Tuesday, March 20, 2007

A challenge

I challenge those who do not agree with the title of this blog to provide evidence for a new species which has appeared in historical times with the name of its immediate ancestor and the cytogenetic mechanism by which it was produced.

44 comments:

johnadavison said...

I look forward to this opportunity to defend a conclusion which was reached by others long before me, notably the anti-Darwinians Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse as well as by, believe it or not, the selectionist Darwinian Julian Huxley, the author of "Evolution: The Modern Synthesis."

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

Alan Fox said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
johnadavison said...

Nonsense

All dogs, coyotes and wolves freely interbreed to produce fertile offspring. Accordingly they are the same species. You will both have to do a lot better than that.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

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

johnadavison said...

To avoid any further embarrassement for yourselves, I will delete any further stupid comments from either of you including the ones you just presented. If you are as ignorant as you have just presented yourselves, you do not deserve to participate in this blog.

Sorry about that.

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

johnadavison said...

Alan Fox

The definition of species is the one offered by Theodosius Dobzhansky. Dogs, wolves and coyotes are all the same species by the definition of a Darwinian, the same Darwinian who proved conclusively that artificial selection is impotent to produce even a new member of the same genus. He even admitted as much. Why Dobzhansky remained a Darwinian is a mystery.

I recommend that you not post here since as usuual you offer nothing of substance. You never have. Neither has jujuquisp. I recommend that you each find another blog in which to express yourselves. You are not welcome here just as you never were in the past. You always have "After The Bar Closes" don't you know.

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

johnadavison said...

I see that DaveScot aka David Springer has finally solved once and for all the global warming contraversy by declaring it to be a SWINDLE! This is vintage Springer and no one dares take exception to him or he will ban them from Uncommon Descent with a wave of his Czarist scepter.

The simple truth is that no one knows for certain what the future holds for global warming. What IS known is that both atmospheric CO2 concentration and sea levels are increasing at per annum rates unprecedented in recorded history. While these increases are small they most certainly should not be dismissed as meaningless which is apparently Springer's position. The man is incapable of error. I know from experience.

There is every reason to believe that the autodestruction of our habitat is an integral feature of a Prescribed Evolutionary scenario. Like virtually every other species that ever existed, Homo sapiens too is doomed to extinction. There are no reasonably large living fossils and Homo sapiens is definitely on the large side. The history of life has been progressive innovation balanced by extinction. Creative evolution is now a phenomenon of the distant past while extinction is obviously still in progress. It is ironic that the youngest and last mammal ever to appear should be the instrument of its own certain destruction. That is precisely what the present conditions portend. To arbitrarily reject this result is dangerous, arrogant, unscientific and inexcusable.

Extinction is to phylogeny what the death of the individual is to ontogeny. Both are irreversible and certain. Both were "prescribed" long ago.

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

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

Smokey said...

Annual Review of Genetics
Vol. 3: 451-468, 1969
Wheat Cytogenetics
E R Sears

johnadavison said...

smokey

I suggest you read the instructions and present the required information.

johnadavison said...

I should add that I will not respond to anonymous posters or to those that practice verbal abuse. A person who cannot put his real identity before his words need not post here.

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

albert.de.roos said...

John, good luck with your blog. As I mentioned before, all system engineers will agree that there is a natural limit to a complex system after which it can not be expanded anymore. This is easy to understand, since the complexer the system, the more dependencies there are and the more difficult it gets to add more functionalities without affecting important subsystems.

I never understood why it is a problem for evolutionary science to discuss the hypothesis that evolution is finished. You never deny that it happened, you just argue that is slowed down or even stopped.

On species formation, I read the other day that a new leopard species was found in Indonesia. Not that it was ever recognised as a seperate species before by the locals (the two species look amazingly similar), but it was apparently concluded after molecular-genetic screening that it was a different species. Did you hear about this story?

“Genetic research results clearly indicate that the clouded leopards of Borneo should be considered a separate species,” said Dr Stephen O'Brien, Head of the Laboratory of Genomic Diversity, US National Cancer Institute. “DNA tests highlighted around 40 differences between the two species.”

http://www.panda.org/news_facts/newsroom/index.cfm?uNewsID=95660

Looks like we got a new definition of species

johnadavison said...

Thank you Albert.

It is encouraging to find someone who doesn't already have all the answers.

The test for whether or not the two leopards are the same or different species is physiological and depends on whether the hybrid is fertile or not. Until those tests are performed absolutely nothing can be concluded with certainty with respect to their taxonomic status. I am betting they are simply variants. I am also betting the critical tests will never be performed. Darwinians don't test their hypothesis for fear of the results. They never even tested Darwin's finches, among the easiest of all birds to be domesticated. The canary is a finch! Apparently they are all the same species based on field observations by the Grants.

