Comment #21883

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on March 25, 2005 01:16 PM (e) (s)

I don’t like the thought of making a new bathroom wall every two weeks.  To encourage you people to slow down I’m going to lock this one for a few days.

Comment #21887

Posted by Les Lane on March 25, 2005 02:33 PM (e) (s)

This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed).

Comment #21891

Posted by Michael Finley on March 25, 2005 02:43 PM (e) (s)

“This is predicatable from the Vegetative State (no cortex needed).”

Do you know any handicap or racist jokes?

Comment #21990

Posted by John A. Davison on March 26, 2005 05:16 PM (e) (s)

Perakh

It is Dr. not Mr. Davison and has been since 1954.

I WAS a professor at the University of Vermont. I was also at various times in my career a professor at Florida State University in Talahassee, Washington University in St. Louis, Louisiana State University in Baton Rouge and RPI in Troy New York. I also spent summers doing research at Woods Hole and Princeton.

I don’t give a rap about what people think of me. I already know that. I am more interested in letting them know what I thnk of them and what some of the finest minds of two centuries thought of them as well. If that offends you that is just too bad.

I have never deviated from the threads topics. That is pure baloney. This whole forum is founded on a myth and I have no intention of deviating from my exposure of it as just that.

How do you like them apples?

Dr. John A. Davison

Comment #22037

Posted by John A. Davison on March 27, 2005 05:52 AM (e) (s)

It is Dr.Davison not Dr.Davidson. It is not highjacking of threads to voice my disagreement with Dembski which I have already done several times. My question was nevertheless sincere when I asked which facts stand in the way of the Glory of God. That is a valid question and it remains unanswered.

I have no intention of questioning Dembski about what he believes. He seems to have a Christian agenda. I don’t. He can believe what ever he wants. There is no place for belief in science anyway. Belief substitutes for certain knowledge which is all I care about. The entire Darwinian model is a belief without foundation. It must and will be abandoned as a hoax. Trust me.

If I must be banned for asking questions then every scientist should be banned from Panda’s thumb because asking and attempting to answer questions is all that science has ever been about.

John A. Davison

Comment #22264

Posted by John A. Davison on March 28, 2005 04:34 PM (e) (s)

What I see here at Panda’s Thread is what I saw at EvC and “brainstorms.” I see a Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism which adamantly denies any Intelligent Design pitted against the Fundamentalist Christians who are inclined to deny evolution entirely or at least attempt to reconcile it with Biblical dogma. In other words I see two fundamentally opposite world views which will never be reconciled with each other for the simple reason that they are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps in favor of what seems to me the only remaining explanation which I have summarized in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

John A. Davison

Comment #22319

Posted by John A. Davison on March 28, 2005 09:09 PM (e) (s)

For what it is worth I agree that it was a mistake for Behe or Dembski to, at any point, introduce a deity into their science even by inference. By so doing they have made themselves vulnerable. I have carefully avoided any reference to a creator not absolutely demanded by the PEH. If others see my position as that of a Christian fundamentalist they are sadly mistaken. I feel the same way about Hugh Ross. The evidence for the anthropic principle stands independently of any formal dogma.
The evidence, both direct and indirect, for a predetermined endogenously driven evolution is growing and undeniable. Otherwise I would never have published “A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis” where some of that evidence is summarized.

John A. Davison

“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

Comment #22330

Posted by Charles Darwin's great-great grandson on March 28, 2005 10:56 PM (e) (s)

And yet I keep hearing ID proponents claim that ID isn’t about religion.  Did I miss something?

That’s true.  It’s about evidence.  Since there’s no evidence for evolution, the only reasons to believe in it are religious.

Comment #22348

Posted by moioci on March 29, 2005 04:20 AM (e) (s)

Dr. Davison said (I think this is a fair distillation.)

…Godless aimless puposeless Darwinism … Fundamentalist Christians … are both dead wrong. I have rejected both of these camps …It is pretty hard to carry on a discussion with anyone who is incapable of considering alternatives. Yet that is exactly the situation here at PT. Have your groupthinks because that is really what they are. Enjoy. It is later than you think.

My question is, do you post the same kind of comments on Fundamentalist Christian, creationist, or Dembskiist sites, too, or is it just the evolutionary community, Godless or otherwise, that is the beneficiary of your insights?  If so, is that fair?

Comment #22358

Posted by John A. Davison on March 29, 2005 05:35 AM (e) (s)

moioci

I have made my opinions indelibly clear at EvC, “brainstorms,” Fringe Sciences, Talk Origins and ARN.
I have been banned for life from the first three, tolerated at Talk Origins and ignored at ARN. Here at Panda’s Thumb it would seem that they have now reserved the Bathroom Wall for my posts which seem to be unacceptable elsewhere. It is very reminiscent of what they did with me over at EvC. There they erected a special cell for me which they called “Boot Camp.” I was allowed to post only there. Its stated purpose was to educate me in the art of “debate.” When I proved to be a very poor student they finally banned me for life, one of my most treasured achievements.

I hope this answers your question. Thanks for asking.

John A. Davison

Comment #22431

Posted by Michael Finley on March 29, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

Comment #22436

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 29, 2005 01:01 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

The amount of rhetoric on this site is amazing.

Why, thank you. You’ll note that we also back it up with evidence. It’s that one-two punch that’s a knockout.

Comment #22457

Posted by Michael Finley on March 29, 2005 01:59 PM (e) (s)

Wesley R. Elsberry wrote:

You’ll note that we also back it up with evidence.

Evidence for what? Panda’s names Steve? Books about the rapture and creationism? April Fool’s entries for Scientific American?

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Comment #22461

Posted by Steve Reuland on March 29, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

What is this, highschool biology class?  You can read about this here if you’d like, but we assume that our readers are already familiar with such things, or at least should be. 

If humorous posts offend you so much, you’re always free to read something else.

Comment #22462

Posted by Russell on March 29, 2005 02:19 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Tell you what: if someone (you?) think that this leaves any of your questions unanswered, why don’t you bring them up here? Otherwise, I don’t see why we need to transcribe textbook stuff onto this site, or why we can’t avail ourselves of the abundant amusement opportunities that creationists present.

Comment #22468

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 29, 2005 02:34 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

Evidence for what? Panda’s names Steve? Books about the rapture and creationism? April Fool’s entries for Scientific American?

I’m not sure what antievolutionists want of us, except maybe to become as humorless and bitter as they are. Show a bit of humor, and they complain that we aren’t serious enough. Well, all I can say is that the antics of ID advocates give plenty of scope for humor, and we certainly aren’t going to let all that material go to waste. Expect to see more inventive, fun, and humorous stuff here in the future. Evolutionary biology is cool, which perhaps is exactly why antievolutionists disapprove of anything that effectively makes that point, and does so accessibly.

