A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

The questions you are asking are so naive that I hestitate to answer them. What in God's name do you mean by recovering something from the microscope stage? Your purposes here are transparent. They are to disredit me with your pontificating Inquisition style interrogations. I am not on trial here. NeoDarwinism and Biblical Creation are. My work is published and requires no further defense for me here or anywhere else. My PEH has yet to be even questioned thanks largely to your needless interruptions. You obviously know nothing of cytogenetics or you wouldn't be asking these questions. I have had all I can take of you here as elsewhere where it has become obvious to any observer that you have but one goal in mind which is to discredit me whatever the cost. I am a published scientist who stands on his record and I do not intend to further acknowledge your attempts to impugn my integrity. I have never evaded anything in my life and that includes you. It is you that have found it necessary to purge your own forum of papers you yourself had proudly introduced. Your record is clear as day. It is to preserve and protect The forum of William Dembski. So don't aplogize. That suits me fine.

---

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

DaveScot's access to [forum=-37] can be removed if that is your wish.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

No need to ask me to leave. Doctor Davision has refused, as always, to provide details on an experimental program to test the prescribed evolutionary hypothesis and instead responds with hostility and evasion when asked. I have as a result come to the conclusion that it is simply another untestable narrative no better or worse than the Darwinian narrative of chance and necessity.I might be naive about post-doctoral frog dissection but I'm certainly not naive about funding research for new ideas. In my professional career I participated in the evaluation of nearly a thousand requests in a $40 billion/year computer company to spend corporate money on research and development of patent abstracts and as a result I can smell a lame duck a mile away.If anyone thinks I might be wrong just see if you can get Davison to describe an experimental program in enough detail so that someone with money and interest might be willing to fund it. Good luck and good bye.

Absolutely not. I want to see how far he is willing to go to continue here,, as everywhere else, to discredit me. His history with me is well known as pure unadulterated hypocricy and I wouldn't dream of interrupting it. That goes for anyone else that wants to stoop to his tactics. If he continues I would think the administration might choose to intervene and I would like to be able to eliminate him from the discussion if he persists. Thank you very much.

---

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

DaveScotI have just been advised that I could exclude you from this discussion if I chose. I choose not to because I want to see exactly how far you are willing to go here, as everywhere else, to discredit me. If you persist in your transparent tactics, I will however exercise that opportunity to keep you out of the discussion. You have yet to address a single feature of the PEH paper or the many that have preceded it both by myself and my sources. Your record speaks for itself where my research is concerned and I ask all to review it. You come across as a bully and the personal representative of William Dembski, the proprietor of Uncommon Descent. The very name of that forum raises my hackles. Where did Homo sapiens come from I wonder - God's forefinger? So it would seem with the Fundamentalists. That is exactly what Michaelangelo depicted on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel by the way. I don't buy it myself. Others apparently do!It is hard to believe isn't it?

---

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

As usual DaveScot play fast and loose with the truth. I don't want you to leave and said so. Come on with some more of your shabby tactics. I want the world to really get to know DaveScot and his methods. God knows they are right there on the record at his own Uncommon Descent. I just want him to repeat them here. He already has. If he doesn't stay it isn't my fault. I welcome his venom. Got that? Write that down. Now you just come up with some more lies. That is about all you are good for and you just proved it once again!I love it so!

---

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

The methods involved in producing semi-meiotic (gynogenetic) diploid frogs have been known since 1969 and 1970. They were developed and published by George Nace. You will find the reference to his paper in the bibliography of my Manifesto and also in my 1984 paper, both of which DaveScot introduced and then purged from Uncommon Descent. Once again he has engaged in a falsehood in his desperate attempt to discredit me. There would be no reason for me to describe a technique already widely known to embryologists and geneticists everywhere. That is what journals are for. The credit for the technique belongs to George Nace, not to me and so it was acknowledged. Why DaveScot left I cannot say. It was not my suggestion. He has often engaged in such hit-and-run tactics in the past so this doesn't really surprise me."You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison

