I'm busy doing science.
John Davison keeps commenting and wonders why no one will reply to him:
"I love this silence. It is living proof that we critics of the Darwinian fairy tale still are not allowed to exist by the iron fisted establishment. "No, Dr. Davison, the reason for the silence is because some of us are too busy doing actual science, looking at actual data, and formulating testable hypotheses to reply to your trolling. Excuse me for not posting a formal rebuttal to your PEH, but I'd rather spend my time reading worthwhile literature on genome rearrangements by bright folks like Evan Eichler, Arcadi Navarro, and Monste Aguade. You can keep hanging out, some of us just don't really care to waste our time dealing with uninformed arguments.
Guess what every good biologist studying genome structure has in common? That's right, they include natural selection in their explanations of genome evolution and have data to support it. It's also interesting how legitimate evolutionary geneticists incorporate population structure, recombination, and molecular biology into their models of genome evolution. Integrating different fields of research into a constructive model makes for good science.
For anyone who has been disappointed by the light blogging over the last couple of weeks, expect more of the same for some time into the future. I'm busy doing science trying to contribute the accumulation of knowledge, which is more than I can say for some people.
posted by RPM @ 2:43 PM
12 comments
12 Comments:
Thank you RPM for calling attention both to my activity here and on other blogs as well as to the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. If you would take the trouble to read the manuscript you would discover that it includes two sections, the first entitled The Indirect Evidence the second The Direct Evidence. I can only conclude that you have dismissed everything in those two sections as without merit. In so doing you have dismissed some pretty heavy hitters both recently and from the past. I can only say good for you.
As for natural selection, it is a complete and total myth and never had anything to do with creative evolution. Quite the contrary it has been and always was anti-evolutionary, in effect preventing change rather than producing it. How anyone can still regard natural selection as a creative element beyond the trivial modifications that can be obtained through sexual reproduction is beyond my comprehension just as it was for Reginald Punnett, Leo Berg, Henry Fairfield Osborn, Pierre Grasse and Richard B. Goldschmidt.
The only role that natural selection ever played in a creative evolution was to maintain the status quo long enough for extinction to ultimately remove those forms thereby permitting the progressive evolution of higher and higher levels of organic sophistication which terminated with the mammals and its most advanced representative, Homo sapiens. There is not a single instance in which the environment can be implicated in a causative way producing this ascendancy. It has been, as I have postulated, driven entirely by endogenous forces exactly as is the development of every individual from a single cell, the fertilized egg. The environment plays and has played no role in either process.
Like the egg, which is highly preprogrammed even before its fertilization, so were those forms which consituted the evolving genomes of the past. I am also convinced that sexual reproduction could never have produced the saltations that so completely characterize the fossil record. Sexual reproduction, like natural selection, is entirely anti-evolutionary which is why I postulated the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis twenty-one years ago, an hypothesis the Darwinians still have not even acknowledged and as nearly as I can tell are very unwilling to test. That should surprise no one as they don't even test there own silly hypothsis any more. Natural selection always was and remains the cornerstone of a myth, a fairy tale and a scandal which has now metamorphosed into the biggest hoax in the history of science. How any objective mind can give it any credence at all is completely beyond me.
I would like to remind you and others however that it is not I that you denigrate and ignore. It is the independent judgements of some of the greatest minds of two centuries that you idiologues just continue to pretend never existed.
If Goldschmidt, Bateson, Berg and Grasse had not been such perfect gentlemen, Darwinism would have succumbed decades ago. Well let me tell you that I have decided that there is no longer any thing to be gained through civil discourse with those that I am convinced are incapapble of seeing the truth. We are all victims of our heritage and have been determined or, if you will permit me, prescribed to be what we are. 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
Thank you for bringing my work to the attention of others. Any publicity is good publicity. I only hope that others may find more merit in it than you have. In the meantime I still patiently await an appraisal from the professional establishment, hopefully in hard copy. For the present I guess I will just have to be content dealing with rank amateurs like yourself.
Setting aside the Davidson debate, I'm of course very glad you're doing science. But I've also thought of Evolgen as a sort of notebook -- informal reports on work-in-progress: yours, others, recent events in the field, etc.
Don't think anyone drops by expecting the equivalent of peer-reviewed study: that's not really what blogs are for.
So if you get a chance to share some results, insights or comments, please do so.
Best regards, man, and take some time to catch those meteor showers which will be peaking soon.
ThomH, another alias I am sure, it is Davison not Davidson and it is not a debate, it is the the truth, a truth unacceptable to the homozygous Darwinian malaise which seems to so universally infect the present dialogue or, more accurately, the lack of same.
My many posts, presented on those few forums where I am still allowed to present my views, go unchallenged and that is all that matters. My conclusions, like those of my predecessors on whose work they depend, are now preserved on the shelves of the world's libraries. What transpires on egocentric little demonstrations of one's insecurity such as this one have no significance whatsoever on the ultimate search for undeniable ,irrevocable, absolute truth.
We, who have independently rejected the Darwinian chance-based model, continue to be ignored and, when alive, denigrated. What better demonstration could one imagine of the bankruptcy of the neoDarwinian mythology? I can imagine none. Can anyone?
"ThomH, another alias I am sure."
Dude, that's precious. Or no doubt, you'd prefer "Dr. Davison, that's precious."
But I digress. You're correct that I'm a fellow traveller--someone who holds the natural selection is meaningful part of contemporary evolutionary theory.
But you shade into virtual paranioa, claiming that I'm RPM --whom btw I've never met -- and that my comments are RPM talking to himself. A claim I think more justly made about someone else.
No, no. I am an entirely indifferent and no doubt ignorant and obnoxious person.
