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.

  80 Responses to “Is evolution finished?”

  1. 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

  2. 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!

  3. 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).

  4. 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?

  5. Hello Salvador,

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

    Thanks and have a great day!

  6. 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. ๐Ÿ™‚ 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.

  7. 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

  8. 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

  9. Great!

  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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.

  14. 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.

  15. 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.

  16. 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

  17. 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.

  18. 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

  19. 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.

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

  21. Done. For all the good that is going to do. ๐Ÿ˜€

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

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.

  27. 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.

  28. 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.

  29. 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?

  30. 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.

  31. 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.

  32. Thank you John. Yes we have a new ally. ๐Ÿ™‚

  33. “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.

  34. 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.

  35. 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.

  36. 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.

  37. 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]

  38. 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.”

  39. 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.

  40. 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.

  41. 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.

  42. 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.

  43. 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

  44. 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.

  45. 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.

  46. 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.

  47. 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.

  48. 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.

  49. 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. ๐Ÿ˜€

  50. 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.”

  51. 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 see no reason to take a leap of faith to accept this Darwinian necessity. As I’ve stated before there are many reason why the Darwinian explanation is not valid to transform hominids into humans. The Biotic Message from ReMine makes that very clear. Furthermore while there is a great deal of genetic similarities between these 2 species there are also a great deal of qualitative differences. (I’ve argued the case on ARN) Studies after study have shown that any claim of similarities between these 2 species cannot explain the gulf of phenotypic differences between them. While I might have a religious bias, I reject this on a scientific basis.

  52. Teleologist

    It is NOT a Darwinian necessity at all. It is an evolutionary necessity. None of the differences that exist between ourselves and our Simian relatives could ever have come about through the Darwinian accumulation of micromutations. They came about through the restructuring of a common chromosomal substrate. In short they ae “Position Effects.” To deny Darwinism is not to deny evolution. Organic evolution at every level is undeniable because it has occurred. All true species were produced instantly and through the restructuring of pre-existing information. As Schindewolf claimed there never were any true missing links so we might as well stop looking for them. Every series which has been carefully documented says the same thing. New forms appeared drastically different from those that preceeded them. They are so different from one another that it isn’t even obvious which are ancestral to which and often even have to be assigned to different genera. The horse series is a perfect example as are the several fossil hominids. This is exactly what one would anticipate when chromosome pairs are restructured in single steps. Several features will be simultaneously and dramatically altered. That is exactly what the fossil, record reveals and it will never be reconciled with the gradualist, mutation/selection model . It remains in complete concert with the Semi-meiotic model which I first proposed 21 years ago and still try vainly to promote. We tend to forget that all diploid organisms consist of chromosomes arranged as homologous pairs, the only exception being the sex chromosomes and for many forms even they are not evident.

    Surely you are not going to deny evolution just because the Darwinian explanation is a total failure. If you do I will be very disappointed. The Darwinian scheme never had anything to do with macroevolution and should be relegated to the scrap heap as an explanatory paradigm. How and why it persists can only have an ideological basis as it has absolutely no scientific validity whatsoever.

    I do not regard Walter Remine as an authority and as for ARN, I cannot even read what transpires there as I was summarily banned from participation. Forums that resort to such tactics just because they encounter tangible opposition do not command my respect. That goes for a number of others including EvC, Panda’s Thumb, Pharyngula, Fringe Sciences, and unfortunately even William Dembski’s Uncommon Descent, a title which I find offensive as it denies the organic origin of man from animal predecessors. I can only assume that you might share that view which if true is definitely at variance with demonstrable and uindeniable facts. Man, with all his wonderful newly evolved capacities, is nevertheless an animal with animal ancestors. Of that I am certain, just as certain as I am that chance had absolutely nothing to do with any of it. None of this denies a Creator or Creators with unfathomable intelligence. I rest my case.

  53. I do not regard Walter Remine as an authority

    A Man’s authority is not measured by the accolades of his opponents but by the strength of his arguments. I find his arguments extremely convincing.

    They came about through the restructuring of a common chromosomal substrate. In short they ae “Position Effects.”

    Certainly translocation of hominid genetic information cannot account for all the differences between these 2 species. New information and regulatory elements must be introduced.

    All true species were produced instantly and through the restructuring of pre-existing information.

