Comment #31057

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 11:02 AM (e) (s)

More, more I say, don’t stop. Keep it up. I love it. What better demonstration could there possibly be that I have reached both camps in this idiotic war of two stupid ideologies, Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialism and Fundamentalist Bible Banging Baptist Bigotry. You are all full of it right up to the gunwales. Both ships are awash and going down by the stern. Oh how I love it all. I always knew there was purpose in my prescribed predestined life and now it has finally come to fruition. Thank you all for verifying that which I long suspected. This all was meant to be and I am the special messenger to implement it. God but it is a beautiful thing to observe isn’t it? Don’t stop you mindless automatons. It’s too late now anyway. Your fate was sealed millions of years ago when the Big Front Loader (BFL) wrote you into the program. Enjoy your last days. You are doomed.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for the Darwimpians and the religious fanatics alike.

“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 can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Albert Einstein

Thank you Albert. God but I am having fun with you clowns.

How do like them two minute soft-boiled eggs? Pretty runny aren’t they?

Keep them there wagons in a circle. Geronimo!

John A. Davison

Comment #31059

Posted by Russell on May 19, 2005 11:10 AM (e) (s)

Oh, excellent idea!

Comment #31061

Posted by Matt Brauer on May 19, 2005 11:23 AM (e) (s)

John, we’ve given you your own forum on this site that you are so hostile to. You could be gracious and see this promotion from the bathroom wall as a courtesy being extended to you, as an alternative to banning. Have any other sites that you’ve haunted tolerated you to this extent?

Comment #31086

Posted by Alan on May 19, 2005 03:13 PM (e) (s)

Professor Davison

I am genuinely interested in your theory. I have tried to read your manifesto but being a layman with only a three year undergraduate course in biochemistry back in the late sixties, I’m afraid I lost the plot. You may not see eye to eye with Richard Dawkins but you might agree that he writes lucidly for a lay audience. Perhaps you could try the same for semi-meiosis.

Comment #31087

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 19, 2005 03:14 PM (e) (s)

Here is JAD in a nutshell:

in post 31019:

“I am an evolutionist through and through.”

in his very next post:

“Of course I am a creationist. Why isn’t everyone is the question I ask.”

case closed.

Comment #31092

Posted by Alan on May 19, 2005 03:23 PM (e) (s)

@Sir_Toejam

But if you are a theist evolutionist, the two aren’t mutually exclusive, are they?

Comment #31095

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 03:35 PM (e) (s)

Of course they aren’t Alan. Good for you. Bad for Fungus foot.

Comment #31096

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 19, 2005 03:35 PM (e) (s)

John, has no one ever told you that calling a bunch of scientists ‘Darwimps’ makes you sound, well, STUPID?

Comment #31097

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 19, 2005 03:36 PM (e) (s)

literal creationism and evolutionary theory ARE mutually exclusive.

this is why ID was invented.  well, that, and because teaching literal creationism has already been ruled illegal in court, so they needed to mask the religious aspect.

that’s not saying that a belief in god and evolutionary theory can’t work together for some people.  A theistic evolutionist is typically described as someone who believes that god had a hand in “getting the ball rolling” so to speak, but then left evolution to itself.

that is not a creationist.  A creationist rejects the fossil record and common descent, and rejects natural selection as a mechanism of change.

moreover, if JAD wants to redefine himself as an evolutionary theologist, then he would have to accept evoltionary theory, which he does not (he has his own theory).

now watch, after this is said, JAD will probably try to redefine what creationism is, just like he tries to redefine what evolution is.

Comment #31098

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 03:39 PM (e) (s)

Arden Chatfield

Oh yes many times.

What ever happened to my earlier post where I thanked you folks for your generosity? It seems to bhve been lost in the shuffle somehow. I was deadly serious by the way.

John A. Davison

Comment #31099

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 03:41 PM (e) (s)

Arden Chatfield

Oh yes many times.

What ever happened to my earlier post where I thanked you folks for your generosity? It seems to have been lost in the shuffle somehow. I was deadly serious by the way.

John A. Davison

Comment #31101

Posted by Alan on May 19, 2005 03:51 PM (e) (s)

Professor,

In your conclusion you state “The semi-meiotic hypothesis is
eminently testable in suitable material.” Could you expand on this point?

Sir T

The Prof talks of the BFL and evolution having happened. He could be a theistic evolutionist, at least in his own terms.

Comment #31105

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 19, 2005 04:13 PM (e) (s)

alan,

have fun trying to sort out what JAD is.

cheers

Comment #31115

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 19, 2005 05:04 PM (e) (s)

Message to David Scott Springer aka “DaveScot” aka “Sad Covet” aka “jordan” and etc.:

Your use of this computer system is unauthorized. You do not have consent to use this system.

There exists a computer security system in place to restrict your access to this system.

This is not a “game of hide and seek”. Any further attempts to access this system by you will be treated as a violation of  Section 1. Title 7, Chapter 33, Section 33.02 of the Texas Penal Code.

This includes usage of alternate ISPs to evade the security system.

Goodbye.

Comment #31131

Posted by "Rev Dr" Lenny Flank on May 19, 2005 06:06 PM (e) (s)

(yanks chain)

Come on, John.  Bark for me.

Comment #31138

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)

jaimito
The examples you cite are varieties not new species. Also I am not supposed to post here anymore. You see I have been isolated into my own little cell like I was over at EvC before they finally banned me for life . You will have to communicate with me there I’m afraid. The Bathroom Wall is now reserved for the real intellectuals. I am afraid I have been excluded from this most elite fraternity of head nodding, lock stepping, pseudo materialistic, chance worshipping, mutation happy, natural selection intoxicated bunch of atheist groupthinkers known far and wide as neoDarwinians, a dying breed for which Panda’s Disarticulated grasping member is the last retreat. Come visit with me in my new home or don’t. I really don’t care that much.

How do you like them perennial onions?

John A. Davison

P.S. This post was originally presented in the latrine.

Comment #31145

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)

I see you clowns are now deleting my comments. So what was the point in giving me this little cell I ask? I can’t even post here.

I don’t bark for Darwimps or anyone else. I spout undeniable truths with metronomic regularity to blind and deaf audiences such as those that haunt Panda’s Dislocated Thumb, the last refuge for Darwimpianism, the most idiotic and experimentally failed fabrication in human history.

I see DaveScot must be back. Welcome to the snake pit Dave. I thought you might be dead.

“Science commits suicide when she adopt a creed.”
Thomas Hnery Huxley

Like hell she does Hank baby. Roll over, lift the lid and take a peek.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them sauteed portabellas?