---

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

Alrighty then. I was persuaded to endeavour to persevere.Gynogenetic diploid amphibians are a standard research animal. You pulled a classic moving of the goalpost, Doctor Davison. We were talking about frogs heterozygous for chromosome rearrangment. That is the animal you said you needed and was not able to acquire. I was perfectly aware all along that frog eggs could be activated by piercing with a fine needle or using irradiated sperm to produce gynogenetic normal diploid adults. I'm not stupid and I read the manifesto more than once. These are not the same thing as heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement.Now please could you describe with a modicum of detail how a frog heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement can be found? Before you lost the plot and went off on the gynogenetic tangent we were at the point where you said meiosis would have be observed under a microscope looking for a loop structure to confirm heterozygosity for chromosome rearrangement.My questions then were (for the third time): In answer to your question about what is meant by recovering it from a microscope stage: I presume you need live adult animals to work with. When it has been confirmed under the microscope that there was a loop structure during meiosis I had assumed you must then use that particular germ cell to produce an adult animal which will then be heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement. I was wondering how one recovers the cell from a microscope slide and raises it into an adult animal. The act of mounting it on a slide and illuminating it with a hot sub-stage light, possibly needing to stain it so you could see the detail, would kill it and make it impossible to then grow that particular germ cell into an adult. I'm not an expert at that kind of work so I'd asked you, the expert, politely and in straightforward manner how this would be done. Maybe I've got the procedure all wrong. I'm forced to guess at it because you're being uncooperative for some reason.I take it that acquiring a frog heterozygous for chromosome rearrangement isn't easy or you would have done it yourself sometime since 1984. I am trying to determine how difficult a task it is and a ballpark cost. You seem determined to not provide me with the detail I'm requesting.

Well it would require that some one was interested enough in amphibian cytology to begin to examine the karyotypes of a bunch of amphibians to see if any of them were carrying chromosome rerrangements in heretozygous form. Any real biologist would know that. I am out of the experimental game. I have pointed the way. If others refuse to pay attention that is not my faut.What is really remarkable about all your preoccupation with semi-meiosis is that it has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of this discussion. As I have repeatedly claimed, I see no evidence for creative evolution at the present time. It makes no difference to me whether anyone ever tests the SMH or not. With or without that research, Darwinism is a failure, an hypothesis without support and, in my opinion, a total disaster as an explanation for anything beyond the establishment of varieties or in some rare instances subspecies. Those considerataions and those alone are what prompted me to publish every one of my evolution papers. I have been preceeded by some great biolgists who had reached the same conclusion about the Darwinian paradigm. The PEH is a synthesis of their findings which I have integrated into a formal statement as the hypothesis which is the subject of this forum.All this nonsense about the SMH is typical of the way you now react to me. Once my stalwart ally and supporter, you have now become a mortal enemy, resorting to any and all methods of denigration as anyone familiar with the internet can plainly see. This I believe is because of your affiliation with Uncommon Descent, William Dembski's forum. I personally do not believe in anything that Uncommon Descent stands for. Quite frankly I don't think you do either. To present Intelligenbt Design as an "inference" and as a subject for debate is foolish and cynically opportunistic in my opinion. It is perfectly obvious to any objective observer that the universe was designed from beginning to end. That is my perspective as it was that of my sources. You would think that the "IDists" were the first to recognize it. Nothing could be further from the truth as my papers have testified.Now that you are back, with my approval incidentally, I suggest you comment on the subject of this thread and stop your brutal and venomous Inquisition of me here and elsewhere, especially on my own blog. If it resumes anywhere, I will ask for your removal here. Trust me.

---

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

Well then, if the mechanism of evolution isn't what you want to talk about I fail to see what there is to discuss. Billions of people reject the Darwinian narrative. You're just one more and given your hideous personality not exactly the top choice to discuss it with. The only thing different about you is that you have proposed an alternate mechanism. Since you don't want to talk about how that mechanism can be tested you're worse than useless. You're a liability to anyone who associates themselves with you because of your stinking rotten personality. See ya. Wouldn't wanna be ya.

I believe that is sufficient grounds to ban him from any further rational discussion here or anywhere else for that matter. I trust the administrator would agree with me.

---

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

Hi Dave,Instead of immediately honoring John's request, I think it would be more helpful to just point you to a post you probably missed: Message 4. The most relevant portion is the 4th point: I'm sorry this information isn't easier to find, such as through pinned topics which won't be available until the dBoard 3.0 release, but until then we make do.

