Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Nature of Mutations
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 316 of 344 (44372)
06-26-2003 5:47 PM
Reply to: Message 315 by Mammuthus
06-25-2003 12:50 PM


Re: odd...
Excuse me, but they haven't laid a glove on me or Peter Borger. They have been too busy attacking one another. If ICID didn't think I had something to offer, they wouldn't have put it on brainstorms. What I can't understand, however, is how can an organization claiming to further ID continue to tolerate the Darwinian myth. As for Borger supporting me let me quote Samuel Johnson "The applause of a single human being is of great consequnce". I understand you banned Borger. Why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Mammuthus, posted 06-25-2003 12:50 PM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 317 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2003 4:19 AM John A. Davison has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 317 of 344 (44423)
06-27-2003 4:19 AM
Reply to: Message 316 by John A. Davison
06-26-2003 5:47 PM


Re: odd...
Greetings salty! Long time no hear
First off, while they may have not laid a hand on you physically, Pim and charlie d. have shown the utter lack of merit of your arguments and assertions...which makes ICID the second site on the internet to do so after this one....I find it ironic that your ideas are even finding no takers on an ID site!..maybe you would have better luck at the theologyweb.com?

From your question of ICID "tolerating" a theory you do not accept...I am sure you would prefer if you had the power of global censorship..but then if you were in charge we would be back to a level of knowledge equivalent to the middle ages.

One more clarification salty..I did not ban Peter Borger here...in fact I got in a big argument with Admin because he banned Borger and for a while discontinued posting here...like with everything to do with biology, you appear to be very confused...I am not an administrator of this site...just a participant.

cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 316 by John A. Davison, posted 06-26-2003 5:47 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 318 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 7:45 AM Mammuthus has replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 318 of 344 (44433)
06-27-2003 7:45 AM
Reply to: Message 317 by Mammuthus
06-27-2003 4:19 AM


Re: odd...
MM, thanks for the clarification. I just asssumed you were in charge. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 317 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2003 4:19 AM Mammuthus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 319 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2003 7:59 AM John A. Davison has replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 319 of 344 (44437)
06-27-2003 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 318 by John A. Davison
06-27-2003 7:45 AM


Re: odd...
No problem salty. The guy running this show is Admin/Percipient.
Adminimousous, Adminpamboli, AdminTC, and Adminiquility (spelling?) are the other administrators...I'm just a civilian

This message is a reply to:
 Message 318 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 7:45 AM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 320 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 9:16 AM Mammuthus has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 320 of 344 (44446)
06-27-2003 9:16 AM
Reply to: Message 319 by Mammuthus
06-27-2003 7:59 AM


Re: odd...
Thank you MM. Are they all Darwinians? Is there a creationist among them? The title of this forum is Creation versus Evolution. As you may have noticed I convinced Terry to add Or Both to his forum. Is it conceivable that this forum could do the same? In any event, that is my position and recommendation. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 319 by Mammuthus, posted 06-27-2003 7:59 AM Mammuthus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 321 by derwood, posted 06-27-2003 9:00 AM John A. Davison has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1876 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 321 of 344 (44444)
06-27-2003 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 320 by John A. Davison
06-27-2003 9:16 AM


hey, its OutofDate!
AdminTC, and Adminiquility are creationists.
For you to claim that you have not had a glove laid on you is just another sign of your self-delusion. Another poster there brought up the contradictions between your hypothesis and your disdain "Darwinism" - that your hypothesis relies just as handily on random acts.
You blew it all off, as I recall.
Of course, you have yet to explain there - or anywhere - what the speed of mutation has to do with evolution. That is comic book stuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 320 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 9:16 AM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 323 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 1:24 PM derwood has not replied

Mammuthus
Member (Idle past 6475 days)
Posts: 3085
From: Munich, Germany
Joined: 08-09-2002


Message 322 of 344 (44445)
06-27-2003 9:00 AM
Reply to: Message 220 by Quetzal
05-20-2003 5:21 AM


Re: odd...
Hi salty,
You indeed have a valid concern which to my knowledge Percipient has attempted to address on this forum. Both AdminTC (otherwise known as TrueCreation) and Adminiquility (Tranquility Base) are creationists and moderators. Another creationist who used to participate on this site (Fred Williams) was apparently offered administrator duties but declined due to lack of time. Admin/Percipient believes in god and accepts the ToE (I may be over-simplifying if Percy wishes to elaborate). Both AdminPamboli (Mr. Pamboli) and Adminimoosous (minimousous) accept the ToE to my knowledge. Thus there is a mix of creationists and ToE-its among the administrators. In general, in my experience all of them have attempted to mostly stay out of the way and only intervene as administrators when threads go off topic or individuals consistently break the forum rules. Thus, of the entire group of registered members there have only been 3 or 4 bannings that I am aware of. At least one of those banned was allowed to come back (Ten-sai/Inquistor) but then got himself banned again. Another good thing I find here is that unlike many other sites, posts are not deleted by the moderators.
Glad to hear you convinced Trainor of the wisdom of having moderators from both sides.
cheers,
M