John A. Davison

Comment #31148

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 07:47 PM (e) (s)

I want to know what happened to my lengthy litany of gratitude to you all for not banning me and for erecting this special cell for my intellectual confinement. It is EvC’s “boot camp” all over again. I love it. I was sincerely grateful but no one can appreciate that because some guy somewhere didn’t permit that post to appear. That sucks if you ask me. I can’t even thank you folks. Well I am doing it now again and I am being serious for a change. Of course I can’t guarantee I will remain that way for very long. I’m very unstable you know. Thanks again. Enjoy my sobriety while you may.

How do you like them jawbreakers?

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

John A. Davison

Comment #31151

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 19, 2005 09:29 PM (e) (s)

“Enjoy my sobriety while you may.”

A drunken monkey?  isn’t that a kung-fu style?

Comment #31161

Posted by John A. Davison on May 19, 2005 10:45 PM (e) (s)

Fungus foot

There is no theory of evolution yet. A past evolution is undeniable. What we have are two major thoroughly tested and failed hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism. Neither has a leg to stand on. In 1984 I proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis which to this day has not been even acknowledged in the professional literature let alone tested in the laboratory. I was unable to find suitable material to test it myself and I am now not in a position to do so having been evicted from my laboratory in 2000 at which time I resigned from the University of Vermont. That is a matter of history and there is no need to discuss it further.

I have continued to publish papers in 2000, 2003, 2004 and one in press to appear this summer, all in Rivista di Biologia. As a derivative of the semi-meiotic hypothesis I have formalized a new hypothesis for organic evolution under the self explanatory title of A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis available for perusal at a numnber of internet sites, ARN, “brainstorms,” EvC and elsewhere.

Now that I have been interred here in my own private little cell I will be happy to answer any questions about my hypotheses provided only that the questions come from someone who can demonstrate that they are familiar with my position. I recommend as background the 50 page summary “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change,” available at my home page and in the archives of “brainstorms,” the forum of ISCID and elsewhere. If, having comprehended that material, anyone has any questions I will be happy to respond to them. If that is asking too much just don’t bother.

I can assure you that while I am a creationist of sorts (isn’t everyone?), I am very definitely an evolutionist and a bench scientist and I remain convinced that all of evolution has resulted from natural causes which can be, have been and are being disclosed through controlled laboratory science as well as the final arbiter, the fossil record. I have discussed those findings in my most recent paper in the two sections “The indirect evidence” and “The direct evidence.” Earlier indirect evidence was presented in my 2000 paper “Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information” available at my home page and elsewhere. You can find my papers and the reactions they have produced by simply entering the words ‘davison’ and ‘evolution’ in the Google search engine.

And so to bed.

Comment #31163

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 01:12 AM (e) (s)

” “An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change,” available at my home page and in the archives of “brainstorms,” the forum of ISCID and elsewhere. “

don’t forget to mention it being listed on crank.net as well.

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html…

Comment #31174

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 03:02 AM (e) (s)

Fungus foot.

You are a credit to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Take another bow. And just where may the rest of us find your publications? That is other than Crank Dot Com? In the meantime keep them wagons in a circle folks. There is strength in numbers don’t you know.

John A. Davison

Comment #31175

Posted by Alan on May 20, 2005 03:36 AM (e) (s)

Professor

I promise you I tried to read your manifesto. Sorry if I’m oversimplifying but do I undestand you to say: There were several separate starting points to life on Earth and that all genetic information necessary for the development of all species known today was “preloaded”, natural selection does not have an effect on speciation, and that evolution by survival of the fittest does not occur but may have done in the past. (The inference here is that there must be an on/off switch somewhere), and that semi-meiosis better explains  what is observed? Could you briefly explain semi-meiosis and how it fits with the evidence.

Comment #31178

Posted by GT(N)T on May 20, 2005 06:14 AM (e) (s)

“In 1984 I proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis which to this day has not been even acknowledged in the professional literature let alone tested in the laboratory.”

John, your hypothesis wasn’t tested because it’s untestable.  An untestable hypothesis is worthless to science.

There’s no conspiracy to bury genius, John.  Worthwhile ideas in science are examined and tested.  Surely there’s a masters student in a bible college in Tennessee looking for a good thesis subject.  Maybe one of Dr. Dembski’s new students is looking for an idea.

Comment #31181

Posted by Sandor on May 20, 2005 06:30 AM (e) (s)

<throws “dr.” JAD a banana>

Here you go monkey, tell us all you know about semi-meiosis :P

Comment #31182

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 06:40 AM (e) (s)

My oh my. See how little activity there is here now that I have disappeared from this trench. The same thing happened over at your sister forum EvC after they finally banned me for life. I predict that the activity will pick up at Davison’s Soap Box as it declines here. This post originated at the Bathroom Wall.

Comment #31193

Posted by Don Grimm on May 20, 2005 08:54 AM (e) (s)

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

“Certain patients develop ever-increasing fixed delusions with clear consciousness and without any weakening of the intellect. The individual stages of this disorder may usually be distinguished. At first, these patients believe themselves to be under observation, to be pursued by enemies. Everything that is done has a deliberate reference to themselves; people slander them, spy upon them, or watch them. Hallucinations of hearing develop (e. g. mocking, abusive voices). The circle of their persecutors gradually enlarges; it is no longer a definite person (an enemy, a rival, a business competitor, etc.) who is the originator of this persecution and slander, but entire classes or bodies (Freemasons, Jesuits, political parties, the entire Civil Service, the members of the royal household, etc.). As their grandiose ideas develop, the patients believe themselves the victims of widespread intrigues and persecutions, because others are envious of them, or because of their importance. The concrete content of the delusions varies greatly in different cases, but remains fixed in the same individual. One believes himself to be an important inventor; another, a reformer; a a third, a legitimate successor to the throne; a fourth, the Messiah. In addition to the hallucinations of hearing, different bodily hallucinations develop. The patients feel themselves electrified, penetrated with the röntgen rays, etc. In the initial stages the patients are very often well able to hide their delusional ideas in case of necessity, and to pretend that they no longer believe in them (dissimulation). By reason of the obstinacy of the ideas of persecution, and especially because of their clearness of thought in other respects, these patients may become very dangerous, attacking those about them with violence, taking their revenge by killing, or by well-planned murders of their supposed persecutors.