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director

The mechanism I have proposed is being supported by everything that is currently being revealed in the world's laboratories. Everything pleads toward "preferred pathways," and ancient gene families, once thought to be of recent origin, while absolutely nothing suggests a role for chance or allelic mutation.The problem as I see it resides in what seems at first sight a reasonable assumption. That assumption is that every effect has a tangible identifiable exogenous cause. Such a cause has never been identified for either ontogeny or phylogeny because such a cause never existed. Both have proceeded on the basis of prescribed front-loaded information which was introduced an unknown number of times by an unknown number of programmers at an unknown number of sites in the geologic column. In other words, Darwinism is a giant illusion propagated and perpetuated by those who are apparently constitutionally incapable of recognizing that there was purpose in the evolutionary scenario. I further believe that phylogeny is finished and that the curtain has fallen on creative evolution.Now I ask, does that sound like someone who is evading any issues as DaveScot has claimed?I mention this as it should provide a basis for hopefully a more rational discussion. I have never evaded a scientific issue in my life. Quite the contrary, I have carried my challenges to the Darwinians and the Fundamentalists alike. If they fail to respond, as so far they have, it is not my fault.Now lets get on with it!"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance"
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406

---

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

I was not aware many prominent IDers don't recognize this, but glad you point out the obvious here as far as design. The more I listen to you, it seems clear to me you are advancing a form of ID, and I think you are right. Darwianism has failed miserably despite the shouts to contrary.Maybe we could approach your idea from another angle. I am not sure I understand your perspective on DNA. Do you think, for example, finding ancient, preserved DNA could help in anyway or is it meaningless? In other words, does SMH have any predictions as far as ancient DNA?

Thank you for your comments.I don't have much of a perspective on ancient DNA as I don't think it is available to us. I believe that the "mechanism" of evolution is the real issue here and not its indisputable past reality. I don't see a single contemporary organism that will ever become anything very different from what it is right now. Robert Broom and Pierre Grasse both made the same claim but largely failed, as others have, to fully appreciate what that means. It means to me that natural selection is not a creative element and neither is sexual reproduction. Natural selection is entirely conservative and anti-evolutionary. Artificial selection can only generate varieties and the so called struggle for existence is a myth. Someone once said:"Animals are not struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all!"Sexual reproduction is much too conservative to be able to generate any real change. That is what led me to the SMH. That does not mean that all real evolution took place through semi-meiosis either. However, the first meiotic division has the remarkable capacity to, in a single step, produce a new karyotype, in principle a new species, and at the same time preserve the original species genome.The evolution of the Primates apparently took place largely if not exclusively through the rearrangement of an original chromosomal configuration. I see no compelling reason for this to have involved any new information. How much further this can be extended becomes problematical and as yet unresolved. That is one of the reasons I keep an open mind on the question of the number of original creations and front loadings. There are some enormous gaps that remain unexplained, gaps such as huge differeces in DNA per cell, fundamental differences in the modes and sites of germ cell formation and drastically different means of sex determination. None of these can be reconciled with any model based on gradualism. They are discrete unmistakable differences that can only be explained through a saltational evolution such as that independently proposed by Otto Schindewolf and Richard B.Goldschmidt. The history of the fossil record is loaded with unfillable gaps. Each species in the so called horse series differs from every other one by so many factors that it must be ascribed to a separate genus. That is exactly what one might expect when whole chromosomes are rearranged. Many different features are bound to be involved. As Goldschmidt claimed, it is the chromosome, not the gene, that is the unit of evolutionary change. I agree.Now I realize that the absence of intermediates suggests special creation but I reject that without hesitation except in the sense I already indicated. Evolution had to have been through reproductive continuity and I am convinced that it always was. It is only the "mechanism" or "mechanisms" that remain undisclosed.Pierre Grasse clearly recognized this when he asked the following three questions. That is what real scientists always do - ask questions and Grasse was a real scientist, the greatest French zoologist of his generation just as his Russian counterpart, Leo Berg, was of his."Aren't we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren't the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aten't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?
The Evolution of Living Animals, page 71.I answer with a resounding yes to all three. Also from Grasse and the entire sentence is in italics for emphasis."Any system that purports to account for evolution must invoke a mechanism not mutational and aleatory."
ibid, page 245.This I feel the PEH does.

---

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