Nov 172005
 

I have published several papers now beginning in 1984 questioning the Darwinian paradigm. To my knowledge only one acknowledgement ever appeared in the professional literature. That was in response to my first paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology – Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism, 111: 725-735, 1984. I responded to that letter to the editor in a letter to the editor of the same journal. Since then no citations to my work have appeared in the professional (refereed) literature. For that reason I have turned to the internet as a venue for presenting my ideas. The responses have been quite varied and primarily negative as anyone can learn by exploring my published papers on Google.

One of my contentions is that all creative evolution is finished. By that I mean the production of true speceis and any of the higher taxonomic categories. I was certainly not the first to make such a suggestion as it had been proposed by Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and, of all people, Julian Huxley in his 1942 book “Evolution: The Modern Synthesis.” I recently recounted this in my manuscript “Julian Huxley’s Confession” which can be found at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum.

What I want to do here is to present a few challenges as follows.

1. Pick any two species, living or dead and provide convincing evidence that one of them is ancestral to the other.

2. Demonstrate that any sexually reproducing organism is capable of becoming another true species. By that I mean a reproductive entity not classified as a subspecies or alternatively with the proof that the hybrid between the two forms is sterile. Hybrid sterility as proposed by Dobzhansky is a valid index of reproductive isolation and, accordingly, true speciation.

3. Give an exaample of the generation of any true new species that can be documented to have been produced in historical times.

Now do not misunderstand me. I do not deny that such events can occur. What I do state emphatically however is that they cannot occur through the known agency of the accumulation of micromutations through sexual reproduction. I regard sexual reproduction and natural selection both as anti-evolutionary and conservative and never creative. Again, as anyone knows who is familiar with the historical literature, I am not the first to draw such conclusions.

All we see today is rampant extinction with no replacement. I am now firmly convinced that the evolutionary scenario has been terminated and have published that conclusion. So far I see no reason to recant.

I welcome any responses.

0 0 vote
Article Rating
80 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
scordova
14 years ago

Welcome John!

I am delighted to see you. I have been very much involved in other things, and I regret not devoting more time to studying your work.

Our IDEA club will host a day long event honoring the life and work of various scientist friendly to Intelligent Design, and your work will be featured.

Our weblog is very sparsely visited. I get very few comments on my offerings. Nonethless, I’m pleasantly surprised to see you.

regards,
Salvador

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Thank you Salvador.

I am not only friendly to Intelligent Design, I regard it as a self-evident starting point without which nothing in either ontogeny of phylogeny will ever make sense. Oddly ebough, the IDists, notably Dembski, Behe, Johnson and Wells are not very friendly toward me as they never mention my papers. Dembski has even banned me from his Uncommon Descent forum and for a while even denied me viewing privileges. There are only two reasons I can imagine for this. It may be because I have not only rejected Darwinism but a personal God as well, as did Einstein incidentally. The other potential reason is that I criticized the IDists for ever introducing the matter as a subject for debate. We all know what happens when something is offered for debate. It becomes debated ad infinitum of course. Debates are like that. They should have known better.

Having rejected both Darwinian mysticism and Christian fundamentalism apparently places me in a kind of no man’s land which is just fine with me. If these two camps ever stop butchering one another, I will be quite content to be able to say – “We told you so.” The we to whom I refer are, among others, St George Jackson Mivart, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo S. Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and myself in roughly chronological order. Not one of us ever found it necessary to invoke a sectarian God and we all rejected Darwinism as the myth it has always been. The nearest statement implying a God was made by Robert Broom when in his book, “Finding the Missing link,” he had the temerity to suggest, as he did at the very end of that book:

“I believe there is a plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal.” page 101

I agree with Broom with the following modifications. There WAS a plan and the goal has already been reached with the appearance of Homo sapiens about 100,000 years ago. Another of my unanswered challenges is to provide evidence for a more recent mammalian genus than Homo and a more recent species than Homo sapiens. So far there have been neither acknowledgement nor response to this challenge, at least none that did not question my sanity or my honesty or both as part of the reponse.

“I never did give them hell. I just told the truth and they thought it was hell.”
Harry S. Truman

“Carry the battle to them. Don’t let them bring it to you. Put them on the defensive. And don’t ever apologize for anything.”
ibid

“Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day.”
ibid

My kind of guy!

fdocc
14 years ago

Dr. Davison,

You wrote:

“I am not only friendly to Intelligent Design, I regard it as a self-evident starting point without which nothing in either ontogeny of phylogeny will ever make sense.”