In many cases the apparent sanity of these patients, and the fanaticism with which they promulgate their ideas, deceive an uncritical following, so that healthy but undiscriminating people share in their delusions (induced insanity). Many cases of so-called psychic epidemics, of perversely abstruse religious sects, belong to this category. In some cases the ideas of persecution are based on real or imaginary legal injustice suffered by the patient, who then believes that all advocates, judges, and administrative authorities are in league against him (Paranoia querulans, litigious paranoia). Traces of this are seen in the cases of obstinate litigants, who spend large amounts of money on lawyers to recover absurdly insignificant sums. When their complaints are dismissed everywhere, they commit a crime merely in order to come before a jury and thus enabled to renew their old suit.”

Comment #31205

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 11:43 AM (e) (s)

Don Grimm

Just what the hell does your lengthy quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia have to do with organic evolution, presumably the subject matter of concern to the denizens of Panda’s Dislocated Thumb, emphasis on the word presumably?

If you would rather not say and prefer just to hit and run I will understand. That, in my experience, is standard practice here as elsewhere on all internet forums dominated by monolithic groupthink mentalities. I’ll wait for your response for about ten minutes.

How do you like them black olives?

John A. Davison, inmate.

Comment #31215

Posted by Man with No Personality on May 20, 2005 12:42 PM (e) (s)

In all honesty, Mr. Davison, I think Grimm’s post has hit the nail on the head as regards your contributions to the scientific worlds…

Comment #31228

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 01:19 PM (e) (s)

“You are a credit to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Take another bow. And just where may the rest of us find your publications? “

*bows*

In Pacific Science (I used to research ontogenetic color change in fish), tho my last publication in the peer reviewed literature was in 1993.  Mostly i work with non-prof ngo’s now.

[banana]What’s far more interesting to me, is that you had some decent publications before 1984; what happened to you to turn you into the screaming monkey you are now?

you keep dancing around that, but I have never actually seen you answer the question.

Comment #31230

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 01:23 PM (e) (s)

Don:

What was the name given to the mental illness described in the reference you quote?

Comment #31233

Posted by Man with No Personality on May 20, 2005 01:31 PM (e) (s)

Though I’m only guessing, I believe Don’s definition is for ‘paranoid schizophrenia’.

Comment #31291

Posted by Alan on May 20, 2005 04:38 PM (e) (s)

Professor

Did you notice my post 31175?

Comment #31332

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 06:41 PM (e) (s)

It’s all over folks. Get used to it. Quit fantasizing and come to grips with reality. Evolution is finished and so are Lamarckism, Communism, Gradualism, Mutationism, Natural Selectionism, Darwimpianism and Antidisestablishmentarianism. Ain’t nothin’ goin’ on no more. Trust me.

This post originated in the latrine.

John A. Davison

Comment #31346

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 07:13 PM (e) (s)

Alan
Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism, which is my position, will never be taken seriously until it is as the very least subjected to experimental testing. That simply as not been done yet. If the Darwimps were so confident of their mutationist, gradualist, selectionist model they would have tested my heresy decades ago. Why haven’t they is the question. After all they gave up testing their own scheme long ago. Darwinism has never been an experimental science. When an hypothesis is tested and fails that test it must be abandoned. Darwinism should have been abandoned in Darwin’s own day. Actually it was by Mivart who wrote a book titled, with tongue in cheek, Genesis of Species. I am willing to bet that not one member of this forum has ever read it. They are afraid to just as the evolutionary establishment is afraid to test the Semi-meiotic hypothesis.

Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there and what was there, both just waiting to be revealed. Darwimpianism is not science by any stretch of the imagination. It is a belief system which denies the obvious which is that there has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. If there had been neither could exist.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

John A. Davison

Comment #31357

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 07:35 PM (e) (s)

OK Fungus foot. My early research, which included three solo publications in Science, was in developmental biology and included the experimental inhibition of the second meoitic division in frogs. By this means I was able to obtain perfectly normal animals. Others as early as 1905 had obtained normal frogs of both sexes without the intervention of sex by simply activating the egg with a platinum needle. These undeniable facts served as the basis for the Semi-meiotic hypothesis. If you had read the Manifesto you would know all this but obviously you have not.

By 1984 I was in my mid fifties and decided to dedicate the rest of my life to the problem of organic evolution because I felt it presented a challenge to my considerable abilities and was worth whatever antagonism that might provoke from a bigoted evolutionary and administrative establishment. It has been exactly as I anticipated and I have relished every moment of this journey which I have not yet finished. Now as for you, you mouthy little nothing, this is my blog now and I don’t welcome you or any other arrogant little intellectual zeros in my cozy little cell. Have you got that?  Crawl back into the latrine which I note has now lapsed back into a coma with my departure. There are some here who are interested in what I have to offer. You are not one of them. You are a disgrace. You offer nothing and detract from a rational discussion with your shabby, mindless drivel. You have named yourself well. Kiss off. You make me sick.

John A. Davison

Comment #31360

Posted by Sir_Toejam on May 20, 2005 07:48 PM (e) (s)

absolutely true, John… this is your little corner.  I thought you enjoyed being harrangued.

since you decided to at least attempt an answer to my question, I’ll leave you be.

enjoy.

I leave you with one last question, which you don’t have to answer.

why exactly, did you decide to abandon a promising career?  so you could become Einstein and prove everyone wrong?

does that sound like a likely thing, John?

Einstein based his thinking on sound principles and existing evidence that most folks agreed on, but simply couldn’t explain.  You are basing your theory on evidence that has already been explained, and your thinking does not appear to be sound most of the time.

do you really think there is a grand consipiracy against you?

perhaps you should re-read the comment by Don.

bye.

Comment #31364

Posted by John A. Davison on May 20, 2005 08:13 PM (e) (s)

Get out of my little sanctuary Fungus foot. You contribute nothing here just as you contribute nothing any where else on this forum. I am through with you. Is that clear? You no longer exist so don’t bother making an ass of yourself here you unfilfilled little twerp. Do it elsewhere. You have it down pat.

Comment #31376

Posted by steve on May 20, 2005 09:54 PM (e) (s)

Can this little JAD cell be modified to delete comments older than a week? That way Yang Yang wouldn’t have to make new ones every so often. As we’ve all seen, this makes pandas cranky sometimes.

Comment #31378

Posted by steve on May 20, 2005 10:06 PM (e) (s)

We should have a couple more of these.

Great White Wonder’s Insult Factory

Dave Heddle Stat Chat

Charlie Wagner Destroys Evolution Over, and Over, and Over, and Over,…

Comment #31390

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 20, 2005 10:34 PM (e) (s)

Great White Wonder’s Insult Factory

I think I must defend GWW.  Is he rude and crude?  Yep.  So am I, and for much the same reasons, I suspect.  I see no reason to make nice-nice with the kooks.