Unfortunately I have managed to alienate both the Christian Fundamentalists and the Darwinian atheists. Neither have contributed a scintilla to our understanding of the great mystery of organic evolution. What we have are pitched camps dominated by intractable ideologues very few of whom are even scientists in the true sense of the word. Certainly Dawkins and his devoted followers don't qualify any more than Gould and Mayr did before him. Dawkins has been left holding the empty Darwinian bag. None of the three ever contributed a single valid explanation for the emergence of a new species or any of the higher taxonomic categories. The reason is very simple. There is now and never has been an exogenous cause for any of those events. That is the substance of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis and I have no intention of abandoning it no matter how it is received by the evolutionary establishment. Like everything else I have ever published, I have complete confidence in it.

I have identified my intellectual sources, some of the greatest minds of two centuries and I am little more than their spokesperson. My primary contribution has been to integrate their common conclusions into a new hypothesis for organic evolution which I feel is in complete accord with both the findings of molecular biology and the testimony of the fossil record.

Let me also add that neither I nor my sources ever found it necessary to invoke an intervening or personal God and I see neither need nor evidence for a contemporary God in any aspect of science. Neither did Einstein, Pierre Grasse or any of my other sources. It is only at the very beginning or more likely beginnings that the supernatural cannot be denied. In that sense only, I am a convinced creationist.

I am also the certain that it is not intrinsic in the nature of organic matter to self-assemble into a living evolving system.

Thank you again for your kind words.

"I am an old campaigner and I love a good fight."
Franklin Delano Roosevelt

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

supersport said...

Hi John....I enjoy reading your comments here and over at Brainstorms. I think it's hilarious how you drive darwinists crazy. I have a couple questions for you though:

1) I believe observed "evolution" is simply the genome's inherent ability to adapt to a changing environment. I see little hard evidence that creatures were built from the ground up.

But realizing that you are an evolutionist, I'm curious as to how you believe monkeys/apes turned into humans without the benefit of natural selection or random mutations.

Also, I'm just going on logic here, but it seems to me that the present is a pretty good indication of the past. You say evolution has stopped. But why would processes be different in the past than they are now? Why would organisms evolve in the past and not now? I actually see lots of evidence of "evolution" (if that's what you want to call it) nowdays. It happens everytime an embryo develops and gets born into the world because each embryo ends up being a product of his environment...and environments are always changing. Likewise, I believe horizontal gene transfer contributes to evolution, at least in the lower lifeforms. Thus, I see no logic in saying evolution is finished. Maybe I am misreading your meaning.

Thanks for all the good words in the past -- you've actually taught me quite a bit. S

johnadavison said...

supersport

Thanks for commenting.

The reason I say evolution is finished is because I know of not a single new KIND of creature that has appeared in recent times. Of course man has produced some bizarre life forms but I am referring strictly to the natural world. Both Robert Broom and Julian Huxley claimed that a new Genus has not appeared in two million years. The word Genus means kind. I have simply extended the notion to include species because that seems to be the case. I define species as being two forms which either cannot interbreed or, if they can, produce a hybrid which is sterile. This is the definition adopted by Theodosius Dobzansky, a life-long Darwinian by the way. This requires some futher clarification.

Two organisms may not choose to breed or even be able to breed for mechanical reasons as for example a Chihuahua and a St Bernard. Then the test must be made artificially. I am very confident that there is no physiological barrier to fertility in a cross made between any two breeds of dogs. If the Darwinians were so certain of their silly claim that dog breeds are separate species, they would test their hypothesis just as they would have tested Darwin's finches. They have done neither. They don't dare!

Winge, in his book "Inheritance in Dogs" described the results of a spontaneous cross between a male St Bernard and a female Dachshund. The Dachshund bitch delivered a fertile pup. If the cross were made in reverse, I predict there would be many pups in the litter and all would be fertile.

Darwinians no longer test their hypothesis for one reason only. They are afraid to. It is as simple as that.

The genes that produce the dog phenotypes are all Mendelian genes as Winge clearly shows in his book. Such genes have nothing to do with speciation or the formation of any of the higher taxonomic categories. First of all they are reversible, something evolution has never been. The accumulation of such genes can only produce intraspecific varieties and can never produce a new true species. Richard B. Goldschmidt realized this in 1940 and so did Pierre Grasse more recently. Darwinism never had anything to do with the production of new species or of any other taxonomic category. It is an atheist inspired myth without any semblance of truth to it.

I am not going to present any further evidence in favor of my asserion that evolution is finished at this time. I have done so in my published papers and in my unpublished Manifesto. I refer you to those sources.