I fully agree. We can keep ourselves fully independent and at the same time to friendly interact in those particular subjects that we agree. For example, I think it was necessary to introduce the ID topic as a subject for debate in Academia (Labs and Schools) to open new horizons in the brain (smile). For example, it has allowed me to see species-specific genes, enzymes and pathways; not only in tissues, but also in groups of organisms (Heb. Min, Gk. Genus). The uncommon things in the micro-universe of the molecules (dismissed by a Darwinian currently controlled biology, mostly focused in the common-ism due to their preconceived and non-granted “common ancestor”)

Dr., you also wrote:

“The we to whom I refer are, among others, St George Jackson Mivart, William Bateson, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Reginald C. Punnett, Leo S. Berg, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and myself”

I will be delighted if you have or can provide here biographies and work anthologies for each one of them, as well as an organized collection of their key statements, as the next one that you, Dear Dr. Davison, have stated:

“The nearest statement implying a God was made by Robert Broom when in his book, “Finding the Missing link,” he had the temerity to suggest, as he did at the very end of that book:

“I believe there is a plan, and though in the slow course of evolution there have been ups and downs, and what look like mistakes, the plan has gone on; and we may feel sure that it cannot fail to reach its goal.” page 101″

//////////////////////////////

Dear Teleologist,

Thank you for inviting Dr. Davison as well as for improving this Blog by making it possible to use features in our responses. God Bless You!

//////////////////////////////

Hey, Dear Salvador, you declared:

“Our weblog is very sparsely visited.”

However, all my recommended students are visiting it, even if they still shy to post anything. Just as an encouraging push:

I have installed on my browser the http://toolbar.google.com

And I can see that today, in the green Google’s “thermometer” for each site’s popularity, the Page Rank for this site is 4 of 10 (4/10). When compared with the Browser’s Daddy, which is Google itself (10/10), that’s a pretty good account.

So, dear Sal, because there are not so many postings here, that does not mean no visitors or no readers!

Just to compare it with other favorite sites, as for today:

My most visited sites are:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi

And

http://www.yahoo.com

Those ones ranked the same 9/10,

Then http://www.discovery.org Has a Page Rank of 7/10, while http://www.arn.org ranked as 6/10.

The next sites (all of them) ranked as 5/10:

Dr. Dembski’s Blog

Dr. Mike and Dr. Krauze, as well as their friends at telicthoughts’

My Student’s Website!

My own personal work on “Palindromati”!

So, both group and individual scientific (ID fully or ID friendly) websites ranked equally. Also, both well publicized authors (as Dr. Dembski) as well as self-published guys (like my-own-self, smile) ranked in the same popularity according to the good news of Google!

Finally, my Blog (one month old) “Research on Intelligent Design” Has been fluctuating between 3 (when I post intermittently, like in this current month of November) and 6 (six when I was posting daily during the full month of October!).

So, this was to encourage us all, my dear friends and critics of evolution. We, currently “little-men” for those ‘dominant’ evolutionary scientists (smile) are “not so little” in the eyes of our beloved students, of our relatives and friends… (So, I conclude this post big SMILE).

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Hello John,

I have some questions for you?

Are you a scientist? And if you are, what are your credentials?

Why did you reject christianity?

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Hello Salvador,

Can you tell me which scientists from GMU are going to attend the IDEA club meeting?

Thanks and have a great day!

teleologist
14 years ago

I’ve learned in life there are very few agreements between people. I like John because he shoots straight. I disagree with John on why we need to debate ID and Christianity, but we are allies against the Darwinian myth. John, your arguments are always devastating and poignant against the Darwinian Priesthood.

Besides, I’ve said that you are not too far from the Kingdom of Heaven. Even at your age there is still time for you to realize the error of you ways. Christianity for you John is just a step away my friend. πŸ™‚ As wise and smart as you are, I know that you realize that your intellect pale in comparison to the Creator of this universe.

In the meantime, I think your challenge to the Darwinian Priesthood in this post is great. Although you might criticize other Design theorists, nevertheless you are making the same argument. Indeed we are allies. Thanks for posting.

fdocc, it is good to hear from you again and thanks for the encouragement and the stats. I am sure you would agree, irregardless of the readers or postings, we will continue our task of defeating Darwinism by opening minds. For those who have not visited fdocc’s weblog please do so. The link is in the sidebar “Research on Intelligent Design” . I look forward to checking it everyday. It is a great collection of ID research and evidence in support of ID.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

It is quite unecessary to defeat Darwinism. It is dying as the results from molecular and chromosme biology continue to point to a predetermined scenario in which chance has played no role whatsoever. Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny, Leo Berg anticipated the present in 1922:

“Neither in tbe one nor in the other is there room for chance.”
Nomogenesis page 134

and

“Evolution is in a great measure the unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
ibid, page 406

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

benjii

I earned a B.S. in zoology from the University of Wisconsin in 1950 and a Ph.D in Zoology from the University of Minnesota in 1954. My early research was all experimental and largely in developmental biology. In 1984 I became interested in the failure of the Darwinian scheme and presented the Semi-meiotic hypothesis for organic evolution in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. My early evolutionary papers, my vitae and the unpublished Evolutionary Manifesto are available at what used to be my home page (www.uvm.edu/~jdavison) which the University of Vermont froze in 2000. Since then I have been publishing in Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum. I believe all my published papers are also available online except for the 1984 and 1987 Journal of Theoretical Biology ones. Just plug Davison and evolution in at Google and you will find plenty of references to me and my papers the vast majority of which are, to put it mildly, somewhat derogatory. Ideologues are like that don’t you know.