But fun isn’t the totality of PT. There’s plenty of articles here on PT that deal with evidence. Many are in

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/cat_evolution.html…

and we do quite a lot of looking at the technical literature in the articles in

http://www.pandasthumb.org/pt-archives/cat_mustread.html…

Michael Finley wrote:

Why not run a series of posts on the evidences for common descent treating them one at a time?

Why not visit the site that we have often linked to from PT’s pages, Douglas Theobald’s 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution page?

Comment #22470

Posted by Michael Finley on March 29, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Steve Reuland wrote:

What is this, high-school biology class? You can read about this here if you’d like, but we assume that our readers are already familiar with such things, or at least should be.

I’ve read the FAQ you link to. It is cursory at best, and it cannot answer further questions. A limited dogmatic presentation of “evidences” is not as valuable as a discussion.

Russell wrote:

Tell you what: if someone (you?) thinks that this leaves any of your questions unanswered, why don’t you bring them up here? Otherwise, I don’t see why we need to transcribe textbook stuff onto this site, or why we can’t avail ourselves of the abundant amusement opportunities that creationists present.

Believe it or not, the Talk.Origins FAQ’s do not address all questions. I’d love to start such a discussion, but I hate to do it on threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Thus, my suggestion.

Comment #22471

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on March 29, 2005 02:45 PM (e) (s)

Michael Finley wrote:

I’d love to start such a discussion, but I hate to do it on threads that have nothing to do with the topic. Thus, my suggestion.

Actually, PT already has a place for users to bring up discussion topics. Michael is already signed in there. He can post a new topic anytime.

Comment #22570

Posted by John A. Davison on March 30, 2005 04:59 AM (e) (s)

Pim accuses me of innacuracy. Present those inaccuracies and show what is wrong with them.

I do not present arguments. I present facts which demand conclusions and I have reached them.

There is no ID “movement.” That is a contrived bit of Darwimpian chicanery designed to denigrate that which is undeniable.

It is I that have ignored the ID “movement” as I believe it was a strategic error to attempt to debate ideologues concerning matters of which they are congenitally blinded.

Pim does not think a prescribed evolution is a worthy or original idea but Pim has yet to present a single matter of fact which is in anyway incompatible with it. Neither has anyone else. And I know why. They can’t. Incidentally, I am not the originator of that idea anyway, Bateson was, and a number of others have indicated as much. I reviewed that history in the PEH manuscript. Where is that history inaccurate?

It is the same old same old here at PT just as it was at EvC. New ideas are unacceptable to those who have staked their entire professional lives on a myth. So hide bound is the herd that some of them won’t even read the posts of their critics. Others butcher them with garbling or out and out deletion. These are the earmarks of a dying ideology, one so ravaged by undeniable truth that it must resort to the meanest of tactics in a vain attempt to maintain itself.

It doesn’t work any more and never did. It is nothing but bigotry.

“A doctrine which is unable to maintain itself in clear light, but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind with incalculable harm to human progress.”
Albert Einstein

The pontifications of Pim and others reminds me of another quotation. I know how disgusting it must be for you all to have to put of with my incessant quoting of sources that of course have no bearing whatsoever on the substance of Panda’s Thumb. Well here are some that I think cut right to the quick.

“There is nothing so skillful in it own defence as imperious pride.”
Helen Jackson

Here’s another from the Bible.

“Pride goeth before destruction and an haughty spirit before a fall.”
Proverbs XVI

How about this little ditty from Alexander Pope?

Of all the causes which conspire to blind,
Man’s erring judgment and misguide the mind,
What the weak head with strongest bias rules,
Is pride, the never-failing vice of fools.”

“Then there are the fanatical atheists, whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics and it springs from the same source…They are creatures that cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein.

How do you like them apples?

Johh A. Davison

Comment #22746

Posted by John A. Davison on March 31, 2005 03:44 PM (e) (s)

Pardon the typo. It was bigot of course. How else can one characterize someone who rejects out of hand any view which varies a micron from their own.

I repeat God could not have used Darwinian mechanisms because Darwinian (mutation/selection) mechanisms are a fantasy with no demonstrable substance. Furthermore there is no evidence of God anyway, let alone an all-powerful one as the Christian ethic presumes. There is no such thing as a “beneficial” mutation in any eukaryote unless it is a back mutation to the original wild-type allele. I have been asking for examples and never received even an acknowledgement that I asked either here, at ARN or elsewhere. You see the Darwinian scheme has been accepted as a given and is never even tested any more. The Darwimps got tired of constant failure. Well I don’t get tired of constantly reminding them of their constant failures. Darwimpianism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. It persists for one reason only; it denies any purpose in the universe. It is the only conceivable position for the homozygous atheist mentality and it is just as wrong as Biblical Fundamentalism.

What really boggles my mind is that Pim can masquerade as a Darwinian Christian (a contradiction in terms) at the same time that he can engage in such thoroughly unChristian practices as calling an adversary all sorts of nasty names. I personally regard Pim as the most completely exposed sockpuppet in all of cyberspace and I am certainly not alone.

“Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source…They cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein

If you don’t believe it just visit Panda’s Thumb a forum named in honor of Stephen Jay Gould who wrote a book by that name. He also declared that “intelligence was an evolutionary accident” and evolution was like “a drunk reeling back and forth between the gutter and the bar room door.” The latter was in another of his many books whose title is self-explanatory - “Full House.”

There has never been any role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. Those who think so are indeed deaf to Einstein’s music of the spheres. I hear it loud and clear. Some of us have been luckier than others in a prescribed, predetermined evolutionary destiny.

Be sure sometime to come up with a list of all those eukaryotic “beneficial mutations.”

John A. Davison

Comment #22804

Posted by Jason Spaceman on April 1, 2005 08:08 AM (e) (s)

David Berlinski has a commentary in today’s Daily Californian, Academic Extinction: More and More, Evolutionary Theory is Becoming Nothing More than Darwinian Mantra.

He takes a swipe at The Panda’s Thumb and Talk Reason in the opening paragraph:

Wearing pink tasseled slippers and conical hats covered in polka dots, Darwinian biologists are persuaded that a plot is afoot to make them look silly. At Internet web sites such as The Panda’s Thumb or Talk Reason, where various eminences repair to assure one another that all is well, it is considered clever beyond measure to attack critics of Darwin’s theory such as William Dembski by misspelling his name as William Dumbski.

Comment #22806

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 1, 2005 08:26 AM (e) (s)

That is an interesting accusation; I just searched all of our entries and could not find “Dumbski” used even once.  In fact searching with Google turned up its use in only three comments.

Comment #22818

Posted by steve on April 1, 2005 10:00 AM (e) (s)

Paul, please get some work done on Ontogenetic Depth. We’ve had a good time exposing the freshman probability mistakes central to IC and CSI, and lately “Cosmological ID”, and we’d love to have more ID ‘proof’ to beat up on and laugh about.

