliberately ignoring, misrepresenting, misinforming and lying about a very large number of *the* finest minds of more than two centuries, the ones in fact that were correct and had something useful to teach rather than carping.

In typical lying fashion he conflates a parody of macroeveolution with historical divergences that are in the fossil record. He ignores that these would not necessarily occur in the present as conditions are different, including a lot of pre-existing competition.

He brings up his funny version of "chance" again. Again, I wonder if he gets this from the pastor, who I would *expect* to be ignorant. Given variation (the random or pseudorandom element), the selection is imposed by the environment. The variations are random, the selection is selective. Since ontogeny is controlled by a large number of genes, I rather think that random mutations do indeed have considerable effect on ontogeny, often fatal, the rest affecting development to varying degree.

Ongoing experimental evidence and a large and parsimonious body of experience indicate that JAD is ranting, *and* a liar.

Rustopher.

Undergraduate textbooks are full of nonsense. That is because the Darwinians have dominated evolutionary thinking for 150 years. It has just been one brain-washed generation after another and it continues even now thanks to the influence of atheist ideologues like Richard Dawkins, John Rennie and Eugenie Scott. It is a damn disgrace is what it is.

The whole bloody scenario was scripted, executed and finalized with the production of Homo sapiens. It hasn't been a particularly pretty evolution but that is exacltly what it has been. Get used to it folks. I have.

I can't wait for the Kansas hearings. I anticipate a particularly powerful testimony from Giuseppe Sermonti. He incidentally is the editor of Rivista di Biologia, the journal which has had the good sense and the courage to publish several of my recent papers as well as those by others who have recognized, with him, what a disaster neoDarwinism really is. I don't expect much from the other particpants as they have not yet come to grips with the total failure of the Darwinian myth. Sermonti has. Otherwise he never would have published my papers.

I am only sorry I could not participate in these most important public hearings. The mere fact that the Dawinians boycotted them speaks volumes as to the inadequacy of their mindless dogma. By not participating they have exposed themselves to the ridicule they so richly deserve. It is about time.

How do you like them armadillos?

John A. Davison

Undergraduate textbooks are full of nonsense. That is because the Darwinians have dominated evolutionary thinking for 150 years. It has just been one brain-washed generation after another and it continues even now thanks to the influence of atheist ideologues like Richard Dawkins, John Rennie and Eugenie Scott. It is a damn disgrace is what it is.

The whole bloody scenario was scripted, executed and finalized with the production of Homo sapiens. It hasn't been a particularly pretty evolution but that is exactly what it has been. Get used to it folks. I have.

I can't wait for the Kansas hearings. I anticipate a particularly powerful testimony from Giuseppe Sermonti. He incidentally is the editor of Rivista di Biologia, the journal which has had the good sense and the courage to publish several of my recent papers as well as those by others who have recognized, with him, what a disaster neoDarwinism really is. I don't expect much from the other particpants as they have not yet come to grips with the total failure of the Darwinian myth. Sermonti has. Otherwise he never would have published my papers.

I am only sorry I could not participate in these most important public hearings. The mere fact that the Dawinians boycotted them speaks volumes as to the inadequacy of their mindless dogma. By not participating they have exposed themselves to the ridicule they so richly deserve. It is about time.

How do you like them armadillos?

John A. Davison

Undergraduate textbooks are full of nonsense. That is because the Darwinians have dominated evolutionary thinking for 150 years. It has just been one brain-washed generation after another and it continues even now thanks to the influence of atheist ideologues like Richard Dawkins, John Rennie and Eugenie Scott. It is a damn disgrace is what it is.

The whole bloody scenario was scripted, executed and finalized with the production of Homo sapiens. It hasn't been a particularly pretty evolution but that is exactly what it has been. Get used to it folks. I have.

I can't wait for the Kansas hearings. I anticipate a particularly powerful testimony from Giuseppe Sermonti. He incidentally is the editor of Rivista di Biologia, the journal which has had the good sense and the courage to publish several of my recent papers as well as those by others who have recognized, with him, what a disaster neoDarwinism really is. I don't expect much from the other particpants as they have not yet come to grips with the total failure of the Darwinian myth. Sermonti has. Otherwise he never would have published my papers.

I am only sorry I could not participate in these most important public hearings. The mere fact that the Darwinians boycotted them speaks volumes as to the inadequacy of their mindless dogma. By not participating they have exposed themselves to the ridicule they so richly deserve. It is about time.

How do you like them armadillos?

John A. Davison

To correct JAD in 26359,

Your undergrad texts may have been woeful, or unread. Mine have relatively few errors, mainly typos, and a large number of verifiable facts. I determined by reading a wide sampling that my texts did not lie about the content of their references, or distort the meaning of the findings, and the content of certain critical papers and chapters was demonstrated to be true down in the labs.

It is fabulous that we are edging toward a knowledge of biology that is usefully descriptive and predictive, and people like RD, JR and ES are not afraid to stand up in public and point out the risibility of substitutes for such knowledge that are presented by an increasingly vexed group of churches and other parasites for whom it is not proprietary.

The atheism of any of these, or of anybody, is hardly an issue in the absence of a god. What is peculiar is adhering to an alleged deity that presents no evidence of existing, let alone manifesting.

As regards the kangaroo court, the reason practising professional biologists are not attending this and similar meetings is that the creationists always lie about the proceedings and outcomes, restrict and edit recordings, ban independant recordings and eject other than their own sycophants. I suspect even Sermonti will be sickened by the empty self-congratulations that will go on, if he is an honest man.

The real scientists will continue to do the work that continues to build the parsimony of the modern synthesis, and the creationists can go chew rocks.

Rustopher.

JAD - Once again you misrepresent the facts or what was said. This is Huxley's comment/note:

"A little calculation demonstrates how incredibly improbable the results of natural selection can be when enough time is available. Following Professor Muller, we can ask what would have been the odds against a higher animal, such as a horse, being produced by chance alone: that is to say by the accidental accumulation of the necessary favorable mutations, without the intervention of selection."

This is widely cited by creationist sources as being the probability of a horse arising by evolution. Of course, the truth is that it is a probability for a horse arising WITHOUT evolution. Your sources are lying to you.

Bring on your next sham arguement.

Re 26359, 60, and 62:

And once again, JAD, besotted with the self-proclaimed wisdom and truth of his verbiage, attempts to add weight to it by multiple posting.

I also look forward to Sermonti's testimoney at the Kansas kangaroo court. It will be interesting to see him in person.

When does he appear in Kansas???

The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred." Is everyone else treated the same way I wonder. If they are, get your damn forum fixed. It is the most screwed up one I have ever encountered.

As for when the various experts appear in Kansas, I don't think that has been finalized yet. You watch folks. Everyone will dump on Sermonti even before he testifies. They always do.

John A. Davison

The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred." Is everyone else treated the same way I wonder. If they are, get your damn forum fixed. It is the most screwed up one I have ever encountered.

As for when the various experts appear in Kansas, I don't think that has been finalized yet. You watch folks. Everyone will dump on Sermonti even before he testifies. They always do.

John A. Davison

Here we go again. More error announcements. Followed by the abusive posters bull.

The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred." Is everyone else treated the same way I wonder. If they are, get your damn forum fixed. It is the most screwed up one I have ever encountered.

As for when the various experts appear in Kansas, I don't think that has been finalized yet. You watch folks. Everyone will dump on Sermonti even before he testifies. They always do.

John A. Davison

Here we go again. More error announcements.

More of the same naturally.

Keep it up folks. I love all this special attention.

That is the spirit.

The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred." Is everyone else treated the same way I wonder. If they are, get your damn forum fixed. It is the most screwed up one I have ever encountered.

As for when the various experts appear in Kansas, I don't think that has been finalized yet. You watch folks. Everyone will dump on Sermonti even before he testifies. They always do.

John A. Davison

Here we go again. More error announcements.

More of the same naturally.

Don't stop now. Keep showing your ass.

My source was Julian Huxley.

What a bunch of losers. You clowns are worse than EvC.

WHY HASN'T HE BEEN BANNED YET? Seriously. Is it because you think he'll be smug and say I told you so? WHO CARES? JAD has brought NOTHING valuable to any of the topics he has posted to. He has admitted all he's doing is trolling for responses, he just blathers about nothing and wastes space. Don't you find it odd the batroom wall has to be recreated every two weeks since JAD has arrived? Just block the IP already. having here benefits no one. It doesn't spark debate. It doesn't inform anyone of anything. STOP THE INSANITY.

"My source was Julian Huxley."

Please post the actual comment from Huxley.

The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred."

JAD,

The reason for your multiple postings is more likely the simple reality that you refuse to follow instructions.

Maybe I should become an evolutionist.

They seem to live to a ripe old age.

Norman Newell, 96, Scientist Who Studied Dying Species, Has Died
By JEREMY PEARCE

Dr. Norman D. Newell, an influential paleontologist who challenged opponents of evolutionary theory and helped shape theories explaining the mass extinctions of species, died on Monday at his home in Leonia, N.J., his family said. He was 96.

See story in today's NY Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/23/obituaries/23newell.html

This is for Sterverino.