“War, God help me, I love it so!
General George S. Patton

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

Great!

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

fdocc

I am not prepared to give you biographical information on my many sources. I have however always quoted them in their own words so there is no question of their meaning and supplied the exact source for each citation. My papers are crawling with direct quotations which has led some to accuse me of “quote mining,” whatever that is supposed to mean. It is pretty hard to misrepresent someone when they are presented verbatim complete with the volume and page. I recommend others do the same. It is also part of my campaign to resurrect my sources from the oblivion to which the Darwinian establishment has tried to commit them. Their systematic refusal to acknowledge their critics is a disgrace. Don’t take my word for it. Just examine the indexes of Gould’s “The Structure of Evolutionary Theory” and Mayr’s “The Growth of Biological Thought” and see who is missing. To paraphrase a well known liberal politician:

“There has been a vast left-wing conspiracy,”

a conspiracy of secret denial that Darwinism has had devastating critics from Mivart in Darwin’s own day right up to the present. They have even found it necessary to ignore some of their own, notably Julian Huxley and Theodosius Dobzhansky. It is nothing short of scandalous and I intend to continue to hold their feet to the fire. Of course I don’t exist either at least not yet.

“Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!
Gregor Mendel

Benjii
Benjii
14 years ago

You’ve asked an important question. Is evolution finished? Well. What do you mean by that? If you mean evolution on the micro level, where certain species can change relatively little and indeed change, then, I think evolution is bound to stay and make great strides. However, if you say evolution means the answer to all diversity past and present, then, I think you have a problem Macroevolution is, by far, dead against the water. Fossil after fossil shows nothing but sudden appearance and stasis. However, the fossil record does show an upward progression of complexity, so, possibly some form of teleological evolution(a la Simon Conway) may be at work. On this issue I’m an agnostic, yet it’s plausible. Nonetheless, one must always distinguish what they mean when they say “evolution”. Using it the wrong way only confuses people.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Benjii

I meant the formation of true species or any of the higher taxonomic categories. There is no question that varieties can be produced both naturally and experimentally. Man has been doing it for centuries with his dometicated animals and crops. As I stated in my Prescribed Evolution paper, the most intensive artificial selection seems not capable of exceeding the species boundary. Quite the contrary, excessive selection leads to a loss of fitness as witnessed by many of man’s efforts with dogs for example. I don’t know what you mean by great strides as I don’t see that at all. Quite the contrary, I see genetic decay and loss of fitness especially in civilized society where natural selection is relaxed. I agree entirely with R.C. Punnett and Leo Berg that Natural Selection is a conservative and not a creative process. All it ever did was to maintain the status quo and even there it typically failed as deleterious genes finally took their toll causing extinction. At best it was and is a delaying tactic. It never had anything whatsoever to do with the emergence of any new life form as that always took place from within the organism. In short there is NOTHING in the Darwinian scheme that ever had anything to do with organic evolution except the relatively trivial matter of the production of varieties and in some instances, but certainly not all, subspecies. I realize this may not sit well with some but it is my present conviction neverthless. I have presented this argument in detail in “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis”, Rivista di Biologia 98: 155-166, 2005. It is also available at ISCID’s “brainstorms” forum and elsewhere on the web.

I hope this seves to clarify my meaning.

edarrell
edarrell
14 years ago

Spartina townsendii is well established as a daughter of the common American salt grass and the common European salt grass. Chromosomal studies done in the first half of the 20th century confirmed the original 1870 judgment.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

edarrell

Thank you. I am aware of this study and do not deny it. What I do question however is the cytological mechanism by which it was produced. Was this a gradual separation due to the accumulation of micromutations through sexual reproduction as the Darwinian model would suggest or was it an instantaneous event, produced by other means? Since you are up on this whole story perhaps you can answer that question. Like Schindewolf and Goldschmidt, I am very definitely a saltationist and it is the MECHANISM for true speciation and the formation of the higher categories (macroevolution) that remains in question.

Let’s assume for the moment that I am wrong in claiming that true species cannot be produced sexually with the understanding that is hypothetical and I present it only as a possibility. Are we to believe that genera, families, orders, classes and phyla CAN HAVE BEEN produced through Mendelian (sexual) means? I cannot accept that extension. If that were possible it would have been demonstrated long ago. The sexual mode is far too conservative to permit the known kinds of dramatic changes to have occurred. The simple fact is that it has not been demonstrated under controlled conditions which is the hall mark of real science. My position with respect to allelic mutation and selection is well known. I have rejected each as of evolutionary significance and will continue to do so until that can be established experimentally. That has not yet been done to my satisfaction and in my opinion it never will. We must look elsewhere for creative evolution. I think I have found the source in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Otherwise I would never have published.