Comment #22819

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 10:09 AM (e) (s)

Steve, you are SO clever about probability. You have advanced the state of art of physics by leaps and bounds with your expositions on probability re. cosmological ID. To think we all got PhDs and took (and then taught) advanced QM, field theory, and statistical mechanics without the benefit of your insight! It makes the mind reel, I say! The textbooks, of course, need to be rewritten.

And I am happy it gives you the chuckles, too.

Comment #22820

Posted by DavidF on April 1, 2005 10:15 AM (e) (s)

DavidH,

Since you have earlier admitted that Cosmological ID is a philosopy (and one defined and interpreted differently by different ID-ers) and not a quantitative scientific theory then how is it possible to apply statistics to it?

Comment #22821

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 10:21 AM (e) (s)

DavidF, you should be asking steve how prob/stat has been applied incorrectly.

Comment #22823

Posted by DavidF on April 1, 2005 10:26 AM (e) (s)

DavidH,

Not at all - if statistics is not applicable them, by definition, any application is incorrect. Some things are “not even wrong.”

Comment #22826

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 10:43 AM (e) (s)

The Darwinians need no help in making themselves look silly. They have been doing a bag up job of it for 149 years.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Darwinian mysticism.

Thank you Reed for reactivating the good old Bathroom Wall.

John A. Davison

Comment #22830

Posted by steve on April 1, 2005 10:47 AM (e) (s)

DavidF, just look back in Heddle’s past, and you’ll see his probabilistic arguments. Apparently at some point he thought it could be supported with statistical reasoning. Whether he’s changed now, I don’t know. I believe someone said around here recently that Dembski has become disenchanted with his own futile mathematical attempts.

Comment #22832

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 10:55 AM (e) (s)

Steve, why don’t you point them out?

I know I’ve talked about fine-tuning of the cosmological constant to one part in 10^120, but wait! That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And the fine tuning of the nuclear chemistry inside stars, but wait!  That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And the privileged location we have in the galaxy, but wait!  That requires no reference to prop/stat…

And simply the type of galaxy we have, but wait!  That requires no reference to prop/stat… (unless noting that only ~10% of the galaxies are eliptical constitutes a misuse of probability theory)

Comment #22835

Posted by Andrew on April 1, 2005 11:04 AM (e) (s)

The part of me that slows down to watch train wrecks is curious as to how Heddle would answer Victor Stenger’s anti-“Cosmological ID” arguments.  Simply put, Stenger found that there really isn’t much “fine tuning” in this universe; that lots of different initial starting conditions could have produced a universe capable of supporting life as we know it.  (These arguments sit on top of the argument that different constraints would simply have led to life as we don’t know it, of course.)

But then the rest of me knows exactly how Heddle would answer it:  through lies, equivocation, ambiguous statements, or perhaps by whining that he was just kidding all along.  Anyway, I’m sure he’s got something.

Comment #22840

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

Andrew,

Let’s start with Stenger’s slam-dunk rebuttal of the cosmological constant fine tuning problem. He writes:

While quintessence [an untested theory] may not turn out to provide the correct explanation for the cosmological constant problem, it demonstrates, if nothing else, that science is always hard at work trying to solve its puzzles within a materialistic framework. The assertion that God can be seen by virtue of his acts of cosmological fine-tuning, like intelligent design and earlier versions of the argument from design, is nothing more than another variation on the disreputable God-of-thegaps argument. These rely on the faint hope that scientists will never be able to find a natural
explanation for one or more of the puzzles that currently have them scratching their heads and therefore will have to insert God as the explanation. As long as science can provide plausible scenarios for a fully material universe, even if those scenarios cannot be currently tested they are sufficient to refute the God of the gaps.

Now that’s a very strong argument—there are some theories that we are working on, which might explain the cosmological constant problem, but they haven’t been tested, but the mere fact that smart guys are working on them should give us all a warm and fuzzy.

In other words, his substantive argument to IDers on the cosmological constant problem is: shut up, we’re working on it.

Ironically, I agree (a) that these theories should be investigated and (b) if they pan out they seriously damage ID (ooh, I dare not say falsify, otherwise references to Popper will start appearing.)

Funny, his paper does acknowledge the fine-tuning cosmological constant problem—do you think he needs remedial prob/stat from Steve?

Comment #22842

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on April 1, 2005 11:30 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Heddle:

…it is true we cannot say anything about the probability of this universe,…

Remember who said so? Shouldn’t be too hard, and should be more than enough to have the fellow in question bite his tongue whenever he feels the urge to pontificate about the likelihood or unlikelihood of our universe.

Comment #22846

Posted by DavidF on April 1, 2005 11:32 AM (e) (s)

DavidH,

It’s patently obvious that fine-tuning only makes sense if there is some distribution of possible values. We don’t know that a distribution is possible, and, further we don’t know what that distribution is if it exists. It’s one thing to look for such distributions - as cosmologists are doing - it’s quite another to act as though such disytributions were actually known.

So you can’t have it both ways; - a gut feeling that the universe is fine-tuned based on - using your words - the philosopy of Cosmological ID rules out any recourse to probability and statistics.

Comment #22849

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

DavidF

Is that so? Patently obvious it is?

So why do Weinberg, and Stenger, and many other anti-IDers — why do they acknowledge a cosmological constant fine tuning problem without saying anything about a probability distribution of possible cosmological constants?

Don’t you think they would like to say “there is no problem morons! You don’t know what the probability distribution is! Come back and whine about that after you’ve worked that out from first principles!”

No, only the cosmology/prob/stat whiz kids on PT understand that argument. Weinberg should really give back that Nobel Prize.

Comment #22850

Posted by David Heddle on April 1, 2005 11:46 AM (e) (s)

Emanuelle,

If that is not my quote, I’ll endorse it (as a quantitative statement, i.e., we cannot say anything like “the probability of this universe is 1 in [whatever].”) What is the point of your post?

Comment #22851

Posted by Emanuele Oriano on April 1, 2005 11:49 AM (e) (s)

Mr. Heddle:

It is indeed yours, and the only (the only) correct remark I’ve seen you make about probability so far. The rest of the time, you keep insisting that this or that characteristic of our universe is “oh-so-unlikely”.

Comment #22855

Posted by DavidF on April 1, 2005 12:13 PM (e) (s)

DavidH,

There is an apparent (i.e., potential) cosmological constant fine-tuning problem with current theories. That does not mean that it is necessarily a real problem. However, the fact that multiple universes have been posited with different constants is a tacit admission that a distribution of cosmological constants is one possible solution. Is it a uniform distribution? A Gaussian distribution peaked at some value or is it even certain that a distribution exists at all?

The answers are not known.