"Evolution is thus seen as a series of blind alleys. Some are extremely short - those leading to new genera and and species that either become stable or become extinct. Others are longer - the lines of aadptive isolation within a group such as a class or subclass, which run for tens of millions of years before coming up against their terminal blank wall. Others are still longer - the links that in the past led to the development of the major phyla and their highest representatives; their course is to be reckioned not in tens but in hundreds of millions of years. But all in the long run have terminated blindly. etc. etc.
Julian Huxley, "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis" page 571

In this single paragraph Huxley destroyed the entire fabric of the Darwinian scheme. It is no wonder the Darwinians have ignored it just as they have always ignored anyone who challenged their mysticism, in this case one of their own. They have even ignored the revelations of Alfred Russel Wallace, the cofounder of the Darwinian fairy tale.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them blackberries?

John A. Davison

Banning John A. Davison is not necessary. I came up with a new idea for a message board bot, which would be simpler than JADS (call me a pessimist, but I've come to believe John will live forever.) It would periodically post on the Bathroom Wall "No, Dr. Davison. You are wrong again." That is all that needs to be said, and it would save people here a lot of time.

I really don't know why you post here, JAD. You're much to acerbic to actually gain any followers. What do you really want? Do you simply want to annoy the Darwinists, or do you actually want to gain converts to your theory? In light of the fact that you undermine acceptance of your own ideas through name-calling, I really don't understand why you continue to post. As the quote says, "Honey attracts more flies than vinegar".

Honey attracts more flies than vinegar

"The reasons for my multiple postings is because everything I attempt to post is greeted immediately with "an error occurred."

We all get that, especially when our computers have a lot of windows open and/or there is a lot of action at our local server or the server for PT. God's not personally out to get you. Patience is a virtue."

patience may be a virture, but there is definetly something wrong with either the code for posting data to the sql server, or the sql server itself. It isn't an isp error. I was an IT manager for 5 years, and can tell a code error when i see one.

whoever wrote the code for the forum needs to check some things related to input/ouput from the database. It's acting like it can't handle multiple in/out requests. maybe increasing the timeout value would be a simple fix until it could be looked at in more depth?

cheers

I really do want to annoy the Darwinists. I want to annoy them to the point they will finally abandon the most idiotic hypothesis ever produced in the history of science. I have tried to gain their attention through professional publication and have failed just as have all those of my predecessors who also used that approach. We, who have exposed Darwinism as the hoax that it has always been, continue to be ignored by the professionals and abused by the amateurs such as those here at Panda's Thumb and other such groupthinks on the internet. We have unfairly been identified as fundamentalist Bible Banging Bigots when nothing could be further from the truth.

The Fundies are just as wrong as are the Darwinians. Both camps consist of herds of maniacal fanatics so busy hating each other's guts that it would never occur to either of them that they were dead wrong. Well, dead wrong they both are as far I am concerned. I have no respect for either groupthink. I'm too damn old now to try to remake myself into some kind of Mister Nice Guy or some sort of Caspar Milquetoast. It didn't work for Grasse or Goldschmidt or Schindewolf either.

None of the critics of the Darwinian fairy tale have ever been given a fair hearing by an establishment that is still dominated by a bunch of homozygous chance-worshipping atheist ideologues like Richard Dawkins, Stephen J. Gould and Ernst Mayr, not a real scientist in the lot. They all quit to spend the rest of their miserable lives cranking out huge quantities of science fiction for a like minded audience. I say the hell with them and all those that have fallen for their con job. They can all just kiss my other cheeks.

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

How do you like them radishes?

John A. Davison

I have tried to gain their attention through professional publication and have failed just as have all those of my predecessors who also used that approach.

So, you want to insult the Darwinists into giving up? That seems like exactly the wrong approach. When you insult people, you put them into a defensive frame of mind when you want to put them into a receptive frame of mind. Let me ask you this: when someone insults you, does it make you want to agree with their ideas? Of course not. That's not the way human psychology works. It just makes people emotional and resistant.

> Both camps consist of herds of maniacal fanatics so busy hating each other's guts that it would never occur to either of them that they were dead wrong.

I think it's clear that insults incite hatred. And, based on your quote, you agree that "hating each other's guts" causes people to close their eyes to the truth. Yet, in contradiction to this pattern, you think annoying Darwinists and calling them names will somehow get them to listen to you.

So, you want to insult the Darwinists into giving up? That seems like exactly the wrong approach. When you insult people, you put them into a defensive frame of mind when you want to put them into a receptive frame of mind. Let me ask you this: when someone insults you, does it make you want to agree with their ideas? Of course not. That's not the way human psychology works. It just makes people emotional and resistant.

> Both camps consist of herds of maniacal fanatics so busy hating each other's guts that it would never occur to either of them that they were dead wrong.

I think it's clear that insults incite hatred. And, based on your quote, you agree that "hating each other's guts" causes people to close their eyes to the truth. Yet, in contradiction to this pattern, you think annoying Darwinists and calling them names will somehow get them to listen to you?

you think annoying Darwinists and calling them names will somehow get them to listen to you?

— BC

Could someone tell me why JAD is worth talking to? Can you justify wasting your breath on him?

Hey Charlie, you never answered me before.

I detailed, weeks ago, how every week, a few untrained laymen, who believe themselves well self-educated on a topic, are convinced that they have discovered a deep flaw in physics, submit their manifestoes to physicists at NCSU, and are promptly ignored. I asked you: What, exactly distinguishes you from those cranks, besides the particular science in question?

Aurolea

The evidence for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is presented in two sections, the first entitled "The Indirect Evidence," the second "The Direct Evidence." This is followed by a conclusion section which further supports the hypothesis, ending with a premature endorsement by Albert Einstein.

BC

I long ago abandoned any further attempts to reason with with the Fanatical Fundies or the Delusionary Darwimps. It simply doesn't work. I am a physiologist and I am interested in how things work. When something doesn't work, like every aspect of Darwinism, I reject it and try to find something that does work. I think I have found it in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Obviously being reasonable with either theist or atheist fanatics didn't work and so I have decided on a new tack which is basically the hell with both of them. Nothing ventured, nothing gained don't you know. I have managed to get their attention, at least the amateur contingent, so well represented here at Panda's Thumb.

Persuasion is for priests and lawyers. I am neither, just an old fashioned retired bench physiologist.

Incidentally I am delighted to discover the new Pope is endorsing the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which is why I emailed His Holiness the manuscript.

It is all really hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them grapes?

John A. Davison

Aurolea

The evidence for the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is presented in two sections, the first entitled "The Indirect Evidence," the second "The Direct Evidence." This is followed by a conclusion section which further supports the hypothesis, ending with a premature endorsement by Albert Einstein.

BC

I long ago abandoned any further attempts to reason with either the Fanatical Fundies or the Delusionary Darwimps. It simply doesn't work. I am a physiologist and I am interested in how things work. When something doesn't work, like every aspect of Darwinism, I reject it and try to find something that does work. I think I have found it in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Obviously being reasonable with either theist or atheist fanatics didn't work and so I have decided on a new tack which is basically the hell with both of them. Nothing ventured, nothing gained don't you know. I have managed to get their attention, at least the amateur contingent, so well represented here at Panda's Thumb.

Persuasion is for priests and lawyers. I am neither, just an old fashioned retired bench physiologist.

Incidentally I am delighted to discover the new Pope is endorsing the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which is why I emailed His Holiness the manuscript.

It is all really hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them grapes?

John A. Davison

Just block the IP already.

— Enough

I believe JAD's behavior is an abuse of contract under most ISPs. The proper course of action is to have the ISP restrict JAD's access to this site. Spam is illegal.

Re "that suggests about 43,000,000 point mutation differences and 6,000,000 insertion/deletion differences between chimps and humans."

Interesting.

Henry

...a premature endorsement by Albert Einstein.

Are your papers available online, Davison?

"Rivista di Biologia, the journal which has had the good sense and the courage to publish several of my recent papers as well as those by others..."

I always thought the RdB was perhaps the shittiest 'biological' journal I ever happened to have come across in the library stacks. Nucleic Acids Research is mostly dull as toast, but RdB is just a plain, nutty, publishing backwater. Has any groundbreaking paper ever come out of that rag?

My unpublished "Manifesto" and three other early publications are available at my home page:

www.uvm.edu/~jdavison

The original 1984 paper, "Semi-meiosis as an Evolutionary Mechanism" published in the Journal of Theoretical Biology is not available on line. "A Prescibed Evolutionary Hypothesis" (without the figure) is at ARN, ISCID's "brainstorms" and EvC and I would be happy to foward it to anyone who is really interested. "The Case for Instant Evolution" I believe is also at "brainstorms" as well as "Is Evolution Finished?" If you check Google with the two words (Davison evolution) you will find several sources for my papers as well as the vehement responses they have evoked. I suggest you read the papers and draw your own conclusions.

Let me also say that my behavior on internet forums is not in any way reflected in my published papers. On forums I have reacted to some of the most hideous tactics imaginable which have included summary deletion, deliberate garbling in the form of disemvoweling here at Panda's Thumb and lifetime banishment from FringeSciences, EvC and "brainstorms." Here at PT I am denied participation except at the Bathroom Wall where everything I post elsewhere is automatically transmitted if at all. I was similarly incarcerated at EvC in what they called "Boot Camp" until they finally banned me for life. It should surprise no one that I am less than tractable after my experiences with internet forum communication. It has been anything but professional. It has been little more than "When in Rome, do as the Romans do."