This message is a reply to:
 Message 220 by Quetzal, posted 05-20-2003 5:21 AM Quetzal has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 323 of 344 (44465)
06-27-2003 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 321 by derwood
06-27-2003 9:00 AM


Re: hey, its OutofDate!
I don't think mutation at any speed ever had anything to do with evolution. Evolution (past tense) was driven by internal preformed mechanisms about which virtually nothing is known except that they must have existed. In other words, I agree with Leo Berg, Pierre Grasse and Otto Schindewolf. Chance had nothing whatsoever to do with evolution just as it has nothing whatsoever to do with ontogeny except perhaps to damage it, a role it may also have played in evolution. Just as many ontogenetic events end in death, so many evolutionary events have led to extinction. I hope this heresy doesn't disappoint you. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 321 by derwood, posted 06-27-2003 9:00 AM derwood has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 324 by AdminPampoli, posted 06-27-2003 4:59 PM John A. Davison has not replied

AdminPampoli
Guest


Message 324 of 344 (44480)
06-27-2003 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 323 by John A. Davison
06-27-2003 1:24 PM


Re: hey, its OutofDate!
My own personal position:
Macro-evolution clearly occured as a historical process;
Evolution was driven my many varied mechanisms, including random mutation as a minor component, but also involving quasi-Lamrackian environmental influences, symbiosis, transpecific transfer, epigenetic inheritance, etc, but always along constrained pathways inherent in the nature of the organism;
The constraints on these pathways probably go back all the way to the original forms of life. Berg saw them as being inherent in the structures that arose from the primordial soup proposed by his friend and colleague Oparin. I'm no great fan of the primordial soup, but do I expect the constraints to have been present in the original forms, which were themselves probably many and varied.
As for whether evolution is finished - who knows? It is possible that architectural constraints would not allow unceasing variety in all forms. Micro-evolution by mutation clearly still occurs, but whether mutation by itself can ever, even once, bring a form to a critical threshold from which a new form can develop, I simply don't know.
Principle influences on my thought: Kropotkin, Berg, Simakov, Seilacher, Goodwin, Saunders and Ho, D'Arcy Thompson, Turing and Nijhout. Not many Darwinists there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 1:24 PM John A. Davison has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 325 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 7:06 PM You have not replied

  
John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 325 of 344 (44488)
06-27-2003 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 324 by AdminPampoli
06-27-2003 4:59 PM


Re: hey, its OutofDate!
Berg makes no mention of either Oparin or the mythical organic soup. He does refer favorably to early anti-Darwinian papers by Richard B. Goldschmidt. He also quotes directly the antiDarwinians Henry Fairfield Osborn and Reginald C. Punnett and of course William Bateson. I have read the works of these authors and they have convinced me of the total failure of the Darwinian model. It has explained absolutely nothing and of course, based as it is on chance, has no predictive value. As such it does not even qualify as a scientific hypothesis. I also have no idea what you mean by quasi Lamarckian. As for Darcy Thompson, whom I greatly admire, listen to what he has to say in the introduction to the 1969 english translation of Nomogenesis. "I need go no further, nor say one word more, to show that Professor Berg holds views of his own, with many of which many of us are lttle likely to agree." I regard that as a cheap shot. Of course Berg was now dead. It reminds me of another cheap shot by Stephen J. Gould. In the forward to the english translation of Schindewolf's book, after identifying Schindewolf as the greatest paleontologist of his day, Gould found it necessary to describe Schindewolf's conclusions as "spectacularly flawed". Of course Schindewolf was also dead. But to get back to Berg for a moment. Dobzhansky wrote the forward to the 1969 translation of Nomogenesis and had this to say. "The assumption of inherent purposiveness remains, however, the Achilles heel of nomogenesis, as it is of any theory of evolution not based on natural selection." Between Gould, Thompson and Dobzhansky, I am surprised anyone bothered to read the works of Schindewolf and Berg. Well this biologist did and I regard them as probably the two greatest contributors to the evolutionary literature, followed in no particular order by Broom, Goldschmidt, Punnett, Osborn, Bateson, Grasse and the many others who saw through the Darwinian myth long ago.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 324 by AdminPampoli, posted 06-27-2003 4:59 PM AdminPampoli has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 326 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-27-2003 8:30 PM John A. Davison has replied