Thanks for posting.

teleologist
14 years ago

Thanks for posting again edarrell. For those who are new to this blog and who are not familiar with edarrell, he is a devout Darwinist. edarrell is good at spewing out these Darwinian icons but he never answers his critics. Just as it has been pointed out to him about his grapefruit claim. Apparently his claims of gulls and Spartina have been refuted also but it just went right over his head.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Darwinians traditionally have not answered their critics. They assume they have never had any. We do not exist or, to the extent that we do, we become objects of derision. That has been the case for 146 years now, but I am confident it won’t last much longer. Darwinism should have died in the nineteenth century at about the same time that the Ether did in physics. A precise date would be 1871 with the publcation of Mivart’s “Genesis of Species” in which he asked – How can natural selection influence a structure that has not yet appeared? Of the three great myths, the The Ether of Physics, the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Selection of evolution, only Selection remains. The intital letters of these three myths can be arranged as ESP, extrasensory perception indeed!

Teleologist, you are fortunate in being able to elicit responses here from the Darwinian camp. At my new blog – prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/ – I have issued all sorts of challenges only to be largely ignored. I am beginning to take seriously Terry Trainor’s quip “Davison is the Darwinian’s worst nightmare.”

“Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World.”
William Golding

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

As soon as I learn how, I will link to any source that will link to my blog. So far that has not happened at least to my knowledge. I think that is fair don’t you?
It takes two to tango don’t you know.

scordova
14 years ago

Benjii,

Sorry for my delay in responding to you. We will not have any ID scientists publicly visiting George Mason, we will simply have displays of their pictures and quotes from their work in publicly visible places. We’ll have a slide show of with photos and quotes from leading theoriests and researchers such as John Davison. We may offer exerpts from their works.

I should mention, there is some cause for celebration, Corporate America basically turned it’s back on the recent 3 million dollar Darwin display in New York, they refused to donate one red cent to the display.

They no longer consider Darwinism main stream science worth promoting, but rather running away from as fast a you can…

The Darwin exhibition frightening off corporate sponsors

They attribute it to Christianity, but the truth is, it’s Darwinism itself that is to blame….

Salvador

teleologist
14 years ago

I am beginning to take seriously Terry Trainor’s quip “Davison is the Darwinian’s worst nightmare.”

One of the tenets of ID is that Darwinian gradualism of RM&NS cannot produce all the diversity that exists in living organisms. When ID advocates challenge them to demonstrate their myth through empirical evidence they just turn tail or throw out some smoke screen like the ones that edarrell has thrown out. You present a unique problem for them because of your expertise not only in the science but the history of biology. Biology when it was practiced as a science rather than a religious belief.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Would you please link to my blog unless of course you choose not to do so. I need all the exposure I can muster.

teleologist
14 years ago

Done. For all the good that is going to do. πŸ˜€

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Thanks for linking to my blog. I will link to yours once I learn how to run the thing properly.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

To return to edarrel’s mention of Spartina townsendii as an example of “evolution in action” as the Darwinians claim. It seems it is little more than a hybrid between american and european species of salt grass. Now since it is presumably fertile, it by definition is not a new species and the parents were merely subspecies or varieties of the same taxon. Correct me if I am wrong as I am only employing the criterion for species as defined by a confirmed Darwinian, one Theodosius Dobzhansky.

“An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi

teleologist
14 years ago

To return to edarrel’s mention of Spartina townsendii as an example of “evolution in action” as the Darwinians claim. It seems it is little more than a hybrid between american and european species of salt grass. Now since it is presumably fertile, it by definition is not a new species and the parents were merely subspecies or varieties of the same taxon.

I agree. Our friend fdocc is the resident expert on speciation. I think fdocc has also pointed this out in his previous response with the referenced research paper. Although F2 may not crossbreed with F1, nevertheless F2 is fertile. It also retained the characteristics of F1 in that it is still a salt grass. S. townsendii is not a case of macroevolutionary change but an example of microevolutionary varieties. IOW, the F1 of S. townsendii did not produced through chance a banana tree. There is still no example of Darwinian evolution producing wings out of nothing, or a fish turning into an amphibian. Furthermore, although S. townsendii does not naturally breed with F1 but it might be capable of artificially breeding. I would like to see some research to confirm the stainability of such a cross. Lastly, every example of these type of chromosomal varieties that Darwinists have pointed to (that I know of) have been with plants. Doesn’t macroevolution occur in animals? Maybe not.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Has it even been tested to see if S. townsendii can produce fertile offspring with its presumed parent species? In other words has a traditional back-cross been attempted? I am willing to bet it could as I can see no other reason why it might be fertile itself. Perhaps edarell can answer these questions.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Benjii

The reasons why I have rejected Christianity are purely scientific and do not in any way influence the great value of it as an ethic by which to live. There is nothing in the Bible that has any bearing on the history of life on this planet. To claim that there is only infuriates the atheist mindset and is accordingly counterproductive. For all I know Christianity, and in particular even Roman Catholicism, may be, as so many believe, the “one true faith.” Even if that should be true, it must not influence what we learn from the experimental laboratory or the fossil record. Religious conviction, more than any other factor has contributed to the present intellectual conflict we now see raging. Don’t take my word for it.