Actually, the thing that galls me the most is not the treatmenet I receive but the callous way the establishment has ignored some of the greatest biologists of all times. One of my stated objectives is the resurrection of these predecessors without which my own contributions would never have been possible. I am supremely confident that any objective student, having read and comprehended the works of Leo Berg, Robert Broom, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Pierre Grasse, William Bateson and Otto Schindewolf, could never remain a Darwinian of any persuasion. They would, as I have, look elsewhere for the answers to the great mystery of organic evolution. Until others have done that there is little hope for a rational dialogue as my experience on internet forum can definitely testify.

"Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
Montaigne

It is all really hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison

"Let me ask you this: when someone insults you, does it make you want to agree with their ideas? Of course not. That's not the way human psychology works. It just makes people emotional and resistant."

hey, when i get to the point of insulting someone, that's exactly what i am going for! At that point, it's usually after I have attempted a more reasoned discourse in which the other person has obviously completely rejected logic (Like EA, JAD, and CW). Once it is clear to me that the person is either a kook or a troll, throwing rocks is just fun.

:P

Re "that suggests about 43,000,000 point mutation differences and 6,000,000 insertion/deletion differences between chimps and humans."

A thought: a comparison of this with average mutation rates might be useful.

49 million difference
about 25 million per lineage
about 5 per year per lineage
about 50 to 100 per generation per lineage

Is that about right?

Henry

@JAD:

I still think you need more meat referenced in your posts. still far too much fruit and vegetable matter. Might want to throw some dairy and bread in there as well, just for a more balanced approach.

I've heard that a protein deficiency can cause memory loss and brain malfunction.

maybe that's your problem? Too many apples?

again i ask:

does anybody know what happened to the debate featuring the DI's Paul Nelson that was supposed to occur on NPR on the 19th?

I can't find reference to what happened anywhwere.

did it get canceled?

ToeJam

Do you have any credentials as a scientist? Have you ever published anything? Of course to verify this you would have to shed your precious anonymity. Are you prepared to do that? If you are not, I will pay no more attention to anything you post but regard you as just one more deluded Darwimp. The same goes for anyone else who finds it necessary to engage in personal denigration, disemvoweling, deletion or any of the other ways that Panda's Thumb may find necessary to deal with someone who does not agree with its groupthink philosophy.

I don't even know who you people are except for Elsberry. It is pretty hard to insult someone who has no identity don't you know. By way of contrast you all know exactly who I am and that was my choice. It seems to me that is not a very level playing field. Maybe that is what internet forums are really for, nothing but venues for the gratification of egos so insecure that they must remain unknown.

John A. Davison

Hey Charlie, you never answered me before. I detailed, weeks ago, how every week, a few untrained laymen, who believe themselves well self-educated on a topic, are convinced that they have discovered a deep flaw in physics, submit their manifestoes to physicists at NCSU, and are promptly ignored. I asked you: What, exactly distinguishes you from those cranks, besides the particular science in question?

— steve

Can anyone help with a query?
Does Henry M. Morris, Ph.D. have any connection with creationists that anyone is aware of?
Is he a person that any of you recognize?

Sincerely,

Paul

Forgive me. I was too excited by something I found and posted here before doing the obligatory google search.

Paul

Of course I am a crank and much worse. I am a senile old fool on the brink of being committed. If you don't believe me just ask Pim van (yours in Christ) Meurs or Great White Wonder or ToeJam or damn near anyone here at good old Panda's Thumb, the Alamo of Darwimpianism. Take a poll. That is what they did at my request over at EvC. It seems it didn't work out exactly as they expected. You do believe in the democratic process don't you? Don't just sit there. Do something. Produce some hard data and then publish it somewhere if you can. That is what I have always done.

How do you like them apricots?

John A. Davison

I've heard that a protein deficiency can cause memory loss and brain malfunction.

— Sir_Toejam

Its amazing the delusional lying habits of Darwininian Fundamentalists. The stickers placed in textbooks were pointing out the limitations of evolution as an unvalidated theory for explaining certain aspects of life. But Darwinists didn't like criticism of their religion.

Pathological liars such as PZ Myers fit the statement perfectly, "Some evolutionists go too far when they insiste that evolution should be taught completely without criticism"

If you had any integrity you would allow science to be taught instead of your nihilistic athiest religion (Darwinism). Of course this religion is the underpinning of liberal ideology that you hold so dearly.

"I will pay no more attention to anything you post but regard you as just one more deluded Darwimp"

coming from you, that could almost be considered a compliment.

I want my incoming students to be well versed in the fundamentals of biology, which include evolution but not the pseudoscience of ID, so that we can move to the real excitement of modern biology... which is almost entirely informed by the concepts of evolution

Evolving Apeman

Have you also been committed to the Wall as your only posting venue? I am just curious as I am naive in computer technology beyond my conviction that there is no such thing as "creative computerism."

Macroevolution is finished and I defy anyone to demonstrate its occurrence in historical times. That does not mean that it never occurred however. It most certainly did and did so by means that are no longer in operation. Just as an adult organism can never again resume embryonic development, so a fully evolved organism can never again evolve. The terminal stage in the evolutionary sequence is realized when sexual repropduction becomes the only remaining reproductive option. Another dead end is purely clonal reproduction such as is the case with Amoeba, one of the most successful creatures ever to inhabit this planet. It did so by abandoning sexual roulette and adopting the age old practice summarized in the old saw:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

How do you like them celeries?

John A. Davison

Evolving Apeman

Have you also been committed to the Wall as your only posting venue? I am just curious as I am naive in computer technology beyond my conviction that there is no such thing as "creative computerism."

Macroevolution is finished and I defy anyone to demonstrate its occurrence in historical times. That does not mean that it never occurred however. It most certainly did and did so by means that are no longer in operation. Just as an adult organism can never again resume embryonic development, so a fully evolved organism can never again evolve. The terminal stage in the evolutionary sequence is realized when sexual reproduction becomes the only remaining reproductive option. Another dead end is purely clonal reproduction such as is the case with Amoeba, one of the most successful creatures ever to inhabit this planet. It did so by abandoning sexual roulette and adopting the age old practice summarized in the old saw:

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it."

How do you like them celeries?

John A. Davison

Dr. Davison,

I think I am also being banned. My comments to PZ were perhaps a bit more personal than they needed to be. Oh well. His arrogance PZs me off.

I intend to look up your papers. Is it correct to say your views on evolution our similar to Dr. Behe's views?

I tend to view the debate as more philosophical than science. We need to recognize that how we define science and how we recognize limitations when we have inadequate data for testing a hypothesis are based on philosophical underpinnings. Undirected macro-evolution may be the "best naturalistic explaination" for origins. Just as chance is the "best naturalistic explaination" for answered prayer. The problem I believe, is that Darwinists fail to recognize their philosophical assumptions, but instead try to use evolution to support their atheism.

Your fellow persecuted troll,

Evolving Apeman

Gee, I don't know steve. How do you distinguish a "crank"? Is it someone with a controversial idea? Is it someone who disagrees with your world view? Is it someone who keeps pushing an idea that he believes in despite continued rejection from the mainstream? Exactly how do you decide who's a crank and who is not? Perhaps if you could clear this up, I could answer your question.

Substitute "observable" for "naturalistic" and you've got it, EA. If Faeries and demons and angels were reliably observable, scientists would be doing studies on them. Same with a designer's role in the formation of life.
Ah-ah! Before you repeat the tired old argument that we have not observed macroevolution (what scientists equate with speciation,) just think about how God would feel about that disingenuousness.
Anyway, evolution's "philosophical underpinnings" are no different from those of any other science. Science does not say "There-is-no-God-and-by-God-we're-gonna-prove-it!" It just has not observed any evidence for (or against) His existence. I have great admiration for our creator, in that He has consistently worked through the natural laws He has set up.
I don't think that what we recognize as natural laws account for everything, though, like consciousness and what we refer to as "randomness." The thing about randomness is that it's kinda something we made up. Either something happens or it doesn't. So although sequences involving "randomness" (within some universal constraints) could be enough to create complex life forms, that does not explain why the particular ones that exist do so.
I believe in a God, and that we have purpose. I also believe in evolution by Darwinian mechanisms. You may think that I have some kind of doublethink going on, but I am quite sure that I am more honest with myself on this issue than any ID proponent.

Supplemental: I use "believe" to describe both a belief in God and in Darwinian evolution, but the term does not mean quite the same thing in both cases. My theistic beliefs are derived mostly from faith. My belief in evolution is much more similar to my belief in a round Earth.

Evolving Apeman

We are not being persecuted at all. The Darwimps are unwittingly persecuting themselves by being perfectly intolerant to any view they refuse to accept. That means any view that suggests purpose or design in any form. They simply won't hear of it because they are literally deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres. It is hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison

Malkuth,
Thanks,
I was researching Isaac Asimov and came across something Morris had written. It struck me as too "creationist" to be anything else. He is pretty high up there. Too bad he is an ICR man and not a IDiot of DI. He needs to be careful what he writes. Quote mining can work both ways.
Sincerely, Paul

@EA, CW, JAD:

"It rubs the lotion on its skin, or else it gets the hose again."