But rude or crude, GWW always made very good points, and did it in an entertaining way.

I miss his input and would like to see him back.

Comment #31392

Posted by steve on May 20, 2005 10:37 PM (e) (s)

It was a joke. I like GWW too, but he’s unproductive sometimes.

Comment #31395

Posted by Arden Chatfield on May 20, 2005 11:43 PM (e) (s)

Somehow this has the feel of a caged animal at a zoo. Walk up. Watch him jump up and down. Dodge the feces he throws at you. Watch him bang the cage and yell ‘darwimp’ over and over and over again. Maybe snicker and throw some popcorn at him. Then wander away, leaving him there.

This is a good place for him.

Comment #31411

Posted by slpage on May 21, 2005 11:26 AM (e) (s)

16 years and no ‘material’ to test your own hypothesis?

Incredible…

Comment #31416

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 12:08 PM (e) (s)

I would like to introduce a topic here on my little blog if I may. As you all assume you know, organisms are in a constant state of genetic flux as they respond daily to the demands produced by a highly variable environment. I say balderdash to all of that.

This topic I have called the “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” concept.

In support of this heretical notion I call your attention to two organisms which demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt, one an animal and the other a plant.

The animal is Amoeba, a creature which has no know means of genetic recombination (sex to the uninformed. This lttle bugger has been around far longer than any known living higher metazoon. Now how can this be in a Darwimpian world? I will explain that for you now. It’s because if it ain’t broke don’t fix it, that’s why. You see sex  is a dangerous practice because you don’t know what the hell you are going to get, something that every California housewife who ever had more than one kid can testify. Not only is it unpredictable but it is also very poorly designed for the elimination of recessive lethal genes which the vast majority are. So, as the fossil record so well demonstrates, obligatory sexual reproduction is a sure fire formula for extinction. You can’t argue with success.

Just think, if it weren’t for all that extinction there never could have been any evolution at all. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn’t, which is why I am introducing the “If it ain’t broke don’t fix it” topic for your serious consideration.

As for the plant I have chosen, from literally thousands of possibilities, the lowly but rampantly successful Dandelion.

How do you like them edible spring greens?

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

John A. Davison, proprietor and sole owner of Davison’s Soap Box Inc.

Comment #31418

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 12:48 PM (e) (s)

Scott (Mad Dog) Page

There is plenty of material out there I am sure. I don’t have a laboratory any more or haven’t you heard. By the way it has been 21 years now that the Semi-meiotic hypothesis has remained in oblivion. It took 32 year before Mendel was recognized. The dummies finally found something that occurred in pairs, the chromosomes, the instruments of all evolutionary change. Incidentally, Mendelian genetics had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with creative evolution. Get used to it. Grasse did and so have I. Wrap your nasty little mind around that one, Mad Dog, and inhale.

Who is next?

John A Davison, proprietor of Davison’s Soap Box.

Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!
Gregor Mendel

Comment #31420

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 21, 2005 01:28 PM (e) (s)

Just think, if it weren’t for all that extinction there never could have been any evolution at all. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn’t

Of course it did, and it’s taught regularly.  Don’t suppose that it’s just your opposition to Darwinism that made you a pariah, JAD, since obviously you have declined precipitously as you have denied all of science to propagate your ideas, so that even the most childish facts—like the need for death in evolution—become momentous truths to you.  At least you got that one right, though.

The animal is Amoeba, a creature which has no know means of genetic recombination (sex to the uninformed. This lttle bugger has been around far longer than any known living higher metazoon.

I believe that it’s still true that most if not all amoebae have not had their sexual lives characterized.  This depends, of course, on what one considers an “amoeba” to be, but it may be true that sexual reproduction among what are most commonly referred to as amoebas remains out of sight, or even possibly only in the past. 

But of course JAD is arguing from his vast base of ignorance re amoebae and sexual reproduction.  I don’t even know how to follow his absurd line of thought to his conclusions about sex and lethality even if his ignorant claims were granted, but at the following link is a table showing the meiotic genes that have been discovered in Entamoebae:

http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/jmlpubls/rml05.pdf

The embarrassment for JAD’s ideas is, certainly, the evolution of meiotic genes.

He, however, appears to be beyond embarrassment, and is going for spectacular, brazen, raving nonsense to make up for his lack of “proper recognition”.  The dandelion is well-known to be a recent convert to asexuality, one likely enough to doom it to extinction if it continues for millions of years.

I suppose it’s worth noting once again the problems that eukaryotes have run into through the poorly “designed” evolution via their incorporation of asexually reproducing organisms, now the mitochondria.  These are sources of genetic disease out of proportion with the relatively scant genetic material in their genomes, which appears to be the reason why most mitochondria genes have migrated to the nucleus.  There recombination prevents excessive accumulation of deleterious mutations.

Perhaps I should not have fed the troll, but because this deals with actual facts, and JAD’s “facts” were so lousy, I thought it best to step in with the truth.

Comment #31424

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 02:08 PM (e) (s)

Thank you Neo-did. You are right on!
(This post originated in the urine trench).

John A. Davison

Comment #31426

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 21, 2005 02:15 PM (e) (s)

bump

Comment #31433

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 03:12 PM (e) (s)

I don’t recall which one of you morons claimed that the Semi-meiotic hypothesis was not testable. All that is required is a female frog known to carry a major chromosomal rearrangement in heterozygous form. Having found that female the next steps are as follows.

You induce ovulation in this frog and you squeeze her eggs into a dish containing pond water in which heavily irradiated frog sperm are swimming happily around waiting for an egg if you will. One of these sperm will enter each of her hundreds of eggs and turn that egg on. Now if nothing else is done. Each egg will proceed to eliminate the second polar body, become haploid and fail to develop. That group is known as the control group. Got that?

The next and only remaining step is to prevent that second meiotic division from taking place by any of a several available means ranging from the application of heat to chilling the eggs to subjecting the eggs to high hydrostatic pressure, all of which prevent the second meiotic division from taking place. Now if you are really lazy and have lots of eggs you don’t even have to do that because occasionally the second division fails spontaneously. All such cases yield diploid frogs of both sexes which are perfectly normal animals as we know from experiments I and others did way back in the sixties before some of you clowns were even born. Actually much of the detail was known as early as 1915 as I confirmed in the Manifesto which apparently no one here either has or even can read and of course comprehend. I don’t know what your problems are and don’t care to.

