Friday, June 30, 2006

Professor Davison's Creed

John Davison contributes to a thread at EvC in a Showcase forum. This is for bloggers with a history to enable them to participate in a thread without invading and derailing other threads. One downside is that that blogger can demand the exclusion of any other participant. In John's case, this is pretty much everyone. Then he complains he doesn't get much feedback! So to help John's ideas reach a wider audience (not by much, I admit) I am pasting below John's list of his convictions.

Maybe this will stimulate some sort of response. I am now convinced of the following:

1. Evolution, including true speciation and the formation of any of the higher categories, is a thing of the past.

2. Sexual reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary device. It is much too conservative to ever produce anything very different from what it already is and always was. It has been demonstrated only to be able to produce varieties and that only in certain forms. None of those varieties are incipient species.

3. Population genetics never had anything to do with evolution beyond the distribution of Mendelian alleles in sexually reproducing populations, populations which can only undergo subspeciation. Subspecies are not incipient species either.

4. Allelic mutations have played no role in creative evolution but have probably played a role in some but not all extinctions.

5. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny, has been driven entirely from within with no role for the environment beyond that of acting as a stimulus or releaser of latent front-loaded specific information.

6. The entire Darwinian model is an illusion based on the assumption that phylogeny HAD an extrinsic cause. Such cause cannot be demonstrated because it never existed.

7. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.

8. The number of times and the locations in the geological column when life was created are unknown as are the number of creators and their nature.

47 comments:

Alan Fox said...

There was also this post at AtBC as below, which John (or DaveScot) might like to address.

Quote (bystander @ June 30 2006,01:51)
Going back a bit, Dave talks about his belief in front-loading. I assume that this means that everything was loaded in the original DNA. What does this mean exactly?

Does this mean that you could find in a jellyfish DNA the information to create a human? If it does then it's testable isn't it?

If it's just that God created the initial ancestor and started it all, how is that different from Evolution?

The only other thing I can think of is that the original critter had DNA that created everything and DNA gets thrown out as species develop. That is as the first amphibians left the water they threw out the fin making genes and the fish knowing that amphibians had evolved throw out the genes for making legs.

Or is it just me trying to get that pitiful level of detail stuff.

jujuquisp said...

Alan,
Egging John on like this is entertaining to us who are sane, but cruel to the target. John has enough trouble trying to change his soiled Depends® by himself. I think we should let John sputter on while we giggle from the sidelines, but I think actually prodding him to get a reaction is a little cruel. Let's leave the poor septagenarian alone to his self-proclaimed "genius".

Alan Fox said...

Well, I've done it now. And I am hamstrung by my own no deletions policy. Anyhow, I am sure John enjoys the attention.

haliaeetus said...

1. Evolution, including true speciation and the formation of any of the higher categories, is a thing of the past.

Define "higher categories."

2. Sexual reproduction is incompetent as a progressive evolutionary device. It is much too conservative to ever produce anything very different from what it already is and always was. It has been demonstrated only to be able to produce varieties and that only in certain forms. None of those varieties are incipient species.

Make up your mind, either sexual reproduction conserves, or produces varieties. It can't do both.

3. Population genetics never had anything to do with evolution beyond the distribution of Mendelian alleles in sexually reproducing populations, populations which can only undergo subspeciation. Subspecies are not incipient species either.


Again, more varieties. Ever hear of ring species?

4. Allelic mutations have played no role in creative evolution but have probably played a role in some but not all extinctions.

And your proof of this is what? The PVC munching bacterium come to mind as refutation to this assertion.

5. Phylogeny, exactly like ontogeny, has been driven entirely from within with no role for the environment beyond that of acting as a stimulus or releaser of latent front-loaded specific information.

More assertion w/o evidence. Your "front-loader" was clairvoyant and knew or managed environmental stimuli?

6. The entire Darwinian model is an illusion based on the assumption that phylogeny HAD an extrinsic cause. Such cause cannot be demonstrated because it never existed.

More unsupported declarative statements.

7. There has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny.

Ditto.

8. The number of times and the locations in the geological column when life was created are unknown as are the number of creators and their nature.

Based on the flawed a priori belief that life was created. How would you go about determining the number of creation events?