Who is next?

I keep wondering how that "Prescribed Evolutionary" mechanism JAD is putting his stakes on is supposed to work: He says that evolutionary events are independent of environmental factors.

I suppose there is some time mechanism at work here that triggers an event of evolutionary development across a species, which results in a new species being "born". In that case, speciation should be observable regardless of the numerical size and geographical spread of the "parent species".

This however does not correlate with paleontologocal data, which suggests that speciation only happens in small and geographically isolated groups. So, my question to JAD is; how does PEH explain that evolutionary change (speciation) is absent during times when a species is large in numbers and geographically spread, and _does_ occur in small, isolated groups?

I bet he'll just tell me to read his "manifesto" :P

Bytheway; Darwins hypothesis of genetic variation / natural selection fits perfectly with the observations, since evolution acts upon individuals, and not on species.

I have made no attempt to try to explain HOW PEH works. That is not yet possible. What I have proposed is that the only possible explanation for evolution requires that the information must have been present from very early on. The environment cannot be identified as a causative agent in evolution any more than it can in the events of ontogeny. It is as simple as that. Even if PEH should prove to be faulty, that in no way detracts from the utter failure of the Darwinian paradigm to explain anything beyond the production of subspecies or varieties. Evolution DID occur and the mechanism for that occurrence still remains shrouded in mystery. To think otherwise is not only arrogant but completely without merit.

John A. Davison

Sandor

The sea is hardly an isolated environment. Are we to believe that evolution never took place in the sea? Paleontological data in no way implicates geographical isolation as an evolutionary factor. That is just more of Ernst Mayr's mysticism.

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

John A. Davison

The sea is hardly an isolated environment. Are we to believe that evolution never took place in the sea?

— John A. Davison

It is dialogues like this one that make me think I may be losing my mind. Isolation never had anything to do with evolution beyond the possible production of subspecies. Where are you people coming from I wonder?

Who is next?

John A. Davison

The problem I believe, is that Darwinists fail to recognize their philosophical assumptions, but instead try to use evolution to support their atheism.

I have made no attempt to try to explain HOW PEH works.

Aureola

Giuseppe Sermonti and his editorial board seem to think the PEH is of some merit which is why it is appearing in the next issue. If there was ever an ideological rant it is neoDarwinism, a Godless attempt to generate an entire universe out of random events.

The PEH was never intended to be data. The data has been supplied by others as I have documented in the paper. The PEH is the only conceivable explanation after both Darwinism and Lamarckism have been discarded and they have been, not only by me but by many others long before me. Evolution WAS a reality and it never took place according to Darwinian principles. Natural Selection is completely anti-evolutionary serving only to preserve that which was produced through endogenous forces yet to be understood. Allelic mutations never had anything to do with speciation or the formation of any of the higher categories either as Grasse explained. Phylogeny, just as ontogeny now goes forward from the information contained in the fertlized egg, proceeded through the controlled derepression of infomation already present in the evolving genome. Ontogeny is the perfect model for phylogeny. Neither process has or had any dependency on the environment as Schindewolf so obviously recognized and I quoted in the PEH paper. Ontogeny and phylogeny are part of the same organic continuum so it is not surprising they should share many of the same features.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for neoDarwinism.

How do you like them peaches?

John A. Davison

A new University of Colorado at Boulder study indicates Earth in its infancy probably had substantial quantities of hydrogen in its atmosphere, a surprising finding that may alter the way many scientists think about how life began on the planet.

My my Aureola you certainly are upset aren't you. That is a good sign. If you had any confidence you would simply ignore me. You bore me.

John A. Davison

JAD,

You have yet to post any supporting data for Creationism?

Comment #16458 Posted by John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 01:54 AM ... You jerks don't phase me with these infantile attacks on my competence and character. You are just a huge collection of unfulfilled sociopathic nobodies with nothing else in your empty lives but the autogratification you get from denigrating your intellectual superiors. You better keep your traps shut about my sources or I'll turn you all in to the FBI as security risks. Of course you have made that quite impossible haven't you with your cowardly anonymity. What a collection of losers. /quote] or Comment # 16581 Comment #16581 Posted by John A. Davison on February 16, 2005 03:55 PM ...That arrogant snot bag Gould not only would not respond to my reprints and letters, he wouldn't even let me come down to Harvard at my expense and present a seminar. He was obviously scared fecesless or he would have loved the opportunity to expose some trash bag from the Vermont hills as a damn fool. ....

— John A. Davison

Comment #18911 Posted by John A. Davison on March 3, 2005 01:07 PM I inhabit forums because the professional Darwimps are afraid to even mention my name just as they always have been terrified of their critics. They are nothing but a bunch of cowardly mindless sedentary subnormal blowhards following one another like lemmings over the cliff and into the sea of Darwinian oblivion. ...

— John A. Davison

Comment #16318 Posted by John A. Davison on February 15, 2005 11:33 AM ... These forums are primarily for my personal enjoyment at being able to elicit the kind of response that you just produced for me. Thank you very much. ...

— John A. Davison

if he's lucky, i won't pursue having UVM deny him the use of their facilities to post his continued drivel.

Wayne, hopefully the JAD situation has convinced some fence-sitters that a free-for-all is not the productive way to have a discussion on the internet. People will not voluntarily stop feeding the trolls any more than they'll stop buying products from spam. A little hygiene is needed to keep the forum fresh and clean. If I ever wrote contributions for Panda's Thumb, there are 4 or 5 active trolls whose comments I'd delete from my comment section.

Maybe JAD has a point.

Have not both sharks and crocodiles been around for a very long time. With neither evolving in any major way?

Would it be fair to assume that a crocs environment has changed quite a lot, while a sharks has remained relatively constant?
Is it inplausible to assume that evolution for these creatures has come to an end?

I am not trained in biology so feel free to criticise and point out any errors in my statement.

Thank you Stephen Elliott for introducing a note of sanity into an otherwise fruitless discussion. You are fortnate in not being "trained" in biology. "Training" is for animals, not rational minds. The Darwinians have "trained" thousands for over a century in a dogma completely without substance. Panda's Thumb is teeming with its "trainees" as it were. Congratulations on somehow resisting the forces of Godless Darwinism.

Sir Toejam

There is no need to convince UVM to stop letting me use there facilities to post my "continued drivel." They already did that 5 years ago. My so-called home page has been frozen since 2000. I have thought about opening a new one but, being computer illiterate, I don't know how. Perhaps one of the denizens of Panda's Thumb would do that for me. You know, a kind of "fan club for Davison" as it were. Doesn't Richard Dawkins have a kind of fan club? Stephen Elliott could become a charter member as could DaveScott. Why it could be the beginning of a "movement" even. Think about it. What a glorious concept. I say go for it.

I see steve does not care for free-for-alls. I always thought that is what science was all about.

Wayne Francis

I want to thank you for reprinting some of my more cogent comments. That was very thoughtful. I need all the publicity I can muster.

How do you like them apricots?

Now let's see, who is next?

John A. Davison

Stephen:
Evolution can only occur if there arise mutated individuals that have an advantage over non-mutated individuals, such that the mutated individuals can produce more offspring. Assuming this advantage persists into the descendant generations, in succeeding generations the mutated individuals' descendants will take up an ever greater proportion of the population.

It can be that circumstances conspire against all mutations, even as the environment changes. In which case we will observe no changes in the species.

This is not to say that in the future the species will not change, in reaction to other environmental changes. What is needed for evolution - mutation plus selection - is working all the time for all species. To get a change in the species, all that is required is to get a mutation lucky enough to be able to have more offspring than its coevals.

Still awaiting data that can be validated that supports Creationism.

Posted by Paulp on April 26, 2005 06:56 AM (e) (s) Stephen: Evolution can only occur if there arise mutated individuals that have an advantage over non-mutated individuals, such that the mutated individuals can produce more offspring. Assuming this advantage persists into the descendant generations, in succeeding generations the mutated individuals' descendants will take up an ever greater proportion of the population. It can be that circumstances conspire against all mutations, even as the environment changes. In which case we will observe no changes in the species. This is not to say that in the future the species will not change, in reaction to other environmental changes. What is needed for evolution - mutation plus selection - is working all the time for all species. To get a change in the species, all that is required is to get a mutation lucky enough to be able to have more offspring than its coevals.

JAD:

An "explanation" which does not present a "mechanism" is pure ideology.

Aureola

Mendel's work preceded the discovery of meiosis by several years. It was purely theoretical. I thought everybody knew that. That is precisely why it was not accepted. It only became acceptable after something else was discovered that occured in pairs and segregated and recombined like his factors: namely, the chromosomes. What is your gender or would you rather not say? I give ladies more leeway than men.

How do you like them bananas?

Now let's see, who is next?

John A. Davison

JAD:

Still awaiting valid proof of Creationism

Re "Would not a "mutant" with a survival advantage be extremely rare though, and only able to mate with "normal" species members?
If so, wouldn't that reduce the mutation each generation and eventualy have it disapear?"