Exactly one half of the eggs from such a female will develop into frogs homozygous for the new chromosome rearrangement. The other half will be original wild types like the female frog which is the common mother to all of her progeny. Both in theory and principle the new chromosome homozygotes will be new species. Until these experiments have been performed and reported in the literature the Semi-meiotic hypothesis will remain as sound as can be and nothing any one says to the contrary will ever alter that conclusion.

I have omitted the rearing of the tadpoles through metamorphosis which requires lots of parboiled spinach and about six weeks. Got that?

The fact that such experiments have not been undertaken is understandable. The Darwimpians are not interested in performing an experiment that could, in a single afternoon, destroy their shabby hypothesis. They don’t even test their own thoroughly discredited hypothesis any more so it is no wonder they have abandoned the experimental method entirely in a vain attempt to save the most idiotic scheme ever concocted by mortal man.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

How do you like them Reuben’s on rye served up from Davison’s Soap Box Delicatessen? We use only the best kosher meats, blessed by the Rabbi.

Comment #31439

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 04:47 PM (e) (s)

So far today there have been 7 posts on this blog, only three on the Urinal. It seems I am a lot more interesting than what’s on the Wall. Exactly the same thing happened when EvC committed me to solitary confinement in “Boot Camp.” I’m pleased as punch. As near as I can see I’m keeping Panda’s Pathetic Pollex alive just as I did EvC when I was similarly confined in “Boot Camp.”

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

The one thing we learn from history is that we don’t learn from history. Keep them there wagons in a circle folks. Geronimo!

Comment #31449

Posted by darwinfinch on May 21, 2005 06:50 PM (e) (s)

I dig the hep asides of the commenters, but couldn’t you put JAD on a live web-cast?  I’m sure his twitching and jerking way of locomotion would interest/entertain, but end the need to listen to his unfunny, venomized ramblings.

  What unpleasant, silly, greedy, cowardly, deceitful, etc., people ALL the long-term crowd of anti-TOE are!

Comment #31452

Posted by John A. Davison on May 21, 2005 07:01 PM (e) (s)

Glen Davidson

I was referring to the genus Amoeba and any of the species in that genus such as Amoeba dubia. If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest you better be prepared to document it. Personally I don’t think you can. Write that down.

Who is next as I used to say over at EvC before they banned me.

Comment #31457

Posted by Rusty Catheter on May 21, 2005 07:40 PM (e) (s)

Since even prokaryotes have forms of genetic recombination, and since specific enzymes and recombination processes are well known to exist in amoeba, I think you are full of the usual BS. Go get an education, or at least take your professor’s advice and get a good idea.

Oh, and you left out pusillanimous.

Rustopher.

Comment #31467

Posted by Rusty Catheter on May 21, 2005 08:51 PM (e) (s)

Re 31433,

….and that and all other sorts of mutations occur and are propagated are some rate or another without artifice.

Hmmmm, I seem to remember that heritability of genetic change is not exactly incompatible with Darwin.

That being said, such major chromosomal rearrangements are generally fatally drastic, whereas cumulative smaller changes have a far better chance of survival.

Rustopher.

Comment #31491

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 01:38 AM (e) (s)

Cosely related animals that have significantly different chromosome numbers are definitely different species because their hybrid can’t carry out normal meiosis. The Muntjak is a classic example. I thought everybody knew that. But not Fungus foot.

This post originated in the urine trench.

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from the Big Front Loader (BFL).

Comment #31493

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 01:42 AM (e) (s)

Closely related animals that have significantly different chromosome numbers are definitely different species because their hybrid can’t carry out normal meiosis. The Muntjak is a classic example. I thought everybody knew that. But not Fungus foot.

This post originated in the urine trench.

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from the Big Front Loader (BFL).

Comment #31496

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 02:13 AM (e) (s)

Darwinfinch

There is as yet no theory of evolution (TOA). Evolution doesn’t require a theory as it is an undisputable fact. All that we have so far is a couple of thoroughly tested and failed hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism, neither of which is worth a nickel. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where. It is called the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which will one day be known as Bergian evolution in tribute to a great Russian scientist.

Custy Ratheter

Please produce evidence for sexual reproduction in the genus Amoeba. Just saying that it might be so doesn’t feed the bulldog don’t you know.

Is that the only thing you have to say about my thoughts concerning -“If it ain’t broke don’t fix it.” If it is I am disappointed.

How do you like them Concord grapes?

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from BFL

Comment #31499

Posted by Rusty Catheter on May 22, 2005 04:59 AM (e) (s)

you said genetic recombination. Doesn’t require gametes for the majority of the biomass around here, including unicellular eucaryotes. You *have* heard of phage, virions, viruses and those thingys yeast use, let alone those convenient satellite chromosomes in bacteria.

Rustopher.

Comment #31501

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 06:22 AM (e) (s)

Custy Ratheter

I did like hell. Can’t you read? In Post #31496, directly above, I said and I quote myself:

“Please provide evidence for sexual reproduction in the genus Amoeba.”

Where is it?

Did you know that Amoeba is immortal and never dies?
Did you now that Amoeba never needs to reproduce its DNA? Did you know that the secret to immortality is nothing more than continued growth and if you never stop growing you can live forever?
You leave me with the distinct impression that you don’t know any of these fundamental characteristics of living things. Now, if you or one of your numerous cronies and fellow members of the Benevolent Protectorate of Darwimpians (BPOD) ask nicely, I may, and I emphasize may, take the trouble to present the proof to you of these fundamentals that you seem  to have missed in your biological education if you ever had one. What is your background by the way or would you rather not get into that? I really don’t care if you do or don’t as it obviously doesn’t really matter to me in the least at this point. I just hope to God you aren’t a physicist like PaulP.

I’ll even explain why we all die if anyone is really interested, but ya gotta ask nice, don’t ya know.

I periodically invade forums like this one to enlighten the Phillistines if they will simply let me. That of course is exactly the problem. They won’t because they can’t cut it. Write that down.

It’s hard to believe isn’t it?

John A. Davison, B.S. (1950), Ph.D. (1955), SMBFL (2005)*

*Special Messenger from the Big Front Loader.

How do you like them Spanish omelets?

Comment #31512

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 08:06 AM (e) (s)

Sir,

Your argument must be very clear to you but I would thank you some patience. Are you saying that Darwinian evolution, powered by spontaneous mutations and other genetic errors, and filtered by natural selection, does not generate new species? That new species are produced only by drastic genetic re-arrangement?

By the way, one of my examples, maize (Zea mays) is a spontaneous hybrid of Central American grasses. Is maize a variety as seem to have stated?

Thanks in advance.