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

As I have gotten older the notion of an after life has become less and less appealing as escaping the present one seems to become more and more desirable.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

fdocc

I notice you do not accept a “common ancestor.” My only reservation about common ancestry relates to how many different times life was created since obviously that is not known with certainty. What is your reason for rejecting a common ancestor? Of course you may choose not to respond which is perfectly acceptable to me. I am just interested in trying to find where everyone is “coming from” if I may use that time worn phrase.

Thanks again for all the exposure you have presented of my evolutionary views and convictions. It will be interesting to see if it evokes any response from the Darwinian camp. My instincts say it will not.

fdocc
14 years ago

Dear Dr. John A. Davison,

Yes, I have learned a lot from your postings, comments, articles, etc.

I am very thankful with your work. That’s why on November 22, 2005 I posted my global review of your publications, entitling it
John A Davison and the discrete nature and stability of species

No, don’t feel that your life’s work has been worthless or useless, if the big-heads of neoDarwinism and Evolutionism ignore you, that’s nothing compared with the thousands of silent students that are attentive to your publications and comments.

This Intelligent Design revolution is necessary for the freedom and progress in science. You yourself have declared that you are proud to take part on this revolution. You can see that Mark Ryland, from the Discovery Institute, on May 7, 2005 in the Washington Journal (CSPAN) (Windows Media, big file, 61.8MB) specifically mentioned your name and your bad experience with a currently totalitarian scientific establishment.

For example, in AustraliaMore than 100 schools are already teaching intelligent design as science, alongside the mandatory curriculum requirement to study evolution.” And 3,000 more have been showing to their students the great documentary that is “Unlocking the Mystery of Life” (RealPlayer), opening the minds and eyes of a full generation completely new, unbiased by the pernicious Evolutionary Darwinian thinking.

And Finally, yes, a Common and Intelligent Design is reflected in nature. The evidence is for common ancestry within genetically compatible organisms, like a common ancestor, respectively in Canis, or in Finches, or in Cichlids, etc…

The evidence is not for a common descent of all living forms from an imprecise semi-molecule or an uncertain semi-cell in an ancient and chaotic soup, which is the careless view held by Darwinism and by Evolution in general.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

fdocc

You may prove to be right about the number of separate creations. That is a question I am pondering as well as I see no reason to insist on a single creation. You might be interested in Leo Berg’s position. Comparing his own view with that of the mono or oligo-phyletic Darwinian model:

“Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically.
Nomogenesis, page 406

That is not as yet resolved by any means. I think that remarkable statement is one of the many reasons the Darwinians chose to ignore Berg, in my opinion one of the greatest evolutionists of all time. I am curious however about one thing. How do you feel about a common ancestor for the genera Pan, Gorilla, Pongo and Homo?

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

I call your attention to Phillip Engle’s new forum:

Evolution & NonLinear Science

I post there and I think you will find him a valuable ally in the battle with the Darwinians.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

fdocc

In my post of 1:52 P.M. Novenber 23 I asked the following question:

“How do you feel about a common ancestor for the genera Pan, Gorilla, Pongo and Homo?

While of course you may choose not to answer this question, I feel it is an important thing for me to know because, as you know, I am not a Christian fundamentalist and perhaps not even a Christian. It is important for me to retain my independence from any organized faction. That is why I resent the notion of an “Intelligent Design movement.” I do not regard that which is self-evident as requiring a “movement” for its support. The IDists should never have presented it as a subject for debate. Dembski is even trying to prove ID mathematically! We all know what happens with debates. The subject is invariably debated ad nauseum. It has caused all sorts of unnecessary friction and misunderstanding of the role of science.

“It is neither randomness nor supernatural power, but laws which govern living beings; to determine these laws is the aim and goal of science, which should here have the final say.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 107

It is as true today as it was in 1954 when Einstein’s “Ideas and Opinions” was translated into English:

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

Unfortunately I must agree.

teleologist
14 years ago

Thank you John. Yes we have a new ally. πŸ™‚

teleologist
14 years ago

“How do you feel about a common ancestor for the genera Pan, Gorilla, Pongo and Homo?

John, fdocc is probably preoccupied with some personal matters lately so he might not be able to respond as promptly. I think I can safely answer this for fdocc. The answer is that they do not share a common ancestor. We are both Christians and share similar views. I am pretty sure he is like me who do not accept UCA. There are Christians and ID supporter who do accept UCA. I am open to any convincing evidence that can support such a claim.

I am probably more like Hugh Ross who see evidence for other hominids before homo but as separate distinct creations from each other.

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

I agree also. Except I would add that we all also bring our own presuppositions to religion and science. Our discernment of each of these spheres depends on our ability to clear the fog of our presuppositional bias.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Thanks for the clear unequivocal response.