I have also offered a new hypothesis for organic evolution in the form of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, an hypothesis in complete accord with everything we have learned and continue to learn from both molecular biology and the fossil record.

Incidentally, I do not drive the Darwinains crazy. They, like the members of the so called "Intelligent Design Movement," simply pretend that I and my many predecessors do not exist. I have no respect for either faction or for any "groupthink" that must ban their adversaries from their egomaniacal, "prescribed" proceedings. A pox on all such houses. The internet is crawling with them!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Thank you again for posting.

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

johnadavison said...

As all my "fans" know I am persona non grata at just about every forum on the internet. ARN, EvC, Uncommon Descent, Pharyngula, Panda's Thumb, Richard Dawkins "fan club" all have banned me from commenting. ARN and the Dawkins site won't even let me view their proceedings from this computer. Countless other blogs and forums just don't pay any attention to me at all. Like my sources I do not exist! It is wonderful!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Naturally I am honored to be treated this way by the extremes neither of which have anything of value to offer to the Evolution debate. For a long time I was unable to understand why I am unacceptable to both sides of the debate, but I have finally figured it out. I am a slow learner but I have a memory like an elephant!

The Darwinians are afraid of me because I am a Creationist and the Creationists are afraid of me because I am an atheist.

I know that doesn't sound right so let me explain.

I am Creationist because it is inconceivable for me to accept the idea that it is intrinsic in the nature of organic matter ever to assemble itself into a living evolving form. That is completely out of the question as far as I am concerned just as it is for the Creationist sect, led by William Dembski and the Discovery Institute crowd.

On the other hand I am also an atheist because I see no evidence whatsoever for a living God nor any need for one.

The reason I can say these things is because I am convinced that God or Gods must have once existed but are now quite dead. As a matter of fact that was the thrust of the thread I was somehow able to introduce over at the "Dawkins fan club," a thread which set a world's record for views (ca. 600,000) in the short time I was allowed to observe it. God only knows what it is now. I believe my title was -

"God or Gods are dead but must have once existed."

I suggest all peruse it and the reactions it evoked from the Dawkins fans. It is both revealing and gratifying.

So you see I am unacceptable to the atheist Darwinians because I am a Creationist but I am equally unacceptable to the Bible-bangers because I cannot accept a living God!

I am not alone.

"God is dead"
Frederich Nietzche

One cannot die prior to existence.

"The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive."

and

"To assume the existence of an unperceivable being...does not facilitate understanding the orderliness we find in the world."
Albert Einstein

So you see I am in the best of all possible worlds, having been rejected by both extremes, neither of which, in my opinion, has a leg to stand on.

I love it so!

The truth lies elsewhere in my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which has no requirement for an intervening God but demands prior intelligence beyond our powers to even imagine.

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

I am interested in any reactions my "philosophy" (if it can be called that) might evoke.

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

johnadavison said...

Oh me excuse me that was 60,000 not 600,000 views at the Dawkins fan club. It is still a record!

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

supersport said...

Hi John...thanks for clarifying. Of course, being a creationist, I am in agreement with you that there have been no new kinds of creatures appearing. And I also agree with your dog analysis. It seems all dogs share pretty much the same genes, so to label one as a different "species" is ridiculous.

http://www.news24.com/News24/AnanziArticle/0,,2-13-1443_1846880,00.html

Scientists baffled

'All dogs have same genes'

"At the DNA level, two randomly chosen dogs differ by only about as much as two randomly chosen people do, yet the variation in appearance, size and behaviour in dogs is "just mind-boggling", Lander said."

And of course, if all dogs have virtually the same sets of genes, yet display wide differences in phenotype, what's the logic in saying Neanderthals and homo erectus were different "species?"

I do have to disagree with you about there not being a living God though. On the contrary I see no logic in saying that an all-intelligent, all-powerful God could die. That just doesn't make any sense. Your other declaration that there could be more than one God is a bit more plausible. In the Genesis it states "Let us make man in our image." Of course this could be interpreted as there being more than one God...but then it could just mean that God has company. Who knows. Someday we shall all find out.

johnadavison said...

supersport, whoever that is.

Dogs do not all share the same genes. The various breeds differ at many Mendelian loci. Mendelian alleles and their accumulation had nothing to do with evolution and still don't. ALL progressive evolutionary changes involved restructuring of the chromosomes just as Goldschmidt claimed in 1940.

The structural rearragements of otherwise exactly the same genetic information can lead to reproductive isolation due to the mechanical effects of the difficulty of meiotic pairing. At the same time the restructuring of chromosomes can cause fundamental changes in the nature of developmental events which take place during ontogeny. It is these sorts of changes that WERE involved in speciation and the production of all the higher taxonomic categories. Mendelism and conventional sexual reproduction have played no role in creative evolution. Neither has natural selection which has always been purely conservative and anti-evolutionary.