Comment #31514

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 08:33 AM (e) (s)

jaimito

The short answer to your question is an emphatic yes. Only varieties and subspecies can be generated by strctly sexual reproduction. I know of no documented examples to the contrary. I have repeatedly requested evidence that any contemporary species can be shown beyond doubt to be ancestral to any other such species. None has appeared. We see the products of a past and finished evolution, not evolution in action as the Darwimpians so blindly continue to believe.

Thank you for the excellent question presented in a civilized manner which is why I am willing to respond to it in the same tone.

John A. Davison, B.S. Ph.D. SMBFL

Comment #31515

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s)

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

Comment #31516

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 08:34 AM (e) (s)

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

Comment #31517

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 08:35 AM (e) (s)

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

Comment #31519

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 08:41 AM (e) (s)

Sorry for the repeated posting. Maize, is it a variety? Normally it does not fertile with Theosint, its presumed ancestor.

Man and chimp share almost all the genes, but we underwent several inversions and other re-arrangements. Are we the same species?

Comment #31523

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 09:01 AM (e) (s)

What I want to know is if B.S. stands for Bachelor of science why isn’t it D.PH. for Doctor of Philosophy? Why is it bass ackward, does anybody know? After all F.R.S. stands for Fellow of the Royal Society doesn’t it? M.D. stands for Medical Doctor doesn’t it? What gives with this Ph.D. crap?I’d really like to know.

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL.

Comment #31525

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 09:07 AM (e) (s)

jaimito

Of course we aren’t the same species and the ONLY reason we aren’t are those rearrangements you describe. Even if the hybrid proved to be viable it would be sterile for the same reason that any two forms that display basic differences in chromosome structure produce, at best, sterile hybrids. Meiotic pairing simply cannot be achieved and so unbalanced gametes are produced. I recommend a basic book in cytology for the details.

John A. Davison, B.S. , Ph.D., SMBFL.

Comment #31526

Posted by Rusty Catheter on May 22, 2005 09:20 AM (e) (s)

You like hell did in post 31452, more immediately above type with your very own hand:

“If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest…”

As with some other threads, if terms are like hell kept straight, fewer hellish problems ensue.

I prefer to think of sex having a viral origin, but that really is just my personal fancy. Maybe one day when I’m old and crotchety.

Rustopher

Comment #31527

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 09:33 AM (e) (s)

Sir,

You didnt answer why evolution has stopped, and why maize is not a new species originated in historic times, and not a variety.

I know man and chimp are not interfertile, they appear to have diverged because of the Rift Valley plus repeated inversions. It is a clear case of speciation. Regarding dogs, we already have several breeds that are almost infertile except when paired with the same breed. Even in our own species there are differencial fertilities that, if left alone, may have led to speciation. If that is the gist of your manifesto, I dont think modern evolutionary thought disagrees much with you.

Regarding Ph.D., it goes back to the Medioeval Guild System, and no one expects Ph.D.s to excel in Phylosophy nor in Medicine.

Comment #31529

Posted by jaimito on May 22, 2005 10:00 AM (e) (s)

BTW, I think amoebae undergoes periodical genetic rearrangements thanks to intraorganismic ploidy cycles. I dont like the sex & virus combo.

Comment #31534

Posted by 'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank on May 22, 2005 10:31 AM (e) (s)

I like GWW too, but he’s unproductive sometimes.

In terms of “productive”, GWW has the shit-flinging monkey beaten, hands down.  Even before he wakes up in the morning.

I say give *GWW* his own thread.  Kick the screaming monkey out into the wild.

Comment #31554

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 03:03 PM (e) (s)

In true Christian fashion, even though I am not one, I now invite ANYONE to post on MY BLOG. I only request that they treat me with a modicum of respect even though I don’t probably deserve it. Is that asking too much? I don’t think so. That includes Great White Wonder, Scott Page, assuming they are not one and the same, DaveScot, Dilliam Wembski, John Rennie, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Richard Dawkins and anyone else who is interested in receiving tuition-free instruction in basic biological principles, delivered with the clarity and profound insight that comes from 51 years of classroom and laboratory experience in the following institutions in chronological order since my Ph.D. Washington University, Princeton, Florida State University, Louisiana State University, RPI  (I can’t spell Renselaer) and last and definitely least, the University of Vermont. It’s all been down hill, don’t you know.

Come one, come all. You will all receive certificates at the end of the course provided you can survive a rigorous final exam by producing all the right answers.

Ypu may register right here at DAVISON’S SOAP BOX INC.

How do you like them genetically engineered rutabagas?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

Comment #31558

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 22, 2005 04:01 PM (e) (s)

I was referring to the genus Amoeba and any of the species in that genus such as Amoeba dubia. If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest you better be prepared to document it. Personally I don’t think you can. Write that down.

Well I’m not responding to you due to any wisdom in your reply, naturally.  I see you failed to deal with the more substantive issues I raised, like the evolution of meiotic genes (referred to in the link I gave) or the known problems that the lack of recombination of mitochondrial DNA cause for eukaryotes (the majority of eukaryotes retaining mitochondria, of course).  But that’s to be expected, there are many details that tell against your ideas, yet your over-arching preconceptions about God, “design”, and your own pre-eminence, blind you to them.

Regardless, I’ll go ahead and deal with your obtuseness for the sake of any other possible readers.  See, the Entamoeba’s genome has been studied well, both because of the hoped-for primitiveness of its lack of mitochondria (at least hystolica), and because various species can cause human illnesses.  Entamoeba is likely related to Amoeba, so we may turn to its genome when someone makes an argument based on ignorance, not only as an example of an organism whose sexual habits are unknown yet which obviously were sexual at least in the past, but also due to its likely relatedness (if not especially close) to the Amoeba genus.  That’s if the genus Amoeba was obviously intended, which is not clear when someone simply writes “Amoeba” outside of the non-scientific literature.

The real lesson of the link I posted (http://euplotes.biology.uiowa.edu/web/jmlpubls/rml05.pdf) was not whether or not Amoeba or Entamoeba has been sexual in the past and may (or may not) be at present, but that every last eukaryote whose genes have been well studied has shown evidence of recombination in the past (an unusually distant past for some rotifers, nevertheless much less time than the time since eukaryotes evolved sexual reproduction).  I focused on the Entamoeba genome yet hoped that the overall lesson might sink in for most readers.

This is the sort of general knowledge that a good biology teacher should both understand and deal with in an honest and forthright manner.  This is the sort of general understanding that we fight for when we oppose ID and creationism, as well as your own blatantly interventionist “hypothesis”.  We fight the piecemealization of science that IDists and you try to impose.  I brought in a link that showed the general nature of eukaryotes to have been sexual at some point in evolution, and you try to appeal to the probable present gap in knowledge of the genus Amoeba’s genome both as a defense of your poor argumentation, and to get around your apparent lack of knowledge that no exception to “historic” eukaryotic sexuality has ever been found in comprehensive genome studies.