Let me add that I will not accept a Universal Common Ancestor either until that can be demonstrated. However, there is no question in my mind that Pan, Pongo, Gorilla and Homo do indeed share a common ancestor as the only thing that is required for that assumption is a shuffling of just a few preexistent chromosomal segments. There is no need for the introduction of any new information from the environment. In fact I see no role for environmental input for any of evolution. I am currently interested in just how far this explanation can be extended on the basis of our present knowledge.

Let me put it this way with small modifications of an old adage:

“God (or Gods) worked (past tense) in mysterious ways.”

Thanks for responding. The Darwinians never do.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

You are also fortunate to have many others who agree with you. So far I have only one real ally and that is Phillip Engle and of course we have our differences too. Life is like that and as it should be.

teleologist
14 years ago

I don’t know how many actually agrees with me. If you don’t disagree with anything then you don’t care about anything. As long as we don’t lose our freedom to voice dissent whatever that might be; we can do no further. We can’t agree on everything John but I value and respect you as an ally because you are a straight shooter.

fdocc
14 years ago

John A. Davison wrote:

“”How do you feel about a common ancestor for the genera Pan, Gorilla, Pongo and Homo?”

Next is something related that you wrote in your articles:

“The male-determining (Y) chromosomes lack, both quantitatively and qualitatively, the semblance one would expect had the four genera [man, chimpanzee, gorilla and orangutan] evolved through sexual reproduction. Other differences include alterations in chromosome ends or telomeres as well as variations in the position of nucleolar organizers…” [Davison on a critical review of: Yunis JJ, Prakash O. The origin of man: a chromosomal pictorial legacy. Science. 1982 Mar 19;215(4539):1525-30.]…

“I accept the physiological definition of species. Two forms that can produce a viable hybrid will be considered separate species if that hybrid proves to be sterile.”

“… in nature, sexual reproduction seems incapable of proceeding beyond the subspecies. I am unaware of a single instance of the production of a new species through the known agency of sexual reproduction.”

My comment is that if there was no “evolution via sexual reproduction” involved for those legitimate self-perpetuating separate species; then, there was the active participation of an Intelligent Design, shuffling and enlarging the genetic information needed for each one of them separately.

“… we all also bring our own presuppositions to religion and science. Our discernment of each of these spheres depends on our ability to clear the fog of our presuppositional bias.” [Teleologist]

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

fdocc

There is no need for any intervention whatsoever and accordingly no need for a living God in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. That is its great strength. As improbable as it may seem, the PEH presumes one or many front-loadings of specific information into goal-seeking systems which will intrinsically express that information in a systematic fashion. The alternative is not between “sexual reproduction” and an “active participation” as you suggest. As a matter of fact I proposed back in 1984 an alternative reproductive mechanism in the form of the Semi-meiotic hypothesis, an hypothesis that remains untested to this day and accordingly still remains viable as the device for macroevolution.

Evolution proceeded according to Law just as both Grasse and Berg insisted. Please don’t take my word for it. I have always relied heavily on others far more informed and erudite than myself as the following illustrates:

Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE.
The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him.
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166 (his emphasis)

Obviously Grasse is a theist just as I am. I suspect he may have been a Catholic. Pasteur sure was and it didn’t prevent him from being a great scientist.

I agree entirely with Grasse except I am not at all sure there was a single act of creation. There may have been several, but if there were they took place long ago and in my opinion there is no evidence for an intervening God at present or in the past several million years. Speaking as a scientist I, like Grasse, see no need for one.

It is interesting that you mention the two spheres of religion and science. I also agree with Einstein:

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

teleologist
14 years ago

John writes:
the PEH presumes one or many front-loadings of specific information into goal-seeking systems which will intrinsically express that information in a systematic fashion. The alternative is not between “sexual reproduction” and an “active participation” as you suggest. As a matter of fact I proposed back in 1984 an alternative reproductive mechanism in the form of the Semi-meiotic hypothesis

I agree that front-loading is compatible with ID and a possible explanation for the rise of Homo. Correct me if I am wrong but in your hypothesis the chromosomal reshuffling to transform hominids to Homo occurs at a large-scale does it not?

In any case this could be a major area for ID research. Is there a hidden control gene that can switch on this large-scale change? Or we can research and find out what are the precise change that is needed to fuse different chromosomes and the survivability of this new transformation.. What other difference are required to alter the hypothetical hominid to homo? Of course this requires that we know what the genetic makeup was of the hypothetical ancestor. The problem is that none of the hypotheses have been tested including the Darwinian one. It is pathetically ridiculous for Ken Miller to claim that Darwinian evolution to have predicted and confirmed this. I am skeptical of the intellectual acumen of someone who draws these conclusions. This again demonstrates that Darwinians are not practicing science rather they are engaged in proselytization.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Teleologist.