What is known is that you have stated in black & white that Cosmological ID is a philosophy and not a science - therefore, statistics cannot be applied. If statistical/probabilistic arguments can be used surely some distribution must be assumed. How do you do that with a philosophy?

Your sarcasm is amusing in small doses but is no substitute for argument. You’d do better to try to resolve the multitude of contradictions which flow from almost everything you say.  As I keep saying you can’t have your cake and eat it too - there really is no free lunch. If you believe in ID then go with the flow or otherwise dump it. But for goodness sake stop claiming on the one hand that Cosmological ID is not science and is philosophy while on the other you keep arguing that statistics and probability somehow apply.

As for your musings about elliptical galaxies and such - these seem to contradict your own statements that finding life on Titan would not dent your personal philosopy of ID. But your thoughts are so disjointed and self-contradictory that it is impossible to know what you are trying to say, if anything.

You really are all across the board -  swooping in to nip people’s ankles like an enraged Creationist lap-dog, but then rapidly taking off, or changing the subject, once the questions get hard or you are taken along a line of reasoning which starts to make the multiple contradictions manifest.

It’s not surprising though, for it seems impossible to believe the Bible and deal with reality objectively.

Comment #22871

Posted by Traffic Demon on April 1, 2005 02:59 PM (e) (s)

Creationists still suck.

Comment #22873

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 03:04 PM (e) (s)

Referring to ontogeny and phylogeny, I have to agree with Leo Berg:

“Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance.” Nomogenesis page 134

I just wish he had used the past tense for phylogeny because evolution is finished, something Berg never recognized. However, Robert Broom, Julian Huxley and Pierre Grasse did and so have I. Once that is accepted, everything else falls in place. The whole bloody business was front loaded at the onset and somehow worked its way uphill with no help from the environment. It is all down hill now and has been for quite some time. Trust me, but of course you won’t because you can’t. Your genes won’t permit it.

John A. Davison

Comment #22878

Posted by John A. Davison on April 1, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

Where did anyone get the idea that I have to defend my position? That is insane. It is the Darwinians that can’t even dream of defending their position. I come to forums to enlighten and not to defend. I also come to attack the Darwinian myth. It gives me great pleasure. That is one of the rewards of getting on in years. Thomas Henry Huxley felt the same way as follows:

“Of the few innocent pleasures left to men past middle life - the jammimg common-sense down the throats of fools is perhaps the keenest.”

He is the one who also said:

“Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed.”

That incidentally is the frontispiece to Leo Berg’s Nomogenesis.

Darwinism is the slowest known form of self destruction in recorded history, one hundred and forty-six years and still not quite dead.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Comment #22883

Posted by DaveScot on April 1, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)

Professor Davison is really kicking some ass here.  I’d guess that’s always the case when a biologist of his high calibre meets up with Church of Darwin apologists.

Comment #22885

Posted by Great White Wonder on April 1, 2005 04:21 PM (e) (s)

Sancho and Don reunited again!  Ole!

Comment #22886

Posted by DavidF on April 1, 2005 04:25 PM (e) (s)

[obscene comment nuked by njm.  Poster’s IP banned.]

Comment #22897

Posted by Longhorn on April 2, 2005 02:50 AM (e) (s)

In the previous bathroom wall,  John Davison wrote:

Longhorn’s definition of evolution is children having genetic differences from their parents. I really don’t know what more to add, so I won’t.

I didn’t intend to offer a definition.  John, I do want to understand what you mean when you say “evolution is finished.”  John, what do you mean by that?  Please be specific.  And why do you say that?  Please present some sort of data.  It helps advance the discussion. 

I am open to the idea that if today’s humans have descendents that are alive 5 million years from now, those organisms won’t be significantly different anatomically from you and I.

Comment #22898

Posted by John A. Davison on April 2, 2005 02:55 AM (e) (s)

I see DaveScot has joined me in the dungeon. EvC had its “boot camp” and Panda’s Thumb has its Bathroom Wall. At least we haven’t been banned yet by the ruling groupthink.

What is all this crap about fine-tuning and probability? What has that got to do with evolution or development or anything else for that matter. Isn’t that sort of like Phlogiston, or Ether or Selection?

John A. Davison

Comment #22899

Posted by John A. Davison on April 2, 2005 03:10 AM (e) (s)

Well. Now the truth outs. Pim is running the show and he is the one who decides which of my posts go to the out house. I should have known.

Everything I contribute is worthwhile or I wouldn’t be contributing it.

I don’t know how you folks ever let this happen but I would recommend a change in management before Panda’s Thumb becomes the laughing stock of cyberspace. For all I know it all ready has.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Panda’s Thumb.

John A. Davison

Comment #22911

Posted by P. Mihalakos on April 2, 2005 09:27 AM (e) (s)

According to ID statisticians, this post may be up to 58% off topic, but here goes.  Since I live in Dallas, this IMAX debate hits very close to home, and I cannot help but point out what I feel is the real source of this conflict, at least in my community. 

Though they may claim intellectual independence from their fundamentalist creationist predecessors, ID proponents certainly cannot claim financial or political independence from them.  So, I don’t want to hear any boohooing over how I’ve confused the ID movement with a particular brand of theistic religion.  Below I offer a summary of a Twelve Step program.

Twelve Steps Toward Recovery from Fundamentalism

1. Finally, we admitted that we were powerful and that we alone could determine the meaning of our own lives and the boundaries of our relationships.

2. We came to see that the specter of a punitive, all-male Deity had kept us from leading lives of harmony and humility with our fellow human beings and countless other worthy creatures.

3. We made the decision to accept responsibility for the innocence of all suffering, including our own, and take back our will from the dreamed-up superego that we worshiped as an idealized parent.

4. We made a fearless moral inventory of ourselves.  And then remembered to forgive.

5. We admitted to our colleagues, friends, partners, and children the exact ways in which we had oppressed them with our religious terror and unchecked addiction to spiritual materialism. 

6. We pledged never again to advocate the sacrifice of body for soul, or soul for body, and instead committed ourselves (body and soul) simply to the policy of least harm.

7. We renounced fundamentalist religion as a fear-based failure of human imagination, and recognized that open science and honest metaphor provide a more useful means for exploring human potential than any “revealed literal truth” that derives its authority from distant supernatural power brokers.

8. We made a list of all persons and groups we had bummed out with our superstitious, moralistic blather.  When possible we made amends to such people, even if it only meant bringing them a delicious sandwich.

9. With great sorrow we regretted our abusive treatment of the natural world as a mere backdrop against which the drama of human “salvation” plays itself out. 

10. We continued to take a personal inventory of our own biases, such that whenever we felt the moral world presenting itself in terms of black and white, we promptly became suspicious of our own self-interest.  Then we gave the problem a second look.

11. We sought through education and honest reflection to improve our understanding of how religious fundamentalism sabotages authentic human intimacy and has distracted us from the precious reality of shared human experience.