    This I can agree with. As a Christian I believe that God is the Intelligent Designer and therefore there are things that He can do that another intelligent agent might not be able to do. However, I am not approaching ID as a Christian. I am only positing an intelligent agency is at work here. Therefore I am open to the possibility of the restructuring of existing information to instantly produce a new species. As a matter of fact this is exactly how Design Engineers would do their work. I am sure you are familiar with the term “Design Reuse” .

    It may be a matter of semantics but even in your instantaneous production of a new species through a front-loaded prescribed process, it is not necessary to call this new species as sharing a common ancestry. As far as I am concerned this is a de novo creation because it requires the intervention of intelligence in the form of a prescribed evolutionary process.

    By way of an analogy, as an engineer I can take existing parts of an electronic device and through my intelligent knowledge rearrange the parts to perform a different function. I can change a radio into a digital clock. There is no reason for me to consider the digital clock as a new version (sharing common descent) with a radio is there?

    Please make no mistake about it, if I put my religious hat aside. I am approaching this from my engineering point of view, I will question everything and dissect everything. All conclusions must be empirically proved. Which is why I am not saying the common ancestry between hominids and humans is impossible. I am just saying that so far the evidence seems to make it unlikely. I repeat more empirical research is needed to firm up the theory.

  54. Teleologist

    You insist that new information must be introduced. I ask you to document that new information, its source and its content. I don’t believe there is any need for any new information and I don’t believe there ever was. My model is ontogeny. Where during development is there the injection of new information along that pathway? The entire Darwinian myth is predicated on the introduction of new information, yet none has ever been demonstrated. I remain firm in my conviction that like ontogeny, phylogeny has been entirely emergent and predetermined. That is the substance of the PEH and I am not prepared to abandon it until it is experimentally demonstrated to be false. That is what science is all about.

    Of course you must put your religious hat aside. There is no place for a personal God in science, there never was, and in my opinion there never will be. To insist on one is the heart of the present problem. Nevertheless, a Creator or Creators with unfathomable intelligence must have been behind it all.

    The much heralded Natural Selection is and was nothing but a device to maintain the status quo in a vain attempt to delay the inevitable which is extinction, the evolutionary equivalent of the death of the individual.

    We have obviously reached an impasse and for me it is certainly not the first time. I will however be happy to respond to any rational arguement based on demonstrable fact and not mere conjecture.

    At least you now admit that a common ancestor for hominids and humans is “not impossible.” For me there is no question that a common ancestor did exist for all of the order Primates as undeniable chromosomal evidence is there to support that contention. How much further a monophyletic evolution can be established remains to be determined. As I have said before, I see no compelling reason to insist on a single creation just as I see no compelling evidence for a living, intervening God and plenty of reasons to question one. I am not alone in my conclusions.

    “Everything is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
    Albert Einstein

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

    “Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
    Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

    “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)

  55. Where during development is there the injection of new information along that pathway? The entire Darwinian myth is predicated on the introduction of new information, yet none has ever been demonstrated.

    I quote from a man that we both respect. “I regard Intelligent Design as a self-evident starting point without which nothing in either ontogeny of phylogeny will ever make sense.” — Prof Davison I regard new information as self-evident :), based on the obvious phenotypical differences between the species. The new information is expressed in our morphological, molecular and behavioral differences. The morphological differences are obvious. The molecular difference are in numerous papers including the one I’ve already cited, that shows 80% difference on orthologous proteins and vast difference in brain chemistry. New information is evident in our wider range of emotional, social and abstract behavioral response to others and us.

    The entire Darwinian myth is predicated on the introduction of new information, yet none has ever been demonstrated.

    The Darwinian myth is predicated on the introduction of information through random chance and unguided differential survival. That I agree has never been demonstrated and the evidence so far is against it being a possibility.

    Remember, I define new information as a mere de novo rearrangement of existing parts. The significance is not in the parts of the system but the system itself. I can go to a car junkyard and pick through the scrapes to find part to build an airplane. Does that mean no new information is introduced? No, but it does require intelligent design. What the Darwinian myth is incapable of demonstrating is how an airplane can be assembled through random chance from a junkyard.

    At least you now admit that a common ancestor for hominids and humans is “not impossible.”