The odds are that half its offspring would carry the mutation. (And half of theirs. And half of each subsequent generation.) Average number of offspring per individual is two. If the mutation does increase the average number of offspring for its carriers, each of them would produce (on average) more than one carrier of the mutation.

(Granted, simple bad luck could squash even the most beneficial mutation at the starting gate if the first carrier of it gets eaten or something.)

Henry

(Granted, simple bad luck could squash even the most beneficial mutation at the starting gate if the first carrier of it gets eaten or something.) Henry

You know, a kind of "fan club for Davison" as it were. Doesn't Richard Dawkins have a kind of fan club? Stephen Elliott could become a charter member as could DaveScott.

— JAD

"...The writer, Michael Shermer (of Skeptic.com), cites Gardner as offering two key criteria for identifying a "scientific crank": "Cranks work in almost total isolation from their colleagues"; and they exhibit "a tendency toward paranoia." This paranoia, he continues, is evident in the following symptomatic behaviors:

(1) [The crank] considers himself a genius. (2) He regards his colleagues, without exception, as ignorant blockheads. ... (3) He believes himself unjustly persecuted and discriminated against. ... It never occurs to the crank that this opposition may be due to error in his work. ... (4) He has strong compulsions to focus his attacks on the greatest scientists and the best-established theories. ... (5) He often has a tendency to write in a complex jargon, in many cases making use of terms and phrases he himself has coined. "

from http://www.provenanceunknown.com/archive/2002/02-18_scientists_v.html

Popeye said: I yam what I yam, that's what I yam!

Re "Still awaiting data that can be validated that supports Creationism."

We exist.

We're complicated.

There's questions to which we don't have answers.

What more is needed? :D

(Ducking for cover.)

I am naive in computer technology beyond my conviction that there is no such thing as "creative computerism."

It's liar dummy.

Grey Wolf

It is liar not lier. Lier is not an english word and I do not lie.

Aureola

I am sorry to find that you are uncertain as to your condition. Ask a stranger.

Scott L. Page, the man with a thousand aliases.

I know damn well I am not a genius. I was a few points shy of 150 and that was 60 uears ago. it has been all down hill since then. On the other hand, your I.Q. has GOT to be in the room temperature range (that's Fahrenheit).

Stephen Elliott

Sorry if I insulted you. The way I say it has become the last weapon in my arsenal, absolutely necessary when one deals with homozygous fanatical ideologues of whatever persuasion. It is the only weapon of choice when all others fail. I know as I have tried them all.

"I have always felt that a politician* is to be judged by the animosities he excites among his opponents."
Winston Churchill

* substitute scientist for politician.

How do you like them raspberries?

Who is next?

John A. Davison

JAD:

I am not uncertain. I am absolutely sure that whether anything dangles from one's crotch or chest has zilch to do with whether the person in question is right, wrong, or anything in between.

I notice that you've gone to full troll mode, taunting people, in the mistaken belief that enraging someone by the subtle tool of saying stupid things at them will somehow validate said stupid things. Since this, like everything else you've written on this forum, is pure, unadulterated baloney, you can expect as much success as you enjoyed in convincing people of your other ideas.

PS: one cannot replace "politicians" with "scientists" in your Churchill quote, as politics and science use very different gauges to measure success.

JAD, I admit I am not as fluent in English as a native might be. We can continue this discussion in my native language, if you feel you will speak it better than I speak yours. However, the fact that you once again stated a false thing while trying to defend your position is hardly a show of your language skills.

Lier is, indeed, an English word. as a quick check to my dictionary showed, you liar. On the other hand "uears" is not. I wonder, what is your excuse for looking like an silly ass making mystakes immediately after feeling superior to someone else for supossedly being better at English? And, do you *ever* check those "facts" you sprout? Also, I have documented your lies, and you have failed to explain otherwise, so lies they stand.

Indeed, JAD, your word is useless since every post you do and every document you've written contains false statements, many of which have been pointed out to you, which makes the next time you use them lies. You have no credibility whatsoever, and thus if you said that the sun comes up in the East, the next morning I'd have to check it myself because you're wrong more times than you're right.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

(After waiting the prerequisite 10 minutes (and then some, I think), I'm reposting one of my messages. I assume it'll double post, Murphy laws being what they are. If so, I'm sorry.)

JAD, I admit I am not as fluent in English as a native might be. We can continue this discussion in my native language, if you feel you will speak it better than I speak yours. However, the fact that you once again stated a false thing while trying to defend your position is hardly a show of your language skills.

Lier is, indeed, an English word. as a quick check to my dictionary showed, you liar. On the other hand "uears" is not. I wonder, what is your excuse for looking like an silly ass making mystakes immediately after feeling superior to someone else for supossedly being better at English? And, do you *ever* check those "facts" you sprout? Also, I have documented your lies, and you have failed to explain otherwise, so lies they stand.

Indeed, JAD, your word is useless since every post you do and every document you've written contains false statements, many of which have been pointed out to you, which makes the next time you use them lies. You have no credibility whatsoever, and thus if you said that the sun comes up in the East, the next morning I'd have to check it myself because you're wrong more times than you're right.

Hope that helps,

Grey Wolf

Areola

I did replace politicians with scientists and there is nothing that you can now do about it. So there.
I am not interested in convincing anyone about anything. That is the province of lawyers, priests and snake oil salesmen like Richard Dawkins, Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould. I come to forums as I publish to enlighten, not to convince. If some, like yourself, refuse to listen that is not my concern.

"You can lead a person to the literature but you can not make him comprehend it."
John A. Davison

How do you like them Jerusalem artichokes?

Who is next?

John A. Davison

I do not sprout, I spout.

John A. Davison

Grey Wolf
Get a decent dictionary and if you are going to call me a liar put it in hard copy and use your real name so I can expose you publicly as the previous coward you otherwise will always remain.

I find no entry under LIER in my American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition. It is you who have lied not I.

How do you like them pears?

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Main Entry: 1 lie [...] Function: intransitive verb Inflected Form(s): lay /'lA/; lain /'lAn/; ly·ing [...] 1 a : to be or to stay at rest in a horizontal position : be prostrate : REST, RECLINE b : to assume a horizontal position -- often used with down [...] usage see LAY - li·er /'lI(-&)r/ noun [...]

Come on. Who is next? I'm bored.

John A. Davison

Henry J

Thanks for agreeing with me.

Hope that helps.

John A. Davison

Comment #26757 Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 26, 2005 07:51 AM (e) (s) ... Would not a "mutant" with a survival advantage be extremely rare though, and only able to mate with "normal" species members? If so, wouldn't that reduce the mutation each generation and eventualy have it disapear?

— Stephen Elliott

This is to force my first post to show up

Wayne Francis,
Thanks for the reply.

Say the improvement you mentioned gave the individual 50% better night vision.
Is it likely that it's offspring would fall into 2 groups with half having 50% night vision improvement?
Or would not the majority of 1st generation descendents have 25% improvement?

Short answer is it depends on the genetic change. If the feature is only controlled by that one gene in that 1 chromosome then the change would be half having the full improvement with the other half having no improvement. If the mutation is more complex (ie it might be a more rare combination of 2 different mutations on 2 different chromosomes) they you might see something like the descendants having a range of improvements.

I'd love to hear from some of the biologist here describe some of the scenarios.

There are many other factors that play a roll in development. Genes are not the be all and end all and most biologists would agree.

For example the change might cause gene X to be expressed longer during development. This doesn't mean that all offspring with gene X will end up exact same eyes. Lets take your height as an example. Odds are you are not the exact same size as your mother or father. If your mother and father are drastically different in height you'll tend to be close to one or the other and not be an "average" of both their heights.

Now your potential height might be a genetic factor but your expressed height is a combination of this genetic information and environmental factors. IE diet, exercise, health, etc. Again this is simplistic and there are probably a few genes at work when you talk about your potential height but it shows the underlying concept.

You brought up a good point tho. Some changes my be "diluted" if it requires genes from multiple chromosomes.

Ah let me go onto my favourite hybrid as an example.

Ligers!!!!

A liger is hybrid from a lion father and tiger mother. Lets forget they are separate species for now, because "species" is really just an arbitrary line we draw.

Male lions have a gene that causes their offspring to grow to very large. Normally this is fine because female lions evolved a gene to suppress growth of the offspring. These genes developed due to the mating strategy, I don't mean they thought it out before hand, that they employ. Many male lions will mate with the same female. Big cats don't have cycles like humans. The female ovulation is brought on by the actual sexual intercourse. Thus it is possible for a female lion to have a litter of lion cubs that have different fathers. The selection advantage here is that the ones that developed the most are more likely to survive. (this is also why you see male lions eat their young. Most likely they are not his young that he ate. He just kills them so the female lion doesn't have to take care of them and she will allow him to have sex with him for another litter of cubs that are his)

Now tigers don't have this breeding strategy. Female tigers only mate with 1 male tiger thus there is no competition on what cubs from what fathers are more likely to survive. Female tigers don't have a gene to suppress the growth of their offspring and this is fine because the fathers are not contributing a gene to promote growth.
When we combine the 2 we see a very interesting outcome. When a liger is born, Lion father./Tiger mother, the offspring get the gene to promote growth from the father but no gene from the mother to suppress growth. Ligers can get over 2x the size of their parents, adult lions and tigers are ~500pds. If we look at tions, tiger father/lion mother, we see the opposite. They don't get the gene for promoting growth from their father, because tigers don't have that gene, but they get the gene to suppress growth from the mother, lion, and they end up significantly smaller then both their parents.