12. Having begun our awakening to truth, freedom, and a humane spirituality at peace with science, we have tried whenever possible to create conditions on this world sufficient for the health and enlightenment of all beings, without discrimination, including confused fundamentalist bullies.

J. Obser & P. Mihalakos

Comment #22919

Posted by Longhorm on April 2, 2005 11:44 AM (e) (s)

According to John Davision:

There is no such thing as a “beneficial” mutation in any eukaryote unless it is a back mutation to the original wild-type allele. I have been asking for examples and never received even an acknowledgement that I asked either here, at ARN or elsewhere.

John, how are you using the word “beneficial?”  Given what you may mean by the claim “there is no such thing as a ‘beneficial’ mutation in any eukaryote,” you are mistaken.

First, mutations caused or contributed to some organisms having larger brains, which helped some organisms reproduce more times than some other organisms.  For instance, there are about 6 billion humans living today. There are no more australopithicenes (sp?) or homo erecti living.  Second, mutations contributed to some organisms having fins or limbs.  And in some cases this helped said organisms reproduce. 

John, maybe you mean that no human being has observed any eukaryote come into being with a new mutation that helped the organism reproduce.  I believe that is inaccurate.

Do you consider any strains of bacteria to be “eukaryotes?”  As I’m sure you know, some bacteria have mutations that have resulted in the bacteria being resistant to antibiotics.  Also, some mutations have helped some humans be resistant to malaria.  In some cases, that resistance to malaria has helped the organisms reproduce. 

Also, what about yeast?  What about fish?  And apparently there is a bug that had a mutation that enables it to get nutional value from eating nylon. 

Finally, here is a link to some abstracts of articles in which the authors suggest that some humans have witnessed humans have mutations that have helped them reproduce: 

http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoHumBenMutations.html…

Comment #22928

Posted by John A. Davison on April 2, 2005 02:18 PM (e) (s)

Longhorn

It is Davison not Davision.

I want examples, not what someone thinks. As far as I can tell they do not exist. No, bacteria are not eukaryptes. They are prokaryotes. I repeat my claim that the only beneficial mutations are the back mutations that return the genotype to its wild-type status.

Even if by some stretch of the imagination one can support the idea of a beneficial mutation, allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution anyway. Allelic mutations are of no evolutionary significance because they do not alter the basic chromosomal structure of the organism and accordingly are not effective in creating reproductive incompatibility. Furthermore, evolution WAS far more than the creation of reproductive incompatibilty. It WAS the creation of new kinds of living creatures, something no one has directly witnessed. Now I am aware of certain claims about such allelic differences being of significance in speciation, but that does not detract from the notion of a “beneficial” mutation.

You will gave to do better than that to dissuade me. Hundreds of years of the most intensive selection of Mendelian allelic mutants have never resulted in the generation of new species of domesticated animals. I am very hesitant to ascribe to Nature capacities that are denied the experimental scientist. To me that would be mysticism, something I have no truck with. As a matter of fact I regard Natural Selection as an anti-evolutionary element just as Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett did. It maintains the status quo and that only for limited periods of time which typically end in extinction as deleterious genes take their toll or  environmental changes exceed the limited capacities of the sexual mode. It is happening today all around us. Natural Selection, the cornerstone of Darwinism, is an unsubstantiated force which is largely a figment of the Darwinian imagination.

The only benefit I can envision for allelic mutations is the assurance of extinction without which there would never have been any progressive evolution and we wouldn’t be here, as its terminal product, discussing its mechanisms.

“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

“Animals are not always struggling for existence. Most of the time they are sitting around doing nothing at all.”
Anonymous

John A. Davison

Comment #22959

Posted by Longhorm on April 2, 2005 04:39 PM (e) (s)

I want examples, not what someone thinks.

I gave examples.  Start with hominids with larger brains.  Then go to humans that are resistance to malaria.  Then look at the link I provided.  If you don’t think those count, say why.  It helps advance the discussion.  Your claim that they are not examples is  a mere repition of your conclusion.  If you think they are not examples of “beneficial mutations,” please explain how you are using the phrase “beneficial mutations.”

Mutation played a signficant role in the existence of eyes. 

allelic mutations never had anything to do with evolution anyway.

How are you using the terms “allelic mutations” and “evolution?” 

Allelic mutations are of no evolutionary significance because they do not alter the basic chromosomal structure of the organism and accordingly are not effective in creating reproductive incompatibility.

Please elaborate on that?  What do you mean by “basic chromosomal structure?”  And “reproductive incompatibility?”  And why is that important?

John, what do you think happened?  Please be specific.  If it is not inconvenient, please present the key data that you think helps you understand what happened. 

Furthermore, evolution WAS far more than the creation of reproductive incompatibilty.

What do you mean by “evolution?”  And so what?  All organisms that are alive today share a common ancestry.  You agree with that, right?  So, what do you think happened?

It WAS the creation of new kinds of living creatures, something no one has directly witnessed.

No person saw the series of instances of sexual reproduction that resulted in a rodent-like mammal changing until we had a human being.  But that no person has seen an alleged event does not enable you and me to determine that it is no more plausible than not that said event occurred.  No person has seen the core of the moon, and I’m sure it is not made of cream-cheese.  No person saw planet earth 65 million years ago, and I’m sure it existed 65 million years ago.  No person has seen a living T-Rex, and I’m sure some T-Rexes ate things.  So, that no person saw a rodent-like mammal evolve into a human does not enable you and me to determine that it is no more plausible than not that said event occurred.

You will gave to do better than that to dissuade me. Hundreds of years of the most intensive selection of Mendelian allelic mutants have never resulted in the generation of new species of domesticated animals. I am very hesitant to ascribe to Nature capacities that are denied the experimental scientist. To me that would be mysticism, something I have no truck with. As a matter of fact I regard Natural Selection as an anti-evolutionary element just as Leo Berg and Reginald C. Punnett did.

I don’t know what you mean by “new species.”  What do you mean by it?  People have witnessed organisms come into being that are quite different than other organisms that people have witnessed.  In some cases, some of the witnessed organisms are not capable of sexually reprodcing with some of the other witnessed organisms. 

The only benefit I can envision for allelic mutations is the assurance of extinction without which there would never have been any progressive evolution and we wouldn’t be here, as its terminal product, discussing its mechanisms.

What do you mean by “progressive evolution?”  Please be specific.

Comment #23008

Posted by Henry J on April 2, 2005 07:12 PM (e) (s)

Re “fine-tuning and probability? Isn’t that sort of like Phlogiston, or Ether or Selection?”

That suggests a good analogy - maybe fine tuning and front loading are the phlogiston and ether of evolution theory. :)

Henry

Comment #23036

Posted by DaveScot on April 2, 2005 09:26 PM (e) (s)

Dr. Davison,

What can I say except RIGHT ON!