(The writing style -- or the content of my previous posts here -- should have been the dead giveway).
But please let me make up to you by recommending the following -- seriously.
Get your own blog. Easy to do. You can upload and/or link to PDFs of your published papers.
Do a separate page for your scholarly biblio. Freely and regularly comment on topics of importance concerning science and education.
If you want attention for your ideas and work, wrongly neglected as you believe by the current mainstream, get it all together someplace where Google can find it.
The world is then yours.
But hurling ridiculous accusations at RPM, and me in the bargain, while only publishing philosophical comments, undermines your credibility.
Got science? Great. Share it w/ the world. But don't for a moment think that's what you're doing here.
Best,
the falsely accused but highly amused,
Thom H
I have no interest in having my own blog. I am having too much fun laughing at Darwinian mystics who are so out of touch with reality that they actually still believe that their precious Natural Selection was ever a factor in creative evolution. If I mistook you for someone else it is of little consequence since all Darwinians think exactly alike anyway, which it to say that they do not think at all. Don't take my word for it.
"When all think alike, no one thinks very much."
Walter Lippmann
"Orthodoxy means not thinking - not needing to think. Orthodoxy is unconciousness."
George Orwell, 1984
"Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western World."
William Golding
Two down, one to go. To paraphrase one of these crashing bores:
"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your Natural Selection."
John A. Davison
Have a nice cozy groupthink.
Of course I still have no idea who ThomH is, so as far as I am concerned he doesn't exist. Anonymity is nothing but licence for abuse.
Just in case Thom H or RPM or anyone else thinks I am the only person in the world that thinks natural selection has nothing to do with evolution, consider the following from some real scholars.
"Natural Selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an ALREADY EXISTENT LIKENESS, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations as is so generally assumed."
Reginald C. Punnett, Mimicry in Butterflies, page 152 (my emphasis)
"The struggle for existence and natural selection ARE NOT PROGRESSIVE AGENCIES, but being, on the contrary conservative, maintain the standard."
Leo Berg, Nomogenesis, page 406 (my emphasis)
The only evolutionary role for natural selection was to maintain species unchanged long enough for them to accumulate enough deleterious genes to become extinct, thereby making it possible for them to be replaced by organisms higher up in the the evolutionary scale. Now even that has ceased and all we see is rampant extinction without a single replacement in historical times.
Only in its role ensuring extinction has natural slection ever played a part in creative evolution. All true species and all the higher categories have appeared through the derepression of preformed, front-loaded blocks of information. The environment at best served only to release those latent potentials. Of course the Darwinian mentality is quite unable to grasp that which has long been obvious to some of the greatest evolutionary minds of the past. Apparently they are homozygous at the "That's Impossible" locus. Well I'm not and neither were Punnett, Berg, Schindewolf, Osborn, Grasse and Goldschmidt. You Darwinians have always been chasing a phantom and it is finally becoming obvious to the world. I am delighted to be playing a role in the demise of the biggest hoax in the history of science.
"Hypotheses have to be reasonable - facts don't."
anonymous
Well surely you aren't going to let my heresies go unanswered are you?
That is exactly what has happened at SciAm Perspectives where I have terminated a half dozen evolution threads. It has always been the Darwinian way to pretend that they have no critics and John Rennie is continuing that time honored standard. Other blogs have found it necessary to disemvowel my posts, delete them, descend to personal insult and ridicule and, when even those shabby tactics fail to muzzle me, resort to lifetime bannishment. ARN, EvC, "brainstorms", Pharyngula, Uncommon Descent, Panda's Pathetic Pollex, FringeSciences, The Austringer are a few examples. O'Leary is now in the summary deletion phase which will soon result in bannishment I predict. So is the chap Stephen Jones at his blog. It is all very revealing. In the meantime I just go right on publishing my heresies in refereed journals which in the lasst analysis is all that really matters.
Have a nice comfortable Darwinian groupthink and do what ever you find necessary. I really couldn't care less.
"War, God help me, I love it so."
George S. Patton
Judging solely from the time stamps, John ... do yourself a favor ... get a Rx for some Haldol ... or if you want to go the cheap, but effective route, try Nyquil ... back in my day we called it a Mickey or if you were in formal company, a Mickey Finn. Get some sleep pal.
Since I am wasting my time with you chaps I recommend you go over to CreationEvolutionDesign where so far I have been able to present my views with out the knee jerk, viriolic, uninformed and monumentally stupid reactions I have just been able finally to evoke here.
Or better yet ban me so I can't ever express myself on this blog again. Join forces with ARN, EvC, Panda's Pathetic Pollex, Pharyngula, The Austringer and Uncommon Descent just to name a few that have finally resorted to the only way to muzzle me, the "final solution to the Davison problem."
Have a nice mindless, aimless, purposeless, Godless and of course Darwinian day.
Stephen E. Jones at CreationEvolutionDesign has now resorted to deleting all my posts.
He has now become Jephen E. Stones, right along with Esley Welsberry, Dilliam Wembski, Lenyse O'Deary and M.P.Zeyers and all for the same reason. I had left 4 terminal unanswered posts before he began his deletions and I have 11 challenging, terminal and unanswered posts at SciAm Perspectives. Incidentally Rennie has posted nothing for nearly a month now. Apparently he doesn't care for some of the comments. It is all very revealing isn't it?
I overlooked Lohn M. Jynch at stranger fruit who also deletes me as fast as I post.
RPM,
I got nailed with the Davidson troll too. "Creative element"? Evolutionary biologists don't think natural selection is the 'creative element'; the origin of novelty is mutation. You can find that in the first chapter of any evolutionary biology textbook. I don't know about you, but if spent every moment responding to anti-evolutionists, I wouldn't get any work done either.
<< Home