You might ask why we don't see Liger around in the wild and there are a number of reasons for this. Partly social partly genetic, they just don't give off the correct signals to each other to be sexually attracted to each other. 2 reasons for this. 1 their genetics are different and they "smell" different to each other. The pheromones are not clicking right. Also they probably are not social because of their psychological development. This is actually controlled by genes. You put an adult lion and adult tiger together that never interacted with the other species as young cubs then you are probably asking for a fight. But if you raise them from cubs they'll bond not only with each other but will accept the other species more favourably in general. We see this a lot. You have a dog that is brought up with cats then they get along. Bring a strange cat onto the scene and the cat, if not exposed to dogs when it was a kitten, will probably freak out while the dog that was exposed to cats as a pup will regard the cat quite kindly. This, incidentally, what happens with good cattle/sheep dogs. They are used to the cattle/sheep, horses and other animals because they where exposed at that critical time period as youth.

I've babbled on enough . . . .if I need to extrapolate on anything let me know.

"Hmmm hum hum hummm hmmmmmm huuummmmm humm huuuummmm..."

Kaptain Kook

JAD anyone? Oh, this is so teh funn3h.

Wayne Francis,
That was a fascinating reply. I must admit that the Ligra is a very interesting beast.
I was under the impression though that it was difficult for them to breed (Ligra or Tigon) due to fertility problems rather than social/behavioural ones.
Surely a captive bred Ligra would pick up on social skills from it's parent/parents?

I find no entry under LIER in my American Heritage Dictionary, 4th Edition. It is you who have lied not I.

Wayne Francis,
I got a tad distracted by the Ligra in my last post.
But back to an inherited advantageous mutation.
Guess my 1st reply was too simplistic.
By implying offspring would have 50% of the advantageous mutation I should have said on average.
Using the height example the chances of being the exact same height as either parent (ignoring environmental/social differences)would be a slim chance, as would being exactly 1/2 way between.

I am not explaining myself well here, but I would have thought that in the eyesight example where a parent had a 50% improvement and mated with a normal specimen then the average improvement in offspring would be 25% with the young ranging from no improvement to the full 50% better, but the vast majority falling somewhere in-between.

I was unaware that certain changes would be either entirely inherited or not inherited at all.

Also would not an advantage inherited from a single mutated ancestor in a small population lead to in-breeding and all the disadvantages that entails?

Grey Wolf,
Would you e-mail me. I would like to chat with you, but you use a no spam address.
Sincerely, Paul

I do not lie. I speak the truth. Calling me a liar does not make it so.

All the previous posts dealing with allelic genetic changes have nothing whatsoever to do with the formation of new species or any of the higher taxonomic categories. The vast majority of such allelic mutations are either neutral or deleterious. I have repeatedly asked for examples of beneficial allelic changes and received no responses.

Inbreeding need not be disadvantageous at all. It is common practice in plant and animal breeding as it can immediately eliminate all deleterious genes as those offspring fail to survive when those genes are expressed as homozygotes.. In other words it can purge the genome so that the survivors get a fresh genetic start. That is why bottlenecks can result in genetic rejuvenation. It is also a feature of semi-meiotic reproduction which also exposes deleterious genes as homozygotes in a single cytological step. Newly evolved species typically have exhibited great initial vigor which eventually declined ending often in extinction.
Schindewolf recognized these phases and coined the terms Typogenesis, Typostasis and Typolysis to describe the three phases of temporal evolutionary existence. Typolysis represents the terminal phase of evolution in which bizarre and often unadaptive features appear and typically ends with extinction. Sexual reproduction is not effective at eliminating recessive deleterious genes which tend to accumulate. I believe that is one of the major factors which have contributed to extinction.

Inbreeding or selfing can be a valuable tool for maintaining a healthy genetic status. The human objections to it are purely cultural in nature. That does not mean that I am recommending inbreeding for civilized society although that might one day become necessary. There seems little doubt that civilized man is accumulating deleterious genes due largely to the influence of modern medicine. I for one would have died on three separate occasions due to severe strep infections and appendicitis if it had not been for intervention by both tonsilectomy and appendectomy, all before my reproductive years. I am sure others have had similar experiences.

John A. Davison

I think that JAD just became the poster child for the dangers of inbreeding.

"Purely cultural" - rubbish.

Today's JAD Score:
Scientific content - F
Entertainment value - B+

Posted by bill on April 27, 2005 07:38 AM (e) (s) I think that JAD just became the poster child for the dangers of inbreeding. "Purely cultural" - rubbish. Today's JAD Score: Scientific content - F Entertainment value - B+

Posted by bill on April 27, 2005 07:38 AM (e) (s) I think that JAD just became the poster child for the dangers of inbreeding. "Purely cultural" - rubbish. Today's JAD Score: Scientific content - F Entertainment value - B+

[...] In other words [inbreeding] can purge the genome so that the survivors get a fresh genetic start. [...] [...] Sexual reproduction is not effective at eliminating recessive deleterious genes which tend to accumulate.[...] John A. Davison

Sandor

It must be you. Sexual reproduction between unrelated forms is certainly not inbreeding. We are all carrying recessive deleterious genes. It is only because we are heterozygous at those loci that we are not affected. Even inbreeding does not eliminate those genes in one fell swoop as Mendelian (sexual) genetics clearly demonstrates. It only reduces their frequency.

Grey Wolf

Those liers in ambush were not liars. They were lying down don't you know.

Hope that helps.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison

Sexual reproduction between unrelated forms is certainly not inbreeding.

Lier is not an english word and I do not lie.

lier \Li"er\ (l[imac]"[~e]r), n. [From Lie. ] One who lies down; one who rests or remains, as in concealment. There were liers in ambush against him. ---Josh. viii. 14. Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

I did replace politicians with scientists and there is nothing that you can now do about it. So there.

I am not interested in convincing anyone about anything. That is the province of lawyers, priests and snake oil salesmen like

I come to forums as I publish to enlighten, not to convince.

If some, like yourself, refuse to listen that is not my concern.

Aureola

Who do you think you are kidding? I already said that inbreeding can purge the genome of deleterious genes. The only contradicting that I have ever done is the conradiction of every single feature of the Darwinian hoax. It HAD absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past, just as it now HAS nothing to do with evolution because evolution is no longer even going on anyway. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and I did. I have no idea why you can't do it.

How do you like them casabas?

Who is next?

John A. davison

JAD:

Yes, you said that, and the echo of your words hadn't even died out in the distance that you were already asserting, with your usual unfounded certainty, that sexual reproduction cannot do just that.

Wiggle and squirm as much as you like. You remain an old fool who doesn't know what he's talking about.

Posted by John A. Davison on April 27, 2005 10:11 AM (e) (s) Aureola Who do you think you are kidding? I already said that inbreeding can purge the genome of deleterious genes. The only contradicting that I have ever done is the conradiction of every single feature of the Darwinian hoax. It HAD absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past, just as it now HAS nothing to do with evolution because evolution is no longer even going on anyway. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and I did. I have no idea why you can't do it. How do you like them casabas? Who is next? John A. davison

Posted by John A. Davison on April 27, 2005 10:11 AM (e) (s) Aureola Who do you think you are kidding? I already said that inbreeding can purge the genome of deleterious genes. The only contradicting that I have ever done is the conradiction of every single feature of the Darwinian hoax. It HAD absolutely nothing to do with creative evolution, a phenomenon of the past, just as it now HAS nothing to do with evolution because evolution is no longer even going on anyway. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and I did. I have no idea why you can't do it. How do you like them casabas? Who is next? John A. davison

News in Brief Paleontology Class Winces Whenever Fundamentalist Kid Raises Hand STATE COLLEGE, PA -- The 24 other students in a Penn State Paleontology 101 discussion section wince with dread whenever fundamentalist Christian Joseph Moseley raises his hand, classmates reported Tuesday. "As soon as that guy's hand shoots up, the whole class tenses up and is like 'Oh, God, here we go again,'" classmate Colin Herberger said. "I think he thinks he plays a valuable role in the class, acting as the 'opposing viewpoint,' but it's just annoying."

Let's see....

JAD
salty
ytlas
davison
nosivad
John A. Davison

That is exactly one more 'alias' than I have ever used.

And by the way, the crank detector was not posted in reference to JAD.

But at least he finally spelled my name correctly.

The school board in the West Texas town of Odessa voted unanimously to add a Bible class to its high school curriculum. ... "How can students understand Leonardo da Vinci's 'Last Supper' or Handel's 'Messiah' if they don't understand the reference from which they came?" Johnson said. The group's Web site says its curriculum has received backing in 292 school districts in 35 states.

I don't have a problem with a bible class. First of all, teaching what's in the bible does not advocate it. Quite the opposite. I think the best antidote to religion, is finding out what religion actually says. In the bible god is a monster, and christianity would be less popular if more people had to face that.

steve -- of course you are 100% correct ... in theory. ;)

Fyi, I puked all over myself when I read this

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

What's up with the Nuisance Libel thread?