I note you use the present tense with evolution. I am convinced that evolution is no longer in progress beyond the trivial production of varieties. Many forms are incapapble even of that. That is why I do not understand your question about large scale occurrences. I believe that populations never had anything to do with evolution either. Evolutionary changes like all other genetic changes originated in individual organisms in single cells destined to become gametes. That is one place where I disagree with Leo Berg. This is one more reason why I am not very popular with the “establishment.” Unable to demonstrate evolution with individual organisms, they, led by Ernst Mayr, frantically turned to populations for the answer. All they have discovered is trivial recombinations of ordinary allelic genes which have and had nothing to do with evolution either.

The Darwinian fairy tale has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with a past evolution and nothing to do with a present one beyond the production of varieties. This the “establishment” will never accept because it means they have dedicated their entire professional lives to a myth which is exactly what they have done. It must be rejected in toto in order to proceed with a rational interpretation of all that is revealed by molecular biology, chromosome function and the fossil record. It will just have to rammed down their throats and it will be. Trust me.

One of the many reasons I have so much admiration for William Bateson is because he recognized before he died that he had wasted his life with Mendelism and that it had nothing to do with speciation or evolution in general. Does anyone really expect Richard Dawkins to ever do the same? I’ll let others answer that question as I have already reached my conclusion.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

That is why we are engaged in a war.

“War, God help me, I love it so!”
General George S. Patton, like myself a predestinationist.

teleologist
14 years ago

That is why I do not understand your question about large scale occurrences. I believe that populations never had anything to do with evolution either. Evolutionary changes like all other genetic changes originated in individual organisms in single cells destined to become gametes.

What I meant was that if you believe that Pan and Homo shared a common ancestor and that ancestor had 48 chromosomes. We now have 46 chromosomes so at some point in the past 2 of our chromosomes merged. Now according to Darwinians this happened through chance. In your hypothesis would that have occurred through front-loading?

The Darwinians have a major problem with their story because how would this mutated species find a suitable mate to pass on this new genomic mutation? (See this article from the IDEA Center for more details)

In your hypothesis how would the newly formed chromosome get passed on? So when I said large-scale, I meant did the change (front-loading) occurred to a large number of the ancestral population at the same time?

Unlike Patton I hate war, still here we are, God help us.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Teleologist

The front loading or loadings took place eons before speciation. There has been no intervention nor any need for it. That was Grasse’s point as well. The system which I have proposed is entirely internal in its function. It has been a kind of goal-seeking process in which new combinations of pre-existing information have been produced in such a manner as to lead to the final goal which for the mammals has been Homo sapiens. I am still awaiting evidence of a younger mammalian Genus than Homo and a younger species than Homo sapiens.

And no, I do not believe that speciation has ever been a population phenomenon in which whole groups of animals underwent simultaneous transformation. That flies in the face of evreything we know about genetics. That does not mean I am right of course. I will be the first to abandon the PEH as soon as solid evidence against it is provided. Until then, I remain firm, even more firm than our atheist adversaries. They are now showing definite signs of weakness as I hope you have noticed as well.

The Semi-meiotic Hypothesis offers known cytological means for new chromosome configurations to be produced as homologous pairs in a single step. Once they are produced evolution would be free to continue by typical sexual, Mendelian means. I recommend either my Manifesto for a complete treatment or my 1984 paper in the Journal of Theoretical Biology. I am not prepared to offer the details here as it is quite unnecessary. They have been in hard copy for 21 years.

The question of a suitable mate is no problem for frogs as semi-meiotic (gynogenetic) reproduction produces fertile members of both sexes. There is thus no question that in many, and possibly all organisms, that all the necessary information for the production of both sexes is contained in the female genome. Incidentally, and I do not choose to make a big thing of this, this can offer a potential explanation both for the immaculate conception of Mary and the virgin birth of Christ. Again I refer you to the Manifesto for details. I have also written a paper on this subject but never transmitted it for publication as I knew it would have been used against me. Darwinian ideologues are like that. It is available at Terry Trainor’s forum in the documents section under my name. You may reproduce it as long as you indicate that it is not in hard copy in a refereed journal. I am sure that even now would be quite impossible. The Darwinians still hold sway but not for much longer.

“You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read or comprehend it.”
John A. Davison

War is a terrible thing. The war to which I was referring is the intellectual war between the forces of rational, unbiased, ideologically unfettered science and Darwinian, aimless, purposeless mysticism. That is the war in which I am engaged.

When undeniable facts first encounter ideology, ideology always carries the day, but never the final victory which belongs to hard-headed science.
I hope this clarifies my position somewhat.

“Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty.”
Galileo

fdocc
14 years ago

Dr. Davison you wrote

“The alternative is not between “sexual reproduction” and an “active participation” as you suggest.”

I don’t suggest that the ID alternative “is“; I posted that “there was” ID, and I must add “in the beginning” .

You also wrote:

“Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him.”
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166 (his emphasis)

Limiting Grasse’s declaration to the current normal biology, I must say that I agree with Grasse, in the sense that God has NO NEED to commonly, normally or to regularly intervene in His biology.