    Please don’t read too much into my statement. I am willing to admit common ancestry is a possibility as everything is a possibility. Science for me in the strictest sense is provisional. Everything is held in light of the current understanding until shown otherwise. i.e. This entire existence is an illusion of my mind. The only thing that is not an illusion is my thought. As Decartes said Cogito ergo sum, to deny my own existence is to deny the thought that brought about my denial, that is the only impossibility.

    I see no compelling evidence for a living, intervening God and plenty of reasons to question one. I am not alone in my conclusions.

    I think it is fine to question an intervening God. I would just like to pose a couple of other lines of questioning, not necessarily for you but just in general. If there was an intervening God would we be able to detect the evidence of Him/Her? If I was an atheistic Darwinian would I not question the nihilistic nature of materialism? I pose the questions this way because we both know that in science there is no such thing as absolute truth only provisional truths. I am only asking that when we question the evidence for an intervening God we apply the same standard of requirement for questioning the existence of a non-intervening God or the non-existence of God or anything else for that matter. The same standard of proof should be applies across the board.

  56. We both do NOT know there is no such thing as absolute truth. Please do not put words in my mouth. I do not share that view at all. I believe in absolute undeniable truth with all my heart. Without it there would have been no progress in science. To question absolute truth is a philosophical cop out and we all know what Einstein thought about philosophy:

    “Isn’t all of philosophy as if written in honey. It looks wonderful at first sight, but when you look again it is all gone. Only the smear is left.”

    or if you don’t like that one:

    “Upon reading books of philosophy, I learned that I stood there like a blind man in front of a painting. I can grasp only the inductive method…the works of speculative philosophy are beyod my reach.”

    So much for philosophy. In my opinion and Einstein’s it has no place in science.

    Whether or not God exists has absolutely nothing to do with the realities revealed by laboratory science and the fossil record. Those realiteis demand that man had an organic and reproductively continuous origin from primate ancestors. That I regard as absolute undeniable truth. God shouldn’t even enter the discussion. Let’s leave God out of it I say. I have nothing more to say on this subject.

  57. Except to add, that in no way denies a Divine purpose.

  58. If there were an intervening God of course we would be able to detect him or her. One detects that which is there or was there. Unlike every Darwinian, I am not a mystic. I do not believe in forces that cannot be demonstrated. That is why I am convinced that evolution is finished. That it occurred is not to be questioned, at least not by this investigator. That includes the organic origin of man, apparently evolution’s last mammalian product. Here and elsewhere I have issued a number of challenges, not one of which has ever been answered or even acknowledged. That silence speaks volumes.

  59. I have also requested both here and elsewhere that those who can post at Uncommon Descent and Panda’s Thumb please post at those forums that my new blog – prescribedevolution.blogspot.com/ – now exists and that all are welcome to post there. Since those requests have not been honored I can only conclude that I am regarded as a pariah both here and elsewhere. I did not intend my blog to be only a vehicle for my heresies but rather a venue for the presentation and defense of all conceiveable evolutionary scenarios. I have also asked others to join with me in inviting Richard Dawkins to present his “product” there for our evaluation. As nearly as I am able to determine this simple request has also not been honored. I can only ask the question why?

    That question does not require an answer any more than have any of my several challenges. Silence speaks volumes.

  60. One thing I am very good at. I have the unrivaled capacity to leave unanswered comments hanging to wither and die on forums all over the internet. I am an accomplished “thread terminator” if I may use that phrase. I left 12 at John Rennie’s SciAm perspectives alone. I have every reason to believe that was the only reason he closed that forum down. Now he has a new blog where opinions are not allowed. Everywhere I post it is with the same result. As soon as I firmly disagree with one of the fundamental tenets of a particular forum’s host I become persona non grata and further communication grinds to a halt. That is if I am not banned for life first.

    It is all so very revealing. All in all, while I may be disappointed, I am no longer surprised. It is to be expected when one rejects all extreme positions as I most certainly have done. While the PEH seems radical, it actually is an extremely conservative concept as it makes absolutely no assumptions that do not remain in accord with demonstrable fact. Not only is there no role for chance, there is also no role for a living intervening God.

    “Here I stand. I can do no otherwise.”
    Martin Luther

  61. John, your challenges stand even if you become persona non grata. ๐Ÿ™‚

    To be a little bit more balance, your challenges go unanswered because this ” blog” is not that well known and very few Darwinists participate here. Darwinians have a problem with blogs like this because they can’t impose their biased editing and control like they do in schools and journals.