Very weird glitch there with Russell's last post.

It's gone now.

Must have been some gremlins.

Wouldn't it be wise to wait until after the proceedings of the Kansas hearings are published to so prematurely evaluate their substance?

I am particularly interested in the substance of Professor Semonti's testimony as I have great respect for his encyclopedic knowledge of the history of evolutionary "theory" (a contradiction in terms), as well as his great intellectual courage to continue to edit and produce a journal, perhaps the only venue of substance which, with every issue continues to expose the Darwinian fairy tale for what it really is and always has been, the biggest hoax ever perpertrated on the minds of rational men in the history of the written word.

How do you like them Brussel sprouts?

John A. Davison

Re "I was unaware that certain changes would be either entirely inherited or not inherited at all."
Yep. If a mutation is in one of the two copies of that gene, an offspring gets either the "old" one or the "new" one.

And I reckon the recessive/dominant status could complicate things, too.

Henry

@steve:

"First of all, teaching what's in the bible does not advocate it. Quite the opposite. I think the best antidote to religion, is finding out what religion actually says. "

that is entirely dependent on who is doing the teaching.

"the biggest hoax ever perpertrated on the minds of rational men in the history of the written word"

it sure destroyed whatever rationality was ever in your mind, John.

test for dbl post

In case there are people mucking around Bathroom Wall who have no intention of going back to the exhaustively commented-on thread about Dr. Scott, I have something important to add to the issue. That is, those who feel they would like to e-mail her in support should definitely do so. Her e-mail is scott@ucseweb.org.

Comment #26894 Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 27, 2005 02:18 AM (e) (s) Wayne Francis, That was a fascinating reply. I must admit that the Ligra is a very interesting beast. I was under the impression though that it was difficult for them to breed (Ligra or Tigon) due to fertility problems rather than social/behavioural ones. Surely a captive bred Ligra would pick up on social skills from it's parent/parents?

— Stephen Elliott

Comment #11016 Posted by a Creationist Troll, apparently on December 1, 2004 07:21 AM Wayne: Um, to be pedantic, technically there is a pretty thick black and white line - in that post, you said common horse has 64 chromosomes and mountain zebra has 32. OK, there are animals who can change numbers of chromosomes within the species (I read about a species of deer the other day). But even a three-year-old can tell the difference between a horse and a zebra - I know, my daughter told me. "No black and white line" suggests there is a continual graduation between the two - one species blurring into the other - and whilst you can successfully cross them to produce a range of expression of "stripiness", I doubt that the number of chromosomes could be anywhere between 32 and 64. Which would mean that, appearance notwithstanding, the hybrid would either be a horse that looks a bit like a zebra, or a zebra that looks a bit like a horse. I did try and do a search to find out more, but didn't come up with anything on Google. I stand to be corrected, however. Er, anyway, as you were . . . .

— a Creationist Troll, apparently

Comment #26897 Posted by Stephen Elliott on April 27, 2005 03:56 AM (e) (s) Wayne Francis, I got a tad distracted by the Ligra in my last post. But back to an inherited advantageous mutation. Guess my 1st reply was too simplistic. By implying offspring would have 50% of the advantageous mutation I should have said on average. Using the height example the chances of being the exact same height as either parent (ignoring environmental/social differences)would be a slim chance, as would being exactly 1/2 way between. I am not explaining myself well here, but I would have thought that in the eyesight example where a parent had a 50% improvement and mated with a normal specimen then the average improvement in offspring would be 25% with the young ranging from no improvement to the full 50% better, but the vast majority falling somewhere in-between. I was unaware that certain changes would be either entirely inherited or not inherited at all. Also would not an advantage inherited from a single mutated ancestor in a small population lead to in-breeding and all the disadvantages that entails?

— Stephen Elliott

"bad mutations tend to weed themselves out of the population"

well, don't forget about linked mutations. sometimes, "bad" mutations do not leave a population, because they are either genetically linked to traits that have higher relatieve selective pressure, or else there might also be different selective pressures at different times which maintain the trait.

I think of sickle cell anemia as a good case in point for the latter.

sickle cell anemia would normally be selected against, except in places where malaria is prevalent.

cheers

True STJ, but that is why I said "tend to" instead of "do"

My examples are very simplistic but do show the basic concepts.

Posted by Wayne Francis on April 28, 2005 12:04 AM (e) (s) True STJ, but that is why I said "tend to" instead of "do" My examples are very simplistic but do show the basic concepts.

I think JAD set a new record for circular arguments in post 26289. I counted at least seven.

As for your seven circular arguments, don't try to ridicule me me with them, state them with your reasons. I'll be happy to shoot them all down.

hundreds of years of the most intensive selection...has never transformed anything into more than a subspecies or a variety.

Sexual reproduction cannot result in anything new.

Incidentally I want to know what the difference is between something being random and undirected. I regard that which is random as being very definitely undirected. If that is the kind of reasoning qetzal is forced to present then qetzal needs some real help. That is just one more example of the kind of double talk that has come to characterize the Darwinian establishment in their final death throes.

A careful reading of qetzal's tirade against me reveals that in fact he has agreed with a large portion of what I have presnted in the PEH.

Hoaxes and Myths ... 11. It is a good thing to find cures for cancer, heart disease and old age. Wrong again. It would probably be a very bad thing indeed. People have to die. That's all there is to it. You're going to have to step aside to make room for the next wave of humanity. If we eliminated these diseases, can you imagine what the earth would be like? Overpopulation, not enough resources, famine, stagnation. Look at the populous countries, such as India. Filled with poverty, disease, famine and suffering. Why? too many people! Death is nature's way of keeping a balance in the world. Disease is the tool that accomplishes this, along with war and a few other things! ...

... 4. Cholesterol. A diet high in animal fat and cholesterol is dangerous to your heart. The idea that too much animal fat and a high cholesterol diet is dangerous to your heart and vessels is nothing but a myth. Cholesterol is not a deadly poison, but a substance vital to the cells of all mammals. There are no such things as good or bad cholesterol, but mental stress, physical activity and change of body weight may influence the level of blood cholesterol. A high cholesterol is not dangerous by itself, but may reflect an unhealthy condition, or it may be totally innocent. A high blood cholesterol is said to promote atherosclerosis (the scientific name for arteriosclerosis) and thus also coronary heart disease. But many studies have shown that people whose blood cholesterol is low become just as arteriosclerotic as people whose cholesterol is high. Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat. The production of cholesterol increases when you eat little cholesterol and decreases when you eat much. This explains why the "prudent" diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a few per cent. There is no evidence that too much animal fat and cholesterol in the diet promotes atherosclerosis or heart attacks. For instance, more than a dozen studies have shown that people who have had a heart attack haven't eaten more fat than other people, and degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated with the diet. The only effective way to lower cholesterol is with drugs, but neither heart mortality or total mortality have been improved with drugs the effect of which is cholesterol-lowering only. On the contrary, these drugs are dangerous to your health and may shorten your life. The new cholesterol-lowering drugs, the statins, do prevent cardio-vascular disease, but this is due to other mechanisms than cholesterol-lowering. Unfortunately, they also stimulate cancer in rodents. Many of these facts have been presented in scientific journals and books for decades but are rarely told to the public by the proponents of the diet-heart idea. The reason why laymen, doctors and even scientists have been misled is because opposing and disagreeing results are systematically ignored or misquoted in the scientific press. ...

Mr. Francis,
Charlie Wagner is really a pseudonym of Ebenezer Scrooge, who thinks that the "surplus population" includes everyone but him.
Paul

Regardless of where you stand, that is a stupid comment, meant to do nothing more than offend.

Comment #27053 Posted by Jeremy Mohn on April 28, 2005 10:14 AM (e) (s) I hate God

— Jeremy Mohn

Perhaps Jeremy is just having a bad day.

Maybe Jereny hates "God" the same way someone might hate "Darth Vader"...

Beware the Darth side!

Harq al-Ada

Thanks for Eugenie Scott's email address. I will send her my PEH as an attachment, asking for her opinion of it as an antidote to Darwinism, the most failed hypothesis of all time.

qetzal

You ARE easy pickings and I dealt with you and all the others like you long ago over at EvC. I am sure not going to do that all over again here. You are a typical Darwinian which means that everything you believe about a past evolution is entirely irrelevant. You also believe that evolution is in progress today which is completely unfounded. Natural selection and allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution and every attempt to demonstrate that they do has met with utter failure. Why Darwinism still persists is a mystery.

It is hard to believe isn't it? I mean that Darwinism still persists. It escapes me.

Who is next?

John A. Davison

Here, troll, take this morsel. Now run.

You should've ended with, "How do you like them morsels?"

Malkuth:

I have a personal dislike for stupid idiomatic sentences. They are often the hallmark of poor thinkers like JAD.

Aureola

Another feature that Panda's Thumb shares with EvC is the way in which both groups internally agree with one another. It is called the "circling the wagons" technique. It is a characteristic of ideologues wherever one finds them.

I have a personal dislike for stupid genderless posters.

How do you like them morels? They are mushrooms you know.