I must conclude by declaring that once the design was completed, it was perfectly perfect (even more than today, as we are living “after the fall” ), and self-replicating “since its beginning” , being able to keep going by itself, a biological machine “preserved by perpetuation.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

According to Grasse, there has been no intervention since a single act of creation. That means no intervention in literally millions of years. I must agree except for the possibility that there may have been more than one God and more than one creation. I am inclined toward at least two Gods, one malevolent, one benevolent, although that is based on their presumed ultimate products and not on their presence for which I see no evidence whatever. If I could see convincing evidence for a living God I would be the first to embrace it. I am not holding my breath in anticipation. I hope you will tolerate my skepticism because that is exactly all that it is.

teleologist
14 years ago

John, thank you for your elaboration. I learn a lot from your postings. I apologize for my inability to communicate clearly. I did not mean to suggest that you think there is continuous evolution going on. My understanding of front-loading is that all genetic innovations (macroevolution) were pre-programmed into the genetic code. In other words, the genetic codes were designed long ago with a form of “artificial intelligence” to explore and create “new forms” , not necessarily any particular forms but a form that is appropriate for its’ survival at the time.

The question of a suitable mate is no problem for frogs as semi-meiotic (gynogenetic) reproduction produces fertile members of both sexes. There is thus no question that in many, and possibly all organisms, that all the necessary information for the production of both sexes is contained in the female genome.

I agree there might be cases in nature that is capable of reproducing with chromosomal mismatched. Frankly I don’t know the details of these purported cases. One of these cases touted by Darwinians is the Equus przewalskii (2n = 66) and Equus caballus (2n = 64). The cross between these 2 varieties is fertile. I don’t have access to the detail of the research papers that describe this claim. So I don’t know what the fertility rate is, is it 100%, 50%? Is the fertility rate the same across the population of these 2 varieties? Finally, my main argument for this is that there are many more examples of karyotypes mismatch between varieties that does not produce fertile offspring. So pointing out fertile mismatches is not evidence for Pan-Homo common ancestry. The other issue is the F2 hybrid have an average number of chromosomes of its’ F1 parents. As in the case of the Equus cross of 2n=66 and 2n=64 resulted in 2n=65. Using that example if Pan and Homo shared a common ancestor then we should get 2n=48 and 2n=46 should result in 2n=47. The bottom-line is that the evidence is a long way from being conclusive which is the reason I propose ID research programs in my previous post to find empirical support our theory.

War is a terrible thing. The war to which I was referring is the intellectual war between the forces of rational, unbiased, ideologically unfettered science and Darwinian, aimless, purposeless mysticism. That is the war in which I am engaged.

There was never a doubt in my mind that you were speaking metaphorically and the war is a war of ideas. It is also the war that I said that I hated. Ideas have consequences. We are dictated by our ideas of our worldviews. It affects what sort of government, society, inter-personal relationships and personal values we have. I wish we didn’t have such a war of ideas, still here we are.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

The empirical support for a common ancestor for Pan , Gorilla, Pongo and Homo is overwhelming and I regard it as absolute. That in no way should be construed as in conflict with a Divine plan . As I have said before by slightly modifying an old adage:

“God (or Gods) worked (past tense) in mysterious ways.”

In my opinion it is counterproductive to either ignore or deny the findings of the experimental and descriptive laboratory.

I agree that we are victimized by our world views. I take it as support for the PEH. As I see the conflict going on around us on the subject of our origins, I find it increasingly difficult to accept the idea of a free will. Once again I am not alone.

“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting ARE NOT FREE but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion.”
Albert Einstein (my emphasis)

He anticipated the PEH in 1933.

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

This is for Benjii

I notice you post frequently at Uncommon Descent. Dembski has banned me from his forum although he now allows me viewing priviliges. Would you do me a favor and remind those who post there that I have my own blog now –

prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/

and that they are all invited to participate?

Thank you.

teleologist
14 years ago

The empirical support for a common ancestor for Pan , Gorilla, Pongo and Homo is overwhelming and I regard it as absolute. That in no way should be construed as in conflict with a Divine plan .

You may or may not be right about a Divine plan, but as much as I respect your intellect. I must differ with your confidence in the empirical support for the common ancestry of hominids. To me it is not at all settled based on the reasons that I gave before. We will have to agree to disagree on this one. πŸ˜€

John A. Davison
John A. Davison
14 years ago

Teleologist

O course we will have to disagree. That is what is required for progress. Nevertheless, I am disappointed that you cannot accept a common ancestor even at the level of the taxonomic order. I regard that as a denial of organic evolution, a condition I will not accept. I also reject the only alternative which is that Homo sapiens was produced de novo. To do so would mean to abandon everything to which I have devoted my scientific life. I am sure you must understand.

I must once again agree with Einstein:

“The main source of the present-day conflicts betwen the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God.”