If you really think something has to be proved about the specific genus Amoeba it is your original claim that requires some backing evidence, since if Amoebas have never had a sexual reproduction cycle this would be a first among eukaryotes.  And if you feel confident in this, leave off fighting in the latrines for your semi-meiotic “hypothesis”, and get out there to get the evidence for your claims.  I wouldn’t bother (even if I had the resources), since Amoeba is not a particularly important genus economically or otherwise, and also because I understand the general pattern that is apparent in “table 2” of the link that I have now provided twice.  If you can show an exception to the eukaryote pattern, you’ll at last redeem yourself from the grave you’ve dug yourself into.

You might also explain (using acceptable procedures and evidence) mitochondrial genetic problems that are now ascribed to lack of recombination, and the obvious evolutionary imprints left in evolved meiotic genes and in sex chromosomes.  You have much to do, and not much time to do it in.

Comment #31560

Posted by Alex Merz on May 22, 2005 04:56 PM (e) (s)

Glen,

Your replies re. Amoeba certainly beat me to the punch. I’d add only that Davison would be sell-served to take a look at last week’s issue of nature, in which the genomic sequence of Dictyosteium was reported, along with a great deal of evidence of horizontal gene transfer in its evolution. Davison of course chooses an organism for which genomic data are not yet available, and builds a bizarre house of cards on that lack of a foundation.

I have a hypothesis that might explain some of John Davison’s odd behavior. It is that he was trained as a classical embryologist but that, for whatever reason — stubbornness, selective stupidity, mental illness, laziness — he was utterly unable to assimilate the flood of molecular biological and developmental genetic information that began to emerge in the early- to mid-1980s and has only accelerated over the last two decades. This is exactly when his publication record began to tank, and his loopy and untestable ideas came to the forefront. It’s too bad. He made a contribution once, and could have continued to do so.

Comment #31569

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 06:00 PM (e) (s)

Glen Davidson and Alex Merz together since you are in perfect agreement. Groupthinks are like that don’t you know.

I see you are quite unable to respond to my specific question. Why did it take you such a long insulting and denigrating harangue to demonstrate that?

The simple truth is that there is no evidence that any true species on this planet ever arose through obligatory sexual means from an ancestor who engaged in the same practice. The primary and perhaps sole role for sexual reproduction has been and continues to be that of stabilizing evolutionary change by limiting it entirely to the production of varieties and in some instances subspecies. Many organisms cannot even manage that. Neither of you can produce a single bit of hard evidence to the contrary and the sad part of it is that you don’t even realize that you can’t.

You both are so utterly brain-washed by the mindless, idiotic, atheist inspired and perpetuated Darwimpian fairy tale that the idea of a predetermined, executed and terminated  evolutionary scenario is completely beyond your capacity to even imagine even though everything we are now learning about the origins and great antiquity of all molecular mechanisms points directly to that unavoidable conclusion.

Dictyostelium, not Dictyosteium, is not Amoeba and  neither is capapble of even speciation let alone the formation of any of the higher categories. Like it or not, there is not a shred of evidence in favor of creative organic evolution in the present biota. If there are such organisms, and there may well be, they have yet to be discovered. One thing is for sure. Such creatures will not be reproducing by obligatory sexual means. Of that I remain certain or I never would have published a single evolutionary paper in the last 21 years.

I am unimpressed with your bravado and innuendo about my rationality as well. You are just two more representatives of that arrogant, supremely confident mentality that invariably characterizes groupthinks such as Panda’s Pathetic Pollex. Grasse called it “Olympian assurance” I call it  ideological ignorance and monumental moronic myopia myself. 

I was never trained as a classical embryologist. My background was in General Physiology and Physical Chemistry. I was entirely self educated as an embryologist and “training” is for animals and Darwimpian mystics not for real scientists like myself.

How do you like them lollipops? Be sure to take the wrappers off before you suck on them.

Who is next?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

Comment #31577

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 22, 2005 06:27 PM (e) (s)

I’d like to see an analysis of the cryptic speciation reported in Cordylochernes scorpioides. The researchers say that there is post-zygotic reproductive isolation between populations.

Comment #31581

Posted by Glen Davidson on May 22, 2005 06:44 PM (e) (s)

Well I’d hate to be praised by anyone as worthless as JAD has become. ‘Nough said re one as intellectual dishonest as he.

Comment #31584

Posted by Henry J on May 22, 2005 06:48 PM (e) (s)

Say, what happens when this thread gets too long for Davison’s browser to handle it?

Henry

Comment #31585

Posted by John A. Davison on May 22, 2005 07:04 PM (e) (s)

I love that term “cryptic speciation.” It is almost as good as “incipient speciation” which is what Dobzhansky ended up using after he was quite unable to transform Drosophila through the most intensive and extended selection imaginable. Natural or artificial selection when carried to extreme invariable leads to loss of fitness. I doubt if Dobzhansky’s final stocks even still exist. He probably selected them to extinction. He was a decent man and admitted his failure which is very much to his credit as a confessed Darwinian. He should have stayed in Russia under the guidance of his mentor Leo Berg. He would have accomplished so much more I am sure. He wrote a Foreword to the paperback edition of Nomogenesis. He finished that foreword with the following:

“As a person, he was remarkably kind and completely free of any pomposity or supercilious airs of a scientific bigwig (by no means a usual quality among famous Soviet scientists). A scientific beginner could always ask for and receive wise and friendly advice from him. The present writer will never forget such advice, received a few days before his departure for the new world.”

I repeat my conviction that soon Darwinian evolution, a myth, will be replaced with Bergian evolution a process he described as follows:

“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments.”
Nomogenesis, page 406

Berg was, in my carefully considered opinion, much more than a great naturalist which all agree he was. He was a prophet in his own day in a class all by himself. Without his wisdom and insight I would never have been able to publish my own papers. I owe him a great debt and have said so in hard copy.

How do you like them dried plums (prunes)?

John A. Davison, B.S. Ph.D. SMBFL

Comment #31626

Posted by Wesley R. Elsberry on May 23, 2005 12:33 AM (e) (s)

I noticed that the “dried plums (prunes)” were remarkably unforthcoming concerning the item at issue, the speciation noted by researchers in Cordylochernes scorpioides. If you’ve never heard of that species before, just say so.