In short, there is not a shred of substance to the Darwinian hypothesis. Everything about it is wrong. Actually it is not even an hypothesis because it has no predictive value whatsoever. What is the predictive value of the random walk? What is gained by maintaining that "intelligence was an evolutionary accident," or that "genes are selfish" or that chance ever had any role in either ontogeny or phylogeny? I will answer that question with a single word. That word is NOTHING.

For the life of me I don't see how any thinking person can possibly still subscribe to the Darwinian myth. It boggles my mind that such creatures still trod the sod. They are to be pitied but not by me. They have insisted on becoming my mortal enemies. So have the Christian Fundamentalists. Apparently that is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be.

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

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

I hope this makes my position clear.

Thank you for posting.

Who is next?

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

johnadavison said...

lui

You are wasting your valuable time posting on this blog. You are a confessed admirer of Richard Dawkins for whom I have no respect whatsoever. I regard him as a charlatan. Stick with Kristine's blog as I will not acknowledge your precence here and will very shortly delete your message.

Sorry about that.

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

Lui said...

Okay, so in other words, anyone who doesn't agree with you will be censored. Don't worry, I won't be posting anything here again in the hope of having it seen by others. You're obviously a self-confessed admirer of yourself for whom I have no respect whatsoever. I will take itthat you are simply incapable of addressing my points.

Thanks.

johnadavison said...

Lui

That sounds good to me. There is no place on this blog for Dawkinsian or any other brand of chance-happy Darwinian mysticism. That goes for Baptist Bible-banging bigotry as well.

"God is dead."
Frederich Nietzche

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

"He that I am reading seems always to have the most force."
Montaigne

"Study Nature not books."
Louis Agassiz

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anonymous

"If you tell,the truth, you can be certain, sooner or later, to be found out."
Oscar Wilde

I love it so!

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

johnadavison said...

Some coward posting as charles darwin has just attempted to paralyze this blog by presenting several pages of the Origin of Species. Nothing in that material has anything to do with the challenge presented by this thread so I will delete it as I will any further attempts to destroy this blog. I hope that others have witnessed this vicious attempt to discredit me and my science. It is a beautiful demonstration of the total bankruptcy of the Darwinian fairy tale when such methods become necessary.


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

johnadavison said...

I just had to delete another such vicious assault on the integrity of this blog. This tactic no longer surprises me. As a matter of fact it pleases me to see my adversaries reduced to such frantic devices. They are obviously terrified of me and my distinguished sources. If they were not they would not have banned me from their usual haunts.

Is there any way to identify the source of such infantile transmissions?

jujuquisp, another anonymous coward, pulled a similar stunt on an earlier one of my blogs.

It is easy to believe isn't it?

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

Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Darwin said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Murray Rennie said...

Wow.

Finally, somethign resembling a theory on one of Salty's blogs. It's respectful, non-abusive and actually puts something foreward to be studied.

oh, wait. Salty didn't post it.

Why am I not surprised.

Charles Darwin said...

Dr Davison

What was undone can be redone.

Unless you learn to curb your intemperate language, I may return to haunt you.

Your humble servant

Charles Darwin

Romani Atheist said...

This is a small booth set up in a dark corner of the carnival internet.

"Come see the man who can disprove Darwinism! Only fifty cents!"

8tons said...

Why don't you post this article you mention? With updates and revisions if you like.

That way we'd have something substantive to discuss. And there'd be more than one post on your blog.

Elf said...

Oh wow, a creationist quote-mining out of context and deleting post comments that actually challenge him to answer substantive questions?

...or perhaps it was Jaysus...?

lysdexia said...

Did you bother to check the main websites for this very tidbit? I don't mean blogs or chatboards. (I wonder why you never came back or peepd.) By evolution, you mean speciation. And by creationist atheist, you mean deist...

"It is only at the very beginning or more likely beginnings that the supernatural cannot be denied. In that sense only, I am a convinced creationist."

If the univers is natural, then it can only come from something natural.
If the univers is supernatural, then we don't need God for its miracula.

http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+first-life

Jordo said...

The thing I'm trying to figure out is why is there only one post? How does one comment on a post with no substance? After reading the comments I get an idea of your train of thought but could you please explain the mechanism that would have 'stopped' evolution 2 million or so years ago?

MikeTheInfidel said...

johnadavison, you said: "Mendelian alleles and their accumulation had nothing to do with evolution and still don't."

... You do realize that evolution is *defined* as the fluctuation in the frequency of alleles within a population, right?