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox lies again or is it still? I have avoided no one and invited anyone who chooses and said so in no uncertain terms. Is there no limit to Alan's mendacity? Aparently not. In fact I have deliberately refused to choose an adversary and explained why. It is not my fault if there is no opposition. Spravid Dinger committed suicide there with his lying, denigrating mouth and Ray Martinez found it necessary to use the F word on me. Why don't you send one of your atheist cronies over so I can humiliate the jerk publicly. I nominate Pott L. Scage, the man with a thousand aliases. You better hurry because I already informed them that if my thread loses the green bar I will disappear with it. I have better things to do than cast pearls before you know what. They invited me confident that they could humilite me and they have done nothing but expose their own insecurity for the world to see. I am happy as a clam about the whole thing.

I guess this is the sort of two faced lying hypocrisy one must expect from someone who regards Richard Dawkins as his hero!

Thanks for one more exposing yourself as the low class mindless trash that you are and always have been. And thanks for reprinting my latest challenge to the Darwimps.

It is inconceivable that anyone could be as so completely out of touch with reality as you so obviously are.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Needless to say -

I love it so!

Do I really have to define higher categories for halitosis? Did he ever hear of genus family, order or class I wonder.

I can't believe this blog.

Bye now.

Biogeer said...

It is inconceivable that anyone could be as so completely out of touch with reality as you so obviously are.

Priceless irony.

Alan Fox said...

John says:

Falan Ox lies again or is it still?

About what, John? You are very free with that charge, but what, specifically, do you suggest I am lying about? Anyone who visits that thread can plainly see that you have asked for any critical poster to be excluded, and nowhere have you made any attempt to respond in a meaningful way to anyone's questions.

JohnADavison said...

biogeer and halitosis

Why don't one of you or better yet both respond to my latest challenge aver at EvC? Nobody else has. Just think, you could be famous some day as the guys that proved Davison is a quack. Sniping here from behind your stinkng aliases doesn't impress me very much. You are both cowardly intellectual garbage or you would jump at the opportunity. Go massage one another and get it all over each other.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

Nobody else has. Just think, you could be famous some day as the guys that proved Davison is a quack.

Much as I would love to go to a forum where you can whine your way to banning those who you don't like or can't deal with, I like watching you act like a fool here just fine.

If one's goal was fame, dealing with you would be a complete waste of time; you are utterly irrelevant - and your quackhood is not in question.

Alan Fox said...

Obviously because the moderation policy sucks there, John.

PS That last sentence sails close to the wind, and is totally irrelevant.

secondclass said...

Just think, you could be famous some day as the guys that proved Davison is a quack.

Now that would shake the foundations of biology. We'd have to remove the PEH chapters from all of the college textbooks, technical journals would have to repudiate all of JAD's articles that they've published, and research programs across the world would be cancelled.

Meanwhile, back in reality, people would be saying "John Davison? You mean the Canadian cricket player?"

JohnADavison said...

secondclass my foot. You have no class at all, just another mindless chance-worshipping Darwimp. Naturally -

I love it so!

secondclass said...

You have no class at all, just another mindless chance-worshipping Darwimp.

Sadly, this is true. Someday, if I work hard enough, I may be as widely respected and admired as you are.

jujuquisp said...

LOL@"respected and admired". I seriously think that JAD has organic brain disease. Were you ever an alcoholic, JAD?

haliaeetus said...

Outhouse Davisucks says:
"Do I really have to define higher categories for halitosis? Did he ever hear of genus family, order or class I wonder."

Sure I've heard of them. You said there were no species which have evolved to a higher category, which would mean higher than that which exists.

JohnADavison said...

If you want to ridicule me do it at EvC. The last two, Ray Martinez and Spravid Dinger that tried it were shut off by the administrator not by by me. Got that? Write that down. Come one come all. I have denied no one the opportunity to make a perfect ass of himself. I especially want Falan Ox to show up. He better hurry because I am getting sick and tired of being abused by subnormal imbeciles both here as elsewhere on the idiotic internet.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

If you want to ridicule me do it at EvC.

How about... no.

Alan Fox said...

I especially want Falan Ox to show up.

Ooh, John.

You demanded and got me excluded from your ""showcase" after I posted "Hi John

Would you be interested in replying to a few questions from me?

Regards
Alan Fox"


You posted "I request that Alan Fox be excluded from any further participation here for exactly the same reason that DaveScot was. It is my conviction that he has absolutely nothing of value to contribute here or elsewhere.

Now lets get on with it or I am out of here. My patience wears thin."


(See posts 165 to 179)

JohnADavison said...