John A. Davison

Harq al-Ada

I am afraid that email address for Eugenie Scott doesn't work. Did you copy it wrong or does she simply not want to communicate?

John A. Davison

As for your seven circular arguments, don't try to ridicule me me with them, state them with your reasons. I'll be happy to shoot them all down.

I dealt with you and all the others like you long ago over at EvC. I am sure not going to do that all over again here.

JAD:

Yes, you are right. You've got us surrounded, that's why we are circling the wagons. Just like the old joke, you know?

"Captain, I've captured 10 Germans!"
"OK, Bill, bring them over here!"
"I can't captain, they're holding me!"

Whenever you feel like actually making any sense, whistle.

The reason I do not respond to challenges is because I have in several papers rejected entirely every aspect of the Darwinian hoax. There is absolutely NOTHING about Darwinism that ever had ANYTHING to do with evolution. It can never be patched up. It was long ago abandoned by some of the finest scientific minds of all time. It was a myth at its inception and has remained one ever since. It is not my fault that others cannot see what so many have seen so very clearly; there was never a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. I have done my best to present my hypotheses. The failure is not with me but with an intractable audience which is congenitally incapable of hearing Einstein's "music of the spheres." Fortunately Giuseppe Sermonti is not a member of that audience and for that I am very grateful. I look forward to his testimony at the Kansas School Board hearings.

How do you like them peanuts?

John A. Davison

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

@JAD:

As expected, you failed to respond adequately to my assertion that you were contradicting yourself earlier with regards to the "purging" effect of inbreeding. Your willingness to act the part of "village fool" on this forum amazes me, but it must be said; your appearent stupidity is quite amusing! I hope you will be producing more of that IDcreation idiocy today, it being my birthday and all :P

Happy trolling!

Sandor

I see you too must resort to personal attack. Good for you. I must be doing something right. I am not here to respond to your assertions or anyone elses. I am here to enlighten. With few exceptions it has been a monumental waste of time just as it was at EvC and ISCID's "brainstorms."

Inbreeding and selfing remain, as they always were, powerful genetic tools for the development and fixation of beneficial traits as well as the elimination of defective ones. Without it our many valuable and productive domesticated plants and animals could never have been produced. We would still be in the hunting and gathering phase. I thought everybody knew that but apparently not. Hope that helps.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them nectarines?

John A. Davison

JAD:

Yes, it's hard to believe that, while on the one hand you attack everybody personally, when exposed as the inveterate liar you are you cry foul and complain of being "personally attacked".

Since lying is a personal responsibility, yes, you are rightly personally attacked for being a liar.

If inbreeding is good for "developing and fixing beneficial traits and eliminating defective ones", and since inbreeding is a form of sexual reproduction, how come you claim that sexual reproduction cannot "develop and fix beneficial traits and eliminate defective ones"?

You can squirm, but you can't hide. We fully expect you to insult other people while not addressing the obvious logical fallacies in your "enlightening" bullsh*t.

Umm Charlie Wagner can you explain why you have things like Charlie Wagner's Hoaxes and Myths page

— Wayne Francis

I believe that religion, generally speaking, has been a curse to mankind - that its modest and greatly overestimated services on the ethical side have been more than overcome by the damage it has done to clear and honest thinking. I believe that no discovery of fact, however trivial, can be wholly useless to the race, and that no trumpeting of falsehood, however virtuous in intent, can be anything but vicious. I believe that all government is evil, in that all government must necessarily make war upon liberty... I believe that the evidence for immortality is no better than the evidence of witches, and deserves no more respect. I believe in the complete freedom of thought and speech... I believe in the capacity of man to conquer his world, and to find out what it is made of, and how it is run. I believe in the reality of progress. I - But the whole thing, after all, may be put very simply. I believe that it is better to tell the truth than to lie. I believe that it is better to be free than to be a slave. And I believe that it is better to know than be ignorant.

And an appropriate quote for today:

Any man who afflicts the human race with ideas must be prepared to see them misunderstood.

H. L. Mencken

Re " I am not here to respond to your assertions or anyone elses. I am here to enlighten."

Those two statements are mutually contradictory.

JAD,

What are your thoughts on the Miller-Urey expirement and results?

Any examples of religion having a uniquely good effect on the human species?

Thanks,

Tytlal

Re "Any examples of religion having a uniquely good effect on the human species?"

Where would ancient Greek literature be without it? ;)

Henry

Sterverino

My thoughts are that the Miller-Urey experiments have absolutely nothing to do with biogenesis which could never have occurred by chance. Neither could evolution have occurred by chance either. Chance never played any role in either ontogeny or phylogeny.

Aureola

The development and fixation of beneficial features is not evolution. Evolution WAS the emergence of new life forms, something which has never been observed in recorded history. Of course to a Darwimp ANY genetic change is evolution with a capital E. I say that is nonsense with a capital N.

I am still waiting for a demonstration of two species, living or dead, one of which is known with certainty to be ancestral to the other. We don't even know who our own immediate ancestors were.
Let's get real shall we? We had ancestors allright but they remain unknown. I personally think our immediate ancestor was Neanderthal for the simple reason that he was the only other hominid around when we suddenly appeared.

There is no need to postulate fiat Creation to explain a purely saltational evolution. The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis will do just fine. Gradual evolution through the accumulation of mutations is just one more aspect of the Darwinian pipe dream. All real evolution was instantaneous. Get used to it. I have.

That Darwinism is still alive is hard to believe isn't it.

How do you like them juneberries?

John A. Davison

"My thoughts are that the Miller-Urey experiments have absolutely nothing to do with biogenesis which could never have occurred by chance. Neither could evolution have occurred by chance either. Chance never played any role in either ontogeny or phylogeny. "

That's pretty selective. Now I know how you construct your arguements. When something doesn't fit into your theory, you dismiss it as impossible.

The development and fixation of beneficial features is not evolution.

[ . . . ]In other words [inbreeding] can purge the genome so that the survivors get a fresh genetic start. [ . . . ]

[ . . . ]Sexual reproduction is not effective at eliminating recessive deleterious genes which tend to accumulate.[ . . . ]

happy b-day, Sandor.

JAD said:

"With few exceptions it has been a monumental waste of time"

most assuredly, but you have been a wonderful target just the same.

Sterverino…

Since you brought it up, why don’t you explain to us all how the Miller-Urey experiments bolster the case for Darwin’s theory.

Please be sure to remain in the realm of science, evidence, research, and reason. Hence, no philosophical leaps of conjecture.

Aureola…

Since you seem to be such a bastion of critical thought, go ahead and give it a try as well. Tag team if you’d like.

"a revolutionary change in the conception of ID is necessary to rouse it from its empirical and theoretical slumber" -- RBH

"There are no scientific alternatives to evolutionary theory available to be taught" "alternatives to evolution should be taught," "alternatives to evolution to be taught" "teaching alternative theories" "to teach alternatives to evolution." -- RBH

"It [ID] isn't a fully-fledged theory --- there isn't yet enough there to actually teach" -- Paul Nelson (quoted by RBH)

"There is a sociological dimension to science and to the prospering of scientific theories, and this cannot be ignored if ID is going to become a thriving research program." -- WA Dembski (quoted by RBH)

"there is no possibility that it can be construed to be a stealth form of Christian fundamentalist creationism. Multiple Designers Theory [MDT] is therefore an ideal alternative to contrast with evolutionary theory in public schools." -- RBH

"more technical and formal works in ID habitually refer to 'designer,' not 'designers,' 'agent,' not 'agents,' and 'agency,' not 'agencies.'" "The singular intelligent designer is a powerful default for mainstream ID proponents."

"Multiple Designers Theory rests on the same philosophical, mathematical, and empirical foundations as mainstream Intelligent Design theory." "MDT automatically inherits all of the the scientific evidence adduced for current ID." "MDT is an exercise in extending the intelligent Design conjecture." -- RBH

"[M]ultiple designers are imperfect in the sense that they do not produce ideally optimized designs" "A significant part of the research program underpinned by MDT will be teasing out the differences in designs that are diagnostic of different designers." "MDT hypothesizes a finite and limited number of intelligent agents." -- RBH

"Multiple Designers Theory does not rest on thin air or (what is equivalent) purely philosophical speculation." -- RBH

"Like human designers, the unembodied designers of MDT are constrained by the media with which they must work." -- RBH

"By definition, an unembodied intelligent designer must intervene in what would otherwise have been an undesigned biological structure or process in order to impose a design on it. There are indications that those interventions occur intermittently as discrete events in time rather than either continuously or only once at the beginning of things." -- RBH

"information tends to appear discretely at particular times and places" -- WA Dembski (quoted by RBH)

Says RBH: "(Dr. Michael) Behe is one of the few scientists in ID who has published real scientific research (though no ID-based research) and he happens to be a biochemist. Were he an anatomist I don't doubt that the focus of mainstream ID would still be on morphological structures, as it was 200 years ago for Paley."

"n the study of human-designed phenomena like works of art or literature, there are more-or-less well-developed methods for assigning works to designers." . . . "It is likely that the same methods that are used in attributing human-designed objects to one or another human creator could be adapted to attribute biological designs to one or another of the unembodied creators." -- RBH