Thanks for your efforts.  They’re not for naught.

Comment #23051

Posted by Longhorm on April 2, 2005 11:48 PM (e) (s)

According to Dave:

Dr. Davison,

What can I say except RIGHT ON!

Thanks for your efforts.  They’re not for naught.

Dave, could you elaborate on that?  What do you see as John Davison’s point?  Maybe I’m not seeing it.

Comment #23056

Posted by Scott Page on April 3, 2005 01:14 AM (e) (s)

[DaveScot impersonating another commenter. The source IP is now banned as per rule 6. — WRE]

Comment #23059

Posted by John A. Davison on April 3, 2005 03:44 AM (e) (s)

Longhorn

I simply cannot communicate with you. We are not on the same frequency. You just keep repeating basic Darwinian mysticism. I suggest that you stop asking me questions and read my papers instead. Then come back with some evidence that you understand my position and perhaps we could resume some form of dialogue.

John A. Davison

Comment #23060

Posted by John A. Davison on April 3, 2005 04:06 AM (e) (s)

PvM
You said a mouthful when you said I help the ‘cause.’ Groupthinks are like that. Thanks for helping my ‘cause’ which is the exposure of Darwinism as a hoax and replacing it with an hypothesis that at least recognizes the undeniable truths revealed by the experimental laboratory and the fossil record.

You are a treasure and I do not whine.

John A. Davison

Comment #23062

Posted by Roger Appell on April 3, 2005 05:28 AM (e) (s)

For an interesting reaction of creationists to the recent PBS NewsHour show on ID/creationism, see the ARN thread “Intelligent Design” on PBS NewsHour, Featuring a Saddled Triceratops. See the full ARN thread “Intelligent Design Is Not a Scientific Theory” says Bush White House for an entertaining snippet of the reaction of this website’s denizens to some uncomfortable facts.

Full disclosure: I was just banned from ARN, presumably for making “inflammatory religious comments.” ARN purports to be a website dedicated to the “science” of ID, and does not mention religious comments on their forum rules; anyone who questions the basis of the Christian religious convictions on which this “science” forum is based is quickly banned.

Comment #23069

Posted by John A. Davison on April 3, 2005 08:00 AM (e) (s)

ARN pays absolutely no attention to me even though I have said nothing about religion but simply presented undeniable proofs that the entire Darwinian model is a fairy tale, a lie and a hoax. I have also identified ID as a self-evident given without which no discussion of evolutionary mechanism is even possible.

The primary difference between ARN on the one hand and Panda’s Thumb, EvC and “brainstorms” on the other, is the latter three “groupthinks” are very much more aggressive in supporting their silly belief. ARN is doing what the Darwinian establishment has always done with their many critics. They simply don’t exist. I am happy to report that Panda’s Thumb, “brainstorms” and EvC have very definitely acknowledged my existence for which I am very grateful.

The reason I have been hostile toward my adversaries is because I have learned from 20 years of experience that they will not otherwise respond to me. By lampooning them and harpooning their sacred Darwinian cow I have managed to awaken them from their self-imposed coma and activated some of their most virulent spokespersons, like PvM, Wayne Francis and Scott L. Paige.

All in all it has been a very rewarding experience for me and I hope a lesson for any rational  observer.

I have no further complaints except that I do not whine. I attack Darwimpianism with all my waning energies and will continue to do so to my dying day.

John A. Davison

Comment #23074

Posted by steve on April 3, 2005 11:08 AM (e) (s)

Did anyone else just get creationist spam in their email? The way mine came in, it was definitely harvested from this site.

Comment #23077

Posted by Paul Christopher on April 3, 2005 12:40 PM (e) (s)

I’ve been lurking here for months. But I just wanted to say one thing.

If a user ever started posting here whilst suffering from some form of illness - such as a delusional disorder centering upon their views on evolution or creation - then I don’t think it would be in the best interests of either the blog or of the individual concerned to continually debate that person’s beliefs (male gender used for the sake of this hypothetical point).

You could probably tell such a person by his delusions of grandiosity and persecution. He might openly portray himself as a crusader against a vast conspiracy. He may believe that he is ‘special’, and may also associate himself with important historical figures. He may also act as though he has access to vitally important information that is being supressed, which others ‘do not understand’. He might also consider himself exempt from presenting the normal standards of evidence required.

To debate this kind of person would probably increase his paranoia and sense of persecution, and could further convince him that he is right. It would also risk bringing the blog into disrepute by having it host endless bizarre arguments that would go nowhere, even if most of the vitriol was posted by the individual concerned.

I am merely a layperson in the field of psychology, but I have read enough to be aware of the basic symptoms of delusional disorders. Of course, most creationists or intelligent design advocates are not mentally ill, and I hope a situation such as the one I posit above never arises.

Comment #23078

Posted by SteveF on April 3, 2005 12:52 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, I just got something from that Islamic creationist whose name I’ve forgotten.  My first ever creationist email!

Comment #23086

Posted by Reed A. Cartwright on April 3, 2005 02:45 PM (e) (s)

testing

Comment #23092

Posted by John A. Davison on April 3, 2005 03:32 PM (e) (s)

Oh there has been a conspiracy allright. It has been a conspiracy of silence and denial that there have ever been any anti-Darwinian evolutionists like Grasse, Berg, Broom, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Bateson, Punnett or most recently myself. You see we do not exist. If you don’t believe me just check the references in the evolutionary literature, especially the books by Dawkins, Gould, Ayala, Provine or Mayr. By our not existing the Darwinian hoax has been able to be sustained. That is why I am trying very vigorously to be heard wherever I am allowed.

John A. Davison

Comment #23094

Posted by PvM on April 3, 2005 03:42 PM (e) (s)

However, Gould considered Bateson’s attack on the Panglossian preachings of the Darwinists as “bordering on meanness.” Bateson was unambiguously labelled as an “obstinate,” “stubborn,” “old fogey,” who “had fallen a bit behind the times,” and “had his own particular axe to grind.”

Source

Sound familiar :-)

Comment #23096

Posted by Henry J on April 3, 2005 04:09 PM (e) (s)

One would think that if JAD actually wanted to share ideas, he’d start with those of his ideas that would sound plausible to other biologists, instead of incessantly repeating ideas that he knows won’t be accepted. Also he could show some interest in discussing the details of those ideas, instead of spending his posts making assertions about the incompetence of those who disagree with him.

Take his point that mammals and birds have incompatible, non-homologous reproductive strategies: that implies that one or both evolved their current strategy separately, which suggests that one or both went through a period of using some form of asexual reproduction. Perhaps JAD could try to explain why semi-meiosis has more explanatory power than a simple cloning type of reproduction. (Besides which, semi-meiosis strikes me as the ultimate in inbreeding, but then nature never has been conservative of individuals.)