Well folks, since EvC has apparently refusd to grant me ordinary posting rights, I have abandoned any further communication with them at "showcase." They obviously invited me there to embarrass me only to succeed in making perfect fools of themselves in the process. That goes for this hog trough too, run as it is by Falan Ox, a proudly confessed Dichard Rawkins fan!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Naturally -

I love it so!

Doppelganger said...

http://www.evcforum.net/cgi-bin/dm.cgi?action=msg&f=5&t=230&m=1

JohnADavison said...

I see Pott L. Scage has now surfaced here again. What a homozygous jerk. I imagine he is a big Dichard Rawkins fan as well. Right Pott L? Why didn't you mouth off at EvC when I welcomed you, you spineless coward? It is too late now as I dispensed with that whole mindless "groupthink" yesterday evening when they refused to agree to my very reasonable terms. EvC, like Panda's Thumb, is just one more Darwinian Alamo populated by unpublished, mindless, intellectual dwarfs not one of whom ever had an original idea in his entire life.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I also just told off well named secondclass over at "brainstorms."
They will probably give me hell for it but I couldn't care less.

Who is next I wonder? Don't be shy. God knows I'm not!

Needless to say -

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

I also just told off well named secondclass over at "brainstorms."

John,

Are you referring to this thread? It seems to me you interject a few non-sequiturs, which make no useful contribution to the discussion about the second law of thermodynamics. You would appear less ridiculous if you confined your remarks at ISCID to subjects in which you have some knowledge.

In any event, I doubt secondclass is much bothered by your attack, if that is what it was meant to be, about the same as being savaged by a dead sheep*.

*Denis Healey referring to Geoffrey Howe, who attacked him ineffectually in a parliamentary debate.

But I am pleased to see you back, and sorry it didn't work out at EvC. They don't realise what a charming and erudite contributor you can be when you try. I was fascinated by some OT remarks you made once about the Golden Mean. I can't now recall where I came across them.

Alan Fox said...

I just had a read through the thread that doppelganger linked to.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose!

It makes interesting reading. You really don't change, do you, John.

jujuquisp said...

John is getting a little too redundant. He spews the same old mantra day in and day out. I seriously think there is some organic brain damage involved in his disorder. I vote that we ignore the tragic old man and let him piddle with himself.

Alan Fox said...

jujuquisp

Ignore away, but please try not to use any more offensive language. Any stronger and I will delete.

jujuquisp said...

Alan,
I'm not sure what word I used is considered offensive. Please accept my apologies if something I said was inappropriate. JAD, though, seems to load every post with offensive material. I doubt he'll ever apologize for it, though.

JohnADavison said...

I have never found it necessary to apologize for anything I have either published or presented on idiotic internet forums like this one. jujuquiap is an intellectual and moral pervert and Falan Ox is a fan of Dichard Rawkins, the biggest phony in the history of science. So much for each of them. Pott L. Scage is also still living in the fantasy world of random mutation and natural selection. It is only natural that they should all gravitate to this flame pit, just another atheist "groupthink," like Panda's Thumb and EvC. What a trio of losers they really are, just like "The Three Stooges" of the evolutionary literature, Mernst Ayr, Gephen J. Stould and Dichard Rawkins.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Naturally -

I love it so!

jujuquisp said...

Am I Curly, Moe, or Larry? Just as long as I'm not one of those loser stooges like Shemp or Joe.

Alan Fox said...

Just trying to be consistent, jujuquisp. I wouldn't want anyone thinking they are being treated unfairly. I was applying the rule, "don't say anything that I would feel embarrassed explaining to my mother!"

Alan Fox said...

John,

What do you ay to the suggestion from Scott (who has the advantage of having read "Evolution of Living Things"), that Grassé did not share your views on origins.

JohnADavison said...

Who ever said everyone had to share my views?

There is absolutely nothing in Grasse's writings that is incompatibele with the pEH and, as I just responded on your most recent thread, much that does.

As for both Falan Ox and jujuquisp, Keep you sorry degenerate selves out of my blog because if either of you show up again you will only be deleted. Got that? Write that down.

If Ox is stupid enough to allow my presence here that is his problem not mine. I always did suspect he had a masochistic streak. He keeps on proving it.

Needless to say -

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

That goes for Pott L. Scage and Spravid Dinger as well!

haliaeetus said...

Funny, I responded to Outhouse Davisucks screed here, but all he could muster was one quip about higher categories. Why would I go to EvC to still get no answers?