  62. Teleologist

    Nonsense. Your blog is very well known to Darwinists which is why they refuse to participate here. They are cowards pure and simple which is why they pontificate only from their own secure home bases liike Panda’s Thumb, EvC, Pharyngula, and I must add Uncommon Descent as well. You have distinguished yourself from the others by not banning me when I disagree with your fundamental and sincere beliefs. You are to be congratulated at least by this investigator. Nevertheless, we differ on basic issues. That is the way it is supposed to be. It is a mark of intellectual maturity when it can be done without rancor.

    I think I have made my position sufficiently clear that it requires no further dissection or discussion by either of us. I wish you and your blog well.

  63. Thank you John. At the risk of patting each other on the back, I don’t have a problem with your disagreement because you are a straight shooter. I still believe you are reasonable and a man of integrity. Unfortunately, we just can’t come to the same conclusion in organic evolution for humans. Frankly, I find your argument does have merits to a point. More importantly this IMHO is a minor point in the ID debate.

    BTW, you are right the silence is deafening.

  64. Teleologist

    That is fine with me too. Please tell me what your view IS of the origin of Homo sapiens. Dembski certainly hasn’t done it with his “Uncommon Descent.” Perhaps you will, perhaps not.

    Until I see evidence to the contrary, our immediate ancestor was a Neanderthal “woman,” that is if you understand the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis.

    I do not regard our origin as a minor point. It lies at the heart of the conflict. To deny an organic origin for man only further inflames our common enemy. That is counterproductive and, in my opinion, scientifically unacceptable.

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

  65. We’ll see.

  66. That is fine with me too. Please tell me what your view IS of the origin of Homo sapiens.

    John, IMO I would discourage leading ID theorists from getting bogged down with too many specifics in human evolution. The Darwinians has a history of vilifying IDists through distortions. You see, they are incapable of separating their philosophical atheism from science; therefore they assume that it must be the same for IDists.

    Since I am not anyone of significance I will try to answer your question. I’ve already told you a large part of what I thought on this subject. Let me start by stating that I have a dichotomous view on evolution. It is no big secret that I am a fundamentalist Christian who believes in the literal inerrant Word of God. The secularists have made the words “fundamentalist” and “literal” into some sort of curse words. They take fringe groups and extremists views and call it fundamentalism. Almost all fundamentalists that I know are rational and intellectual thinkers. I wonder how many people who make fun of Biblical literalists have actually study the intellectual reasons, from conservative scholars for the evidence behind their theological belief. Therefore I my Christian view and my scientific view on evolution. Contrary to the Atheistic Darwinists, I am able to separate my scientific investigation from my religious convictions. I am also able to recognize where these 2 spheres intersect.

    As a Christian, I don’t see any theological support for biological speciation and especially in the case of humans. I take Adam as a literal de novo divine Creation by God. So it is tremendously important from a Christian point of view whether Humans evolved from common chimp ancestor or not.

    As an engineer practicing science, I am agnostic to the possibility of designed speciation. The key word there is designed, because all the evidence that we know from biology shows that RM,NS and EvoDev is incapable of producing the biodiversity of species on Earth. I’ve already gave you my case against common descent in this ARN thread and my comments from this thread. I say again this is a minor point in the context of ID, because the specifics of speciation are less significance than the mechanism (intelligent agent) of speciation. This is precisely the kind of distinction that Darwinians are incapable of making between Creationism and ID.

    As far as Neanderthal is concerned, I would note the evolutionary history of this species is froth with controversy. First it was declared as our human intermediates, and then it was not. This went back and forth. I think the best summary on this subject is the new book “Who was Adam?” by Hugh Ross and Fuz Rana. They have a chapter just on Neanderthal. In it they covered the history of this debate and showed the most recent research including those from the Max Planck Institute that finally and conclusively determine that Neanderthals and Humans are 2 distinct species through mtDNA analysis.

    In fact, using the HVI for one estimate and the combined HVI and HVII DNA sequences for another the Max Planck researchers found (from an evolutionary perspective) that Neanderthals and modern humans are so genetically diverse that they diverged from a common ancestor between 690,000 and 550,000 years ago and between 741,000 and 317,000 years ago, respectively. — Ross and Rana “Who was Adam” p. 184

    RealAudio from RTB : Discussion of History Channel documentary, Ape to Man

  67. We are obviously at loggerheads over a very important issue. Rather than risk offending you or anyone else, I will let others express my sentiments for me.