Or how about a discussion of what types of chromosomal rearrangements would prevent interbreeding, and which would merely reduce the odds of success, and by how much. That could be interesting.

Or how about whether there’s really any reason to suppose that the various genera of apes had to go through periods of nonsexual reproduction in order to explain them having differences in chromosome arrangement. Keeping in mind here that if these genera have homologous male chromosome (which as I understand it is not carried in the females in these species), that would be evidence against an interruption in the sexual reproduction in those lineages.

Henry

Comment #23103

Posted by Gary Hurd on April 3, 2005 05:14 PM (e) (s)

Re: Paranoid delusions

The theraputic profile of paranoids and their prognosis is so poor  that there is little point in being conserned for their sake.  If paranoid rants so detract from the pleasure, or partisipation of others, that we lose readers- then I feel that we should just “boot” the paranoids.

Comment #23110

Posted by John A. Davison on April 3, 2005 05:27 PM (e) (s)

Henry J.

My ideas are not plausible to other biologists because other biologists are nearly all chance worshipping, atheist, liberal loony tunes, so thoroughly brainwashed in Darwimpianism that they cannot conceive that their entire life has been wasted chasing a phantom. My adversaries are not necessarily incompetent; they are just blind to any interpretation that differs from the one they have been raised with.

PvM

I see you had to trot out Gould to say something nasty about the father of modern genetics. What would you expect from a Harvard Darwimpian whose office is right down the hall from Ernst Mayr’s.
Gould was a dyed-in-the-wool Darwinian just like Mayr and a professed atheist besides. William Bateson realized by 1924 that Mendelian genetics had absolutely nothing to do with progressive evolution and he said so. He was a true prophet and a great scientist.

Bateson was indeed an “obstinate, stubborn old fogey” and so am I and for exactly the same reasons. We both realized that Darwinism is the most failed hypothesis in the history of science and we both encountered the same mindless opposition which the critics of Darwinism have always faced. I am proud to be numbered as an admirer of William Bateson. Others were Leo Berg, Richard Goldschmidt and Reginald Punnett. Even Ernst Mayr admired Bateson but don’t ask me why.

John A. Davison

Comment #23112

Posted by Longhorn on April 3, 2005 05:40 PM (e) (s)

According to John:

I simply cannot communicate with you. We are not on the same frequency. You just keep repeating basic Darwinian mysticism. I suggest that you stop asking me questions and read my papers instead. Then come back with some evidence that you understand my position and perhaps we could resume some form of dialogue.

John, I’ll read at least one of your papers.  Do you know where can I find one?  Can I get one on-line?  If it would be impossible for me to get one on-line, could you explain your ideas to me?

Comment #23125

Posted by lurker on April 3, 2005 06:10 PM (e) (s)

New at http://www.designinference.com/documents/2005.04.ID_Orthodoxy_Heresy.htm:

Dembski wrote:

Giving Glory to God

What is the tangible benefit of Intelligent Design for the Christian community?  I think minimally it is that it will prevent our young people from being swept away by this materialist ideology. But beyond that, and I think this is what really is the driving force for me, it gives us the truth of creation.  I am wholly committed to the fundamental truth that God, by wisdom, created the world.  It is only in acknowledging that that God will get proper glory for his creation.  It would be a travesty and an insult if you met some wonderful artist, a Michelangelo or a Leonardo da Vinci or a Rembrandt, and they had their life’s masterpiece beside them, and you came along and said, “You just threw this together.  There is nothing to it.  I could do that.”

Now take it further.  That is what we do when we take the marvelous designs that God has built into the world, things that far exceed anything by Michelangelo, and we do not just say, “I could have done that,” but we attribute them to some blind, stupid, material process.  It is just galling to me when I see the nature programs on PBS where “nature did this” and “natural selection did that.”  Where is God in all of this?  He is dispensable.  I think that is the real problem with naturalism and materialism.

There are the Dawkinses who are rabid in their atheism, but for the most part these materialists rarely come out and say, “There is no God.”  It is not that there is an outright denial of God, it is just that God is not necessary.  Instead of a heated denial it is benign neglect.  And I think we are seeing that more and more.  But I think Intelligent Design is going to turn this around.  I think we are going to see the whole level of rhetoric and controversy ratcheted up more and more in coming days.

As Laplace said to Napoleon when asked where God was in Laplace’s theory of the heavens, “that hypothesis is not necessary.”

Comment #23162

Posted by Henry J on April 3, 2005 10:00 PM (e) (s)

Re “My adversaries are not necessarily incompetent; they are just blind to any interpretation that differs from the one they have been raised with.”

I think that’s called “projection”.

——-

Re “It is just galling to me when I see the nature programs on PBS where “nature did this” and “natural selection did that.”

So, he prefers to give God direct credit for designing mosquitos, malaria, typhoid, athlete’s foot, tapeworms, boll weevils, etc.? Sounds to me like he didn’t think through what he’s saying.

Henry

Comment #23173

Posted by Ed Darrell on April 4, 2005 02:02 AM (e) (s)

If Paul Nelson is greatly disturbed by the disemvoweling of a few of Dr. Davison’s posts, perhaps Paul Nelson would open an ID blog or two for Dr. Davison’s fulminatons?  I’m sure Dr. Davison would be happy to fulminate, if Nelson will provide the forum.

Comment #23177

Posted by John A. Davison on April 4, 2005 06:35 AM (e) (s)

I do not fulminate. I speak the truth. The entire Darwinian chance-based model is a farce and a hoax generated and sustained by committed atheists whose condition, like every other aspect of evolution, has probably been preordained. If there is one lesson to be learned from forums like this one it is to question the notion of a “free will.” Everyone seems to be victimized by internal forces over which, as Einstein so wisely reminded us, we have no control.

For anyone to claim that they know anything with certainty about either the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution reveals an ignorance beyond description. Evolution, like ontogeny, remains an enormous mystery the mechanism for which has yet to be revealed. One thing is for certain however. Chance had absolutely no role in that process, none whatsoever. Neither did allelic mutation, natural or artificial selection or population genetics or any other postulate of the Darwinian dogma. Darwinism must be and is being relegated to the intellectual compost heap where it joins Phlogiston and the Ether.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison

Comment #23178

Posted by John A. Davison on April 4, 2005 07:01 AM (e) (s)

PvM
If you are so concerned about what I am doing over at ARN why don’t you join in over there? Have you been banned from participation at ARN? How about “brainstroms?” Is this the only forum left for you? I see that here you have managed to elevate yourself to the point where you can introduce threads and then rule them with an iron hand. You are one of the chosen few at Panda’s Thumb. I predict, judging from your past history, that will not last much longer. Panda’s Thumb, like other forums will finally recognize you for what you continually demonstrate yourself to be, an intractable Darwinian zealot practicing the most vile of methods in defence of a failed hypothesis and a transparent hoax.