Mister Pamboli
Member (Idle past 7577 days)
Posts: 634
From: Washington, USA
Joined: 12-10-2001


Message 326 of 344 (44491)
06-27-2003 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 325 by John A. Davison
06-27-2003 7:06 PM


I'll drop out of Admin mode for a quick tussle if you don't mind.
Berg does refer to Oparin and the primordial soup in "Proceedings on the Theory of Evolution" published posthumously in Nauka in 1977. I don't think it is available in English, but this link includes a paraphrase http://www.vertushkov.dp.ua/statya.htm

life appeared as a result of processes of progressive complication of organic substance, going in extended front, under natural and hardly noticeable transfer of chemical evolution into biological one, on the vast, numerous, differing by their conditions, water areas of the Earth

BTW, I don't think you should get too hung up about people criticizing the conveniently dead - your own correspondence is littered with "x would have agreed with me" snippets referring to figures who are not around to disagree, and who may well be spinning in their graves at being associated with the semi-meiotic myth.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 325 by John A. Davison, posted 06-27-2003 7:06 PM John A. Davison has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 327 by John A. Davison, posted 06-28-2003 6:04 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 328 by John A. Davison, posted 06-28-2003 6:45 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 329 by John A. Davison, posted 06-28-2003 8:24 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 330 by John A. Davison, posted 06-28-2003 12:15 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied
 Message 340 by John A. Davison, posted 06-29-2003 8:35 AM Mister Pamboli has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 327 of 344 (44514)
06-28-2003 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Mister Pamboli
06-27-2003 8:30 PM


Mr. P. Please don't confuse my conversations with my obvious enemies on some forum dominated by Darwinians with my published papers. It is evcforum which has set the standard for civility. That is why I continue to interact with Trainor's group as he would never tolerate the venom that is the hallmark here. If you can ban Borger you don't need me. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-27-2003 8:30 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 328 of 344 (44515)
06-28-2003 6:45 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Mister Pamboli
06-27-2003 8:30 PM


Berg of course believed in a highly polyphyletic origin for life which is hardly a Darwinian view. Much of what he believed I find difficult to understand, but his convictions about phylogenetic acceleration and preformation I find convincing, especially since they were independently offered by Grasse. Incidentally, semi-meiosis is hardly mythical. It is exactly how certain flagellates in the genus Spirotrichosoma reproduce. There may be many other examples yet to be discovered. What has not yet been demonstrated is the experimental transformation of any species through the agency of sexual reproduction. Until it is I will continue to remain convinced that the several independent inventions of sex-determining devices were to stabilize species and certainly not to create them. If the sole purpose of sexual reproduction is to transmit and support genetic diversity, why does it involve two steps going first from 2N to 4N before proceeding through Meiosis 1 to 2N and then to 1N via Meiosis 2? The simplest way to produce haploid gametes would be to have synapsis followed by a single reduction division, yet that is not the way gametogenesis proceeds. What we are observing is the historical origin of the process which evolved in two steps. Obviously, the first meiotic division, which is a perfectly valid form of diploid repreduction, had to preceed the second division. In other words, every time we observe meiosis we are observing a manifestation of the semi-meiotic hypothesis. What you describe as a myth has been known for over a century. Its evolutionary significance has, however, only recently been disclosed. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-27-2003 8:30 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 329 of 344 (44516)
06-28-2003 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 326 by Mister Pamboli
06-27-2003 8:30 PM


I am still waiting for an explanation as to who banned Borger and why? salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-27-2003 8:30 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

John A. Davison 
Inactive Member


Message 330 of 344 (44527)
06-28-2003 12:15 PM
Reply to: Message 326 by Mister Pamboli
06-27-2003 8:30 PM


Praise, not criticism
Mr. P There is a difference between praising ones predecessors for realizing the futility of Darwinism and denigrating an author's views in an introduction or a foreward to his work. I am sure that Berg, Broom, Grasse and especially Goldschmidt are not rolling over in their graves as you suggest. Dobzhansky, Thompson and Gould should be doing the rolling for the shameful way they dealt with Berg and Schindewolf. I hope you realize that no one has even the vaguest notion of how macroevolution took place. I also do not think that the only alternative to Darwinism is biblical Creationism. I am on record as dismissing any religious text as having evolutionary significance. The mindless polarization persists nevertheless. Also, if you can't invite Borger back you can forget about my further participation. I need at least one ally on this forum. If the only way you can deal with critics is through ridicule and removal, this forum should close its doors, or perhaps do as they do over at brainstorms and squabble with one another. All I see is GROUPTHINK. salty

This message is a reply to:
 Message 326 by Mister Pamboli, posted 06-27-2003 8:30 PM Mister Pamboli has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024