Alan Fox said...

If Ox is stupid enough to allow my presence here that is his problem not mine.

John, don't worry. You are not a problem; you are an experiment.

JohnADavison said...

I recomeend halitosis and every other anonymous cowardly loony tune go to EvC "showcase" to observe how this scientist deals with ideologues wherever he finds them.

I also recommend that all visit my blog to see the depths to which jujuquisp has descended in order to sabotage my blog. He is without question the unwiped ass of the internet right on a par with Spravid Dinger, another two-faced lying hypocrit. No wonder they hate each other's guts. They are cast from the same egocentric, sociopathic mold.

Needless to say -

I love it so!

Doppelganger said...

"There is absolutely nothing in Grasse's writings that is incompatibele with the pEH and, as I just responded on your most recent thread, much that does."

Of course. That is always the way, is it not? EVERYTHING supports the fringe claim, and nothing can be seen as against it. It is just so... right.

I guess the fact that Grasse saw nothing in chromosome rearrangements as having a big impact on speciation is just irrelevant, even though that is a big part of Davison's views.

Alan Fox said...

John,

You are testing the limit of "my mother wouldn't like it" with that last comment.

JohnADavison said...

Pott L. Scage and Falan Ox, both "prescribed" losers.

Since when does any author have to agree with my conclusions in order to be referenced by me? Pierre Grasse was the most prominent French zoologist of his generation as was Leo Berg the most prominent Russian one of his. It is not surprising that Grasse might not agree with Goldschmidt and Schindewolf, Germans, Berg, a Russian and Bateson and Punnett, Englishmen, when all three nations had humiliated the French in war after war. There has always been a strong nationalist flavor in evolutionary writings and, unlike Bateson, Punnett, Berg and Goldschmidt, I suspect Grasse let that influence his writings to a certain degree. None of the others ever did as near as I can determine. Nevertheless, he remains one the most effective critics of the Darwinian fairy tale and one of my most valued sources.

Darwinism never had anything to do with creative evolution, something all of my sources stood in solid agreement on. It remains the greatest hoax in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. That any objective observer could still accept any aspect of it is unthinkable. That obviously excludes both Pott L. Scage and Falan Ox, both of whom so obviously still buy it lock, stock and barrel.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"Darwinians of the world unite. You have nothing to lose but your natural selection."
after Karl Marx

Needless to say -

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

Incidentally I don't have a "creed." I have a brand new hypothesis in full accord with everything we really know about the history of life on this planet.

"Science commits suicide when she adopts a creed."
Thomas Henry Huxley

So much for the slowest yet surest form of suicide known - neoDarwinism.

Naturally -

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

It is not surprising that Grasse might not agree with Goldschmidt and Schindewolf, Germans, Berg, a Russian and Bateson and Punnett, Englishmen, when all three nations had humiliated the French in war after war.

I suspect your grasp of European history is not quite as powerful as that of evolutionary biology.

I note that Bateson and Dawkins had some interchange of ideas which Dawkins refers to in "The Extended Phenotype" (see p98). He quotes Bateson: "Indeed, using Dawkins' own style of teleological argument one could claim that the bird is the nest's way of making another nest."

JohnADavison said...

Onve again Falan Ox shows his profound lack of common knowledge and ordinary sense.

It is quite impossible for Bateson and Dawkins to ever have communicated with one another as Willim Bateson died long before Dawkins was born.

"Stifle yourself, Dingbat."
Archie Bunker

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

This was of course Gregory Bateson, William Bateson's son.

Doppelganger said...

"Since when does any author have to agree with my conclusions in order to be referenced by me?"


They do not. Yet this does not stop you form heaping accolades upon them as if by elevating their status it will seem incorrect to disagree with them, at least when you can spin their statements such that it appears they are in agreement with one of your zany claims. Just like that Romer diagram...


"Pierre Grasse was the most prominent French zoologist of his generation as was Leo Berg the most prominent Russian one of his."

Oh, well, clearly whatever they have to say on any issue is absolutley correct.

Unless, of course, they do not agree with you...

JohnADavison said...

Nonsense, Pott L. Scage, It is I who agrees with them, some of the finest biologists of two centuries. Who are your heroes, Mernst Ayr, Gephen J. Stould and Dichard Rawkins, the "Three Stooges" of evolutionary theory?

I'll just bet they are, none a scientist by the wildest stretch of the imagination!