    “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
    Albert Einstein

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

    “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)

    I really have nothing more to add. I recommend we stop while we are both behind. I would much rather deal with Darwinians anyway. Good luck with your forum.

  68. I have the distinct impression that one of my recent posts was deleted. Is that true?

  69. I do expect a response.

  70. Must I assume that a post was removed? I really do not appreciate being ignored.

  71. Dr. Davison,

    I have no Idea. However, if you go to Dr. Dembski’s Blog, you will find him promoting your own Blog.

  72. John, what are you complaining about? I don’t know who’s been ignoring you. As fdocc had indicated, Dembski just promoted your blog, so you can stop attacking him now. ๐Ÿ™‚

    Even this blog doesn’t get a plug from the Great Dembski so you are way ahead of us.

  73. Who is complaining? Not me. I had every reason to criticize Dembski, just as I have every right to critciise Darwinian mystics. My reward from both camps has been bannishment. I can assure you that you will never be bannished from my blog and neither will anyone else. I now ask you too, as I have asked others, to present your view of the great mystery of organic evolution in 500 words or so. At this point I am willing to bet that neither you nor Dembski will respond. You have your own axes to grind and will continue to do so.

    As for Dembski promoting my blog, I gave him no choice as I requested everyone within cybershot to do it for me. I couldn’t. I don’t regard his recognition of my little blog as any kind of promotion. That is for sure and I am certain you would agree. I still have not received an answer as to whether or not a post was deleted. It is no longer necessary.

  74. Who is complaining? Not me. I had every reason to criticize Dembski, just as I have every right to critciise Darwinian mystics.

    Come on, you have to admit that you have been complaining. BTW, Dembski did not have to plug your blog, but I think he did give you enough courtesy by acknowledging your contribution to ID. I think it is entirely unfair for you to link Dembski with the Darwinian mystics. What is your justification for such a statement?

    I now ask you too, as I have asked others, to present your view of the great mystery of organic evolution in 500 words or so. At this point I am willing to bet that neither you nor Dembski will respond. You have your own axes to grind and will continue to do so.

    I am very confused here. I have done my best to answer all your questions. My scientific view on ID is the same as that of the current mainstream Design theory. That theory is that the complexity and evidential abrupt appearance of forms from DNA to Homo sapiens is best explained by an intelligent cause. The extent and source of this intelligent is not conclusive. I have my personal view of this intelligent cause in which I’ve expressed from my theistic viewpoint. I have briefly explained my reasons for this viewpoint. We can debate the evidence and the merit of this if you like, but I have stated my views unambiguously.

    If you want to call this as grind an axe then you should admit, so do you. However, please do not attack and obfuscate my personal belief and my scientific views like so many Darwinians do. If you insist on this type of equivocation at least have the courtesy of pointing to the specific scientific view that I am mixing with non-scientific methods.

  75. I have no idea what Dembski’s views are on the origin of man or any other creature for that matter. He has never presented that. You have and I have rejected your interpretation. I have established (I hope) an open tournement on my blog by inviting all interested parties to present in 500 words or less their interpretation of the MECHANISM of organic evolution. You , Dembski, Wells, Behe, Dawkins P.Z. Meyers, Wesley Ellsberry or anyone else is invited to participate. This is an open tournement. As a physiologist I am interested only in the MECHANISM of evolution. I regard the fact of a past evolution as undeniable.The prize in this tournement is the reputation of each participant. If they fail to play they lose, just as did all those who failed to respond to the challenges of my many distinguished predecessors. It is called a forfeit. As for your beliefs, which you have identified as Christian Fundamentalist in nature, in my opinion they have no place in science as they are purely philosophical and without tangible substance. That is – they are not subject to testing. If an hypothesis is not testable it is of no consequence and has no place in a scientific discussion. The Darwinian hypothesis is eminently testable and, as I am sure we agree, has failed miserably.
    I hope I have made my position clear and I welcome your contributions at my blog.

  76. Davison,

    Can you comment on the first two articles from PCID 2005 4.1 or not?