Comment #31637

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 02:52 AM (e) (s)

jaimito

I am not a person who “enjoys being thrown out.”
What I enjoy is proving that by being thrown out I have established beyond doubt that my adversaries were bigots totally unable to accept any views not in perfect accord with their own. You are welcome in my blog called Davison’s Soap Box. Perhaps someone here in the latrine would be so kind as to direct you to it.

This comment originated in the Bathroom Wall.

Comment #31639

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 03:14 AM (e) (s)

I am happy to admit that I never heard of Cordylochernes scorpioides. I presume it is an animal. It would take a great deal more than the demonstration of speciation, cryptic, incipient or otherwise, to make me abandon the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Hypotheses are to be abandoned after they have been tested not before. Why the Darwinian myth persists remains a mystery as it is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science. It should have been abandoned immediately following the publication of Mivart’s Genesis of Species in 1871. Actually it was by some of the finest minds of two centuries. I won’t list them again here as I have done it  several times both here and elsewhere.

How do you like them dried grapes (raisins)?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

Comment #31650

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 06:39 AM (e) (s)

I am delighted to see that the Administrator of Panda’s Thumb is among those willing to interact with me here on Davison’s Soap Box. I regard that as a sign of progress. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with any and all. That is why I came here in the first place. I hope it can be done in a civilized fashion which seems not to have always been the fashion at internet forums generally.

Comment #31655

Posted by Alan on May 23, 2005 08:21 AM (e) (s)

Posted  by JAD 31346

Alan
Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism,…I hope this helps to answer your question.

Not really, professor. I was hoping you could summarise or define the concept of Semi-meiosis. Also if you could do the same for your Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Another poster would like to hear more from you. See Bathroom Wall
Posted by jaimito on the Bathroom Wall  31636 

His proposal that meiotic rearrangements play a fundamental role in the creation of new species, is not looney at all. That natural selection tends to protect and conserve existing species, well, it may be conceivable.

Comment #31658

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 10:13 AM (e) (s)

Yes please, all that want to seriously communicate with me, go to the new cell they were kind enough  to build just for me called Davison’s Soap Box. God only knows how long they will permit me to orate, pontificate, promulgate, propagate, fulminate and desecrate before they decide to terminate, fumigate and irreversibly eliminate me from any further participation in Panda’s Pathetic Pollex.

I’ll see you in my Soap Box if it is still there.

How do you like them hush puppies?

This post originated in the two hole out house with the little crescent moon on the door and the bucket of lime and the corn cobs inside. You know the one.

John A. davison

Comment #31659

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 10:18 AM (e) (s)

Yes please, all that want to seriously communicate with me, go to the new cell they were kind enough  to build just for me called Davison’s Soap Box. God only knows how long they will permit me to orate, pontificate, promulgate, propagate, fulminate and desecrate before they decide to terminate, fumigate and irreversibly eliminate me from any further participation in Panda’s Pathetic Pollex.

I’ll see you in my Soap Box if it is still there.

How do you like them hush puppies?

This post originated in the two hole out house with the little crescent moon on the door and the bucket of lime and the corn cobs inside. You know the one.

John A. davison

Comment #31661

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 10:34 AM (e) (s)

Alan

Thank you for your interest but I hope that you understand that there is no need for me to explain something that I have already published. I have summarized my views in a form specifically intended for consumption by undergraduate students. I refer you to my home page and the unpublished but very readable:

“An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change.”

It is about 50 pages long and presents the arguments and their basis in detail. It would be different if I hadn’t already presented my work in the form of several papers and the Manifesto but I am not prepared to duplicate that material here. I hope you can understand that. Read first and then come back with specific questions. I will be happy to try and answer them.

John A. Davison

Comment #31662

Posted by Alex Merz on May 23, 2005 10:45 AM (e) (s)

Re. Amoeba:

Your argument is that absence of evidence for recombination is evidence of the absence of recombination.

Are you making this stupid argument because you are stupid, because you are dishonest, or both?

Comment #31669

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 11:25 AM (e) (s)

Alan

I am not prepared to repeat what has already been presented in a form for undergraduate biology student consumption. I refer you to my home page.

“An Evolutionary Manifesto: A new Hypothesis For Organic Change.”

It is around 50 pages long and I recommend you start with the Preface so you will know what to expect in the body of the text. You may not choose to proceed. That is of course entirely up to you.

John A. Davison

Having considered that material, if you still have questions I will be happy to answer them if I can.
I hope you understand.

Comment #31670

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 11:31 AM (e) (s)

Malex Erz

In order to gratify your sociopathic tendencies I’ll answer both. You no longer exist so don’t bother posting here if you expect a response from me because you won’t get it.

John A. Davison

Comment #31671

Posted by John A. Davison on May 23, 2005 11:33 AM (e) (s)

Malex Erz

In order to gratify your sociopathic tendencies I’ll answer both. You no longer exist so don’t bother posting here if you expect a response from me because you won’t get it.

John A. Davison

Comment #31686

Posted by Ginger Yellow on May 23, 2005 12:37 PM (e) (s)

This is the funniest comment thread I’ve ever read on a science board. If you ever get tired of tearing down the scientific establshment, John, I suggest you try stand-up.

Comment #31688

Posted by Alex Merz on May 23, 2005 12:53 PM (e) (s)

Thank you for your interest but I hope that you understand that there is no need for me to explain something that I have already published.

This is why you fail (this and, to be fair, the quality of your thinking). If you are serious about your ideas, and actually want them to be accepted*, you must be out there explaining them. You must engage your adversaries.

If you want to change science, you could do worse than to emulate Peter Mitchell’s example: he wrote, called, harangued, gave seminars, gave more seminars, responded to critics, and most critically he did new experiments — a LOT of new experiments — to establish an empirical base of support for the chemiosmotic hypothesis.

*I don’t think you actually WANT your ideas accepted, or tested. You’d much rather see yourself as a pariah.

Comment #31690

Posted by Alan on May 23, 2005 12:59 PM (e) (s)

Professor

I have a day job and am unable to devote enough time to read your work in-depth. I have read your manifesto and it seemed to me that you considered the process of semi-meiosis important. I think I undestand meiosis, but I cannot work out what you mean by semi-meiosis. If it is too much trouble to expand on it here, perhaps you could point out to me where in your work I could find a definition.

Comment #31691

Posted by Alan on May 23, 2005 01:02 PM (e) (s)

Professor

I have a day job and am unable to devote enough time to read your work in-depth. I have read your manifesto and it seemed to me that you considered the process of semi-meiosis important. I think I undestand meiosis, but I cannot work out what you mean by semi-meiosis. If it is too much