John A. Davison

Comment #23179

Posted by Russell on April 4, 2005 07:33 AM (e) (s)

If Paul Nelson is still quivering with righteous rage that Davison was prevented from sharing the wisdom of Leo Berg with PT readers, he might want to check
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here, and
here

The list includes multiple references to Nomogenesis, the work cited in the viciously disemvoweled comment, including multiple references to the page in question. See what I mean by repetitious and annoying?

Comment #23188

Posted by David Heddle on April 4, 2005 09:05 AM (e) (s)

The disemvoweling is childish, and displays a lack of class. Neither of which is unexpected from PT.

Comment #23194

Posted by Glen Davidson on April 4, 2005 10:24 AM (e) (s)

I noticed the following (posted by Henry J), and thought of what has recently been discovered about the sex chromosomes of platypuses:

Take his [JAD’s] point that mammals and birds have incompatible, non-homologous reproductive strategies: that implies that one or both evolved their current strategy separately, which suggests that one or both went through a period of using some form of asexual reproduction.

The platypus sex determination genes include some of the bird Z sex determination genes.  While this does raise some questions about how dinosaurs and mammals are related, it certainly does suggest that mammals and birds do not have non-homologous reproductive strategies.  Here is the summary of the relevant paper, along with all of the bibliographic material that goes along with it:

Nature \ 432, 913 - 917 (16 December 2004); doi:10.1038/nature03021
Nature AOP, published online 24 October 2004

In the platypus a meiotic chain of ten sex chromosomes shares genes with the bird Z and mammal X chromosomes

FRANK GRÜTZNER1, WILLEM RENS2, ENKHJARGAL TSEND-AYUSH1,*, NISRINE EL-MOGHARBEL1,*, PATRICIA C. M. O’BRIEN2, RUSSELL C. JONES3, MALCOLM A. FERGUSON-SMITH2 & JENNIFER A. MARSHALL GRAVES1

1 Research School of Biological Sciences, Australian National University, GPO Box 475, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory 2601, Australia
2 Centre for Veterinary Science, Department of Veterinary Medicine, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0ES, UK
3 Department of Biological Sciences, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, New South Wales 2308, Australia
* These authors contributed equally to this work

Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to F.G. ().
The sequences reported in this paper have been deposited in EMBL under accession numbers AJ744847, AJ744848, AJ744849.

Two centuries after the duck-billed platypus was discovered, monotreme chromosome systems remain deeply puzzling. Karyotypes of males, or of both sexes, were claimed to contain several unpaired chromosomes (including the X chromosome) that form a multi-chromosomal chain at meiosis. Such meiotic chains exist in plants and insects but are rare in vertebrates. How the platypus chromosome system works to determine sex and produce balanced gametes has been controversial for decades. Here we demonstrate that platypus have five male-specific chromosomes (Y chromosomes) and five chromosomes present in one copy in males and two copies in females (X chromosomes). These ten chromosomes form a multivalent chain at male meiosis, adopting an alternating pattern to segregate into XXXXX-bearing and YYYYY-bearing sperm. Which, if any, of these sex chromosomes bears one or more sex-determining genes remains unknown. The largest X chromosome, with homology to the human X chromosome, lies at one end of the chain, and a chromosome with homology to the bird Z chromosome lies near the other end. This suggests an evolutionary link between mammal and bird sex chromosome systems, which were previously thought to have evolved independently.

I know, I know, every last vague speculative idea has more “explanatory power” for these matters than does doing the work of actual science.  But none of the ID or semi-meiotic notions has more explanatory power than my force of order (it’s the force that allows order (self-ordering, etc.) to arise in systems, and never mind that I don’t know how it acts, apparently today ideas can sell or be taught without troubling to explain causation, so why should I?), so we’re stale-mated there.  Perhaps we can leave science to study the reproductive strategies of platypuses, birds, and mammals.

Comment #23227

Posted by John A. Davison on April 4, 2005 12:16 PM (e) (s)

I am not in the least surprised to discover links between mammal, bird and platypus sex-determining systems. That in no way detracts from the fact that birds and mammals implement entirely different chromosomal mechanisms for sex-determination. After all, I have not denied evolution as some seem to think, only the capacity of the sexual mode to promote it beyond the production of subspecies or varieties, a position I still hold. We should remember that meiosis, wherever it is found, consists of two sequential cytological steps. The first is a demonstrated form of diploid reproduction and must heve evolutionarily preceded the second and accordingly is the more primitive.

If the sole purpose was to produce haploid gametes from diploid stem cells, there would be a single meiotic division. No living organisms produces true gametes in this fashion.  What we are witnessing in meiosis is the history of the process complete with the steps in order by which it has been realized.

I presented the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis twenty years ago and it still has not been subjected to critical experiment with material heterozygous for structural chromosomal rearrdangements. Until that has been done it remains viable as a device for macroevolution, the only one which I, for one, can even conceive. I am not a special creationist which would seem to be the only alternative and the one the Fundamentalists seem still to support.

The truth lies with neither Darwinism nor Biblical fundamentalism but elsewhere.

John A. Davison

Comment #23233

Posted by Henry J on April 4, 2005 12:32 PM (e) (s)

Re “For anyone to claim that they know anything with certainty about either the origin or origins of life and its subsequent evolution reveals an ignorance beyond description.”

and

Re “One thing is for certain however. Chance had absolutely no role in that process, none whatsoever. Neither did allelic mutation, natural or artificial selection or population genetics or any other postulate of the Darwinian dogma.”

Now, apply statement 1 to the author of statement 2…

Makes me wonder if this guy even reads his own stuff - he claims asserting certainty reveals ignorance, then proceeds in the next paragraph to assert his own certainty about something he just said we cannot be certain. By doing that, he just called himself ignorant.

Henry

Comment #23243

Posted by Russell on April 4, 2005 01:07 PM (e) (s)

Yeah, well, I once called myself ignorant, but I didn’t know what I was talking about!

Comment #23263

Posted by PvM on April 4, 2005 02:39 PM (e) (s)

Nosy wrote:

I do not fulminate. I speak the truth. The entire Darwinian chance-based model is a farce and a hoax generated and sustained by committed atheists whose condition, like every other aspect of evolution, has probably been preordained. If there is one lesson to be learned from forums like this one it is to question the notion of a “free will.” Everyone seems to be victimized by internal forces over which, as Einstein so wisely reminded us, we have no control.

Irony alert…

ful·mi·nate 

v. intr.

  1. To issue a thunderous verbal attack or denunciation: fulminated against political chicanery.
  2. To explode or detonate.

:-)

Comment #23294

Posted by John A. Davison on April 4, 2005 05:37 PM (e) (s)

I see you did just that. You are performing beautifully. Don’t change a thing. You are a caricature of yourself and every other Darwinian bigot. Thanks agai