  77. Sure.

    The Luskin paper is fine except I don’t care for the “rapid evolution” part. All evolutionary changes were not rapid, they were instantaneous and without intermediate states. No speciation ever occurred through the accumulation of micromutations (alleleic changes). In short the Darwinian scheme had nothing to do with true speciation or any of the higher categories of genus order etc. In other words all of evolution has been emergent just as is the development of the individual from a single cell.

    Similarly I agree with Dembski that an intelligence or intelligences were involved in the evolution not only of man but of all other life as well. I do not see any intervention (guidance) from outside however and I see no necessity for such. In short I see no need for a personal God. Neither did Einstein.

    To deny Intelligent Design as the Darwinians do is pure hysteria. As I have said many times a past evolution is undeniable and a present evolution is undemonstrable. The ONLY thing that remains is the disclosure of the mechanism, a mechanism that is no longer operative. That is going to make it somewhat difficult. Nevertheless, like everything else in science, the key to evolution and ontogeny alike will be found at the laboratory bench and not in philosophical speculation and polarized debate. Chance had nothing to do with any of it. That much is certain and that is the bone that the Darwinians refuse to give up. It is pathetic. They are bent on intellectual suicide. Their fate was “prescribed” long ago. Everything was.

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

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

    Darwinism is the slowest but surest form of intellectual suicide ever generated by the human imagination.

    “Since God found it necessary to limit man’s intelligence, why didn’t he also limit his stupidity.”
    Konrad Adenauer

  78. Thank you for your interesting personal comment.

    What I have told my students is that in Intelligent Design we do not question the importance and the participation of a higher intelligence in the origins. What we do as ID Scientists is to try to figure out the possible mechanisms by which the work was done. We decipher molecular pathways and then we try to apply what they have told us in our own engineering industries, a higher and most perfect design guiding our own imperfect one.

    In that respect, my understanding of ID Research does not differ of what you have been doing, at least theoretically; however, I do not consider it fair your attempt to push everybody into thinking exactly like you in the sense of trying to square everybody under your proposed “MECHANISM of organic evolution.” Specially I do not appreciate your sour comments on Dr. Dembski. He has been doing all he can to present the design inference within the mathematical language. I think we need to learn to respect each other and to join the common forces to overcome darkness and to promote freedom and progress in science. Overcome, don’t “become” part of the oppressor.

    The premise of Common Design explains perfectly well everything that you insist to see as only possible to be explained by a common descent, especially when it applies to humans.

  79. The fact is that Dembski has banned me from any participation at his forum. For a while I was denied even viewing privelages as still is the case at ARN. My position as always remaimned firm.. I have rejected without qualification any consideration of either neo-Darwinian mysticism or the mysticism inherent in Christian or any other form of fundamentalist sectarian faith based criterion. I am not complaining, only stating my position. I have no respect for those who, unable to respond rationally to my position, find it necessary to resort to isolating those, like myself, with whom they have differences from communication. By way of contrast I have no intention of banning anyone from my blog. Quite the contrary, as you know, I welcome all. Can Dembski say as much, or P.Z. Meyers. or Wesley Elsberry or the hosts of a number of other forums from which I have been excluded? I think not and I think you must agree. Now lets stop this foolishness. I have no intention of continuing in a fruitless discussion. Present your views at my blog where you can be certain they will be received in a civil fashion.

  80. I predict William Dembski, Michael Behe, Jonathan Wells, Wesley Ellsberry, Richard Dawkins, William Provine, P.Z. Meyers or any of several other proponents of either side of this mindless debate, will present their versions of the great mystery of organic evolution on my blog where they all have been invited. They are all much too involved in pushing their own agendas and attacking one another. It would never occur to any of them that they might be dead wrong about a phenomenon no one has ever observed. The real heroes in the history of evolutionary thinking are all dead. It is my “prescribed Providence” to resurrect them from the oblivion to which each of the polarized camps has chosen to relegate them. The truth lies elsewhere and with the indispensable assistance of some great minds, all far greater than any on the contemporary scence, I think I know where that really is. It lies in a whole new hypothesis for the greatest mystery in all of biological science, one that remains in accord with everything we really know and one that will never be reconciled with any form of either materialist or religious mysticism.

    “Davison is the Darwinian’s worst nightmare.”
    Terry Trainor

    “The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me and seems even naive.”
    Albert Einstein

    Amen

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.