A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

I have no idea how the prescribed information was stored but I have no reason to question that it was. I also am completely ignorant of how, how many times, and where the evolutionary front loadings took place as well as how many BFL's (Big Front Loaders) were involved. So is everyone else as near as I am able to tell. I have reason to suspect that several front loadings took place. Otherwise the facts revealed by comparative embryology remain unexplained. That however does not constitute a proof. We all wallow in ignorance but of one thing I am certain. Chance has played no role whatsoever in either ontogeny or phylogeny. To claim that it did is the height of folly.I have arrived at the PEH through the time-honored device of the elimination of all alternatives coupled with the realization that it was anticipated independently by some of the finest biologists of all time, not one of whom was a Darwinian mystic. Yes I said mystic. Darwinians worship the Great God Chance and always have. That posture is anathema to me as it was to all my sources.I am still waiting for a single documented feature of the evolutionary scenario that cannot be accomodated in the PEH, especially since nothing can be explained by either the Lamarckian or Darwinian models. If that criterian cannot be met I am wasting my time here.I was invited to appear here in this very limited venue which reminds me of my earlier experience at EvC when I was interred in "BOOT CAMP." I deeply resent that I have not been granted full posting rights.Indeed, I feel so strongly about that that I will abandon my participation here unless those rights are fully restored. I am sick and tired of being treated with contempt by both extremes of this idiotic battle of ideologies, this so called "debate." The truth is not subject to debate, only to discovery and subsequent exposure. That I have done to the best of my abilities. The Darwinians have discovered nothing more than the mechanism which can produce varieties. That was all that Darwin could document and it is all that can be established today. There is absolutely nothing in NeoDarwinism that ever had anything to do with the subject and title of Darwin's book, a book I have come to describe as an opus minimus."Everything is determined... by forces over which we have no control."
Albert EinsteinThat which IS determined most certainly WAS determined.

---

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

Alan Fox is a regular at Panda's Thumb especially at Elsberry's inner sanctum "After The Bar Closes." I have not only been banned from Panda's Thumb but my name is no longer allowed to be even mentioned there just as it is no longer mentioned at Uncommon Descent, Pharyngula or at a number of other forums and blogs. Alan Fox has freely admitted that he does not dare mention my name because it would jeopardize his presence at Panda's Thumb. He has already managed to get himself banned at several forums and now he comes here and presents himself in the form of a question - would I be willing to answer some questions? I ask Alan Fox if I have ever refused to answer any questions either from him or anyone else? The only things I have studiously ignored are links and diversionary queries which in no way address the substance of my evolutionary convictions.I do not anticipate my presence here very much longer since my hypothesis is obviously being ignored just as it has been at virtually every venue where I have presented it including the professional literature. So have been the contributions of the sources with whom I identify. We are not allowed to exist. It is as simple as that. There are sins of omission as well as those of commission. The "establishment" has been found guilty of both.NeoDarwiniasm in all its trappings is the biggest hoax in the history of science. Got that? Write that down.If Alan Fox has questions for me they can be asked at my blog.I think I have made the conditions for my further particpation here plain enough. The ball is in the court of EvC.

---

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

I won't post on your own blog again, John as your singularly arbitrary moderation policy is not conducive to constructive dialogue. I respect your decision to refuse to engage in a constructive dialogue here.Best wishes
Alan FoxEdited by Alan Fox, : No reason given.

Liar!

---

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

Would you like to enlighten me as to what is a lie in my posts here, John?

I regret losing my temper.Alan Fox is the perfect counterpart to DaveScot. Each has pursued me relentlessly wherever I appear with one goal in mind which is to discredit me. Each constitutes a sort of one man goon squad, preserving and protecting the interests of their respective masters, Bill Dembski at Uncommon Descent and Wesley Elsberry at Panda's Thumb. Each has lied about my professional credentials and attacked my integrity. Each is afraid to even mention my name at his home forum for fear of bannishment. Fox has even admitted as much. I must compliment the adminstration in their taste in freely admitting each of these transparently nasty personalities as particpants in this thread. It speaks volumes as to the purposes of the "showcase" forum. Furthermore, neither has any credentials as a scientist and both have long standing reputations as troublemakers and bullies. I came to this forum in good faith only to be greeted with evasion and thinly veiled innuendo.Now is no one going to refer in any way to the substance of the PEH? So far no one has.

---

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

It is not necessary. Your long history speaks for itself.

---

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

I request that Alan Fox be excluded from any further participation here for exactly the same reason that DaveScot was. It is my conviction that he has absolutely nothing of value to contribute here or elsewhere.Now lets get on with it or I am out of here. My patience wears thin.

---

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

Long history, John? I only became aware of you at all about a year ago, when your PEH paper was drawn to my attention (on a discussion forum on English as a second language). I must admit first impressions weren't good. By then you were coming to the end of your career on PT, and you were in no mood to clarify your ideas to laypersonsI am still curious as to how your concept of semi-meiosis is necessary to the idea that supernatural beings programmed all information necessary for life to eventually produce the presumed predestined final pinnacle of civilisation we have today.I'm also curious as to what makes you say evolution is finished, or why evolution was needed by your supernatural front-loaders.

I have answered Alan Fox's questions on several occasions and he knows it. This is just one more of his several futile attempts to embarrass me. His persistence at brainstorms resulted in his bannishment and it should here as well. If you are going to tolerate him here just say so. I have no intention of answering questions that are implicit in the PEH and require no further commentary either from me or anyone else.Am I to understand that the administration chooses to ignore my request that he not participate here? If the answer is yes I am history. Please respond. Is that too much to ask? What kind of a forum is this?

---

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

Until I receive an answer here, anyone who is interested may communicate with me at my blog:newprescribedevolution.blogspot.com/or by email.

---

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

You have never responded to me in any other way than variations on the theme, "read my papers", John. That I have done but if answers to my queries are there, I can't find them. Would it be possible to cite any relevant passages?

I haven't followed this topic much, but my impression is that for having started a topic to discuss your PEH, you don't really seem to have much interest in discussing your PEH.How about taking a stab at some sort of response to the following content from message 174: It would be best that you post your response as being to that message 174, and not to this message.Adminnemooseus

---

I will respond to the administrator thank you very much. I dispensed with Alan Fox months ago as did the management of "brainstorms," from which forum he has been banned for exactly the tactics you have allowed him here. You have broken you own rules of engagement by permitting him to continue here. Everything I have ever written is perfectly understandable to any one with an undergraduate background in genetics, embryology and cytology. Neither DaveDScot nor Alan Fox qualify. I don't know about Brad McFall but I doubt any of them have ever published a word in hard copy on the subject of evolution. I have.Can't you trot out a real published scientist to deal with the PEH? Apparently not.Now don't expect me to quit this field voluntarily as that is not my style. You may recall what led to my earlier bannishment from EvC where I had been confined to "Boot Camp" by this same administration.It consisted of three little words:Who is next?I repeat, the ball is in the court of the administration of EvC. Do what you have to do, what you were "prescribed" to do. We all do you know. Don't take my word for it."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, Statement to the Spinoza Society of America, Septenber 22, 1932.I was four at the time. Most, if not all of of you, weren't even born yet.

---

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

I recommend that you and all interested parties visit ISCID's "brainstorms" forum to observe how my contributions are being received there in marked contrast to their reception here. At least there I don't have to worry about your inane, mindless intrusions which are obviously so welcomed, even encouraged here.It is hard to believe isn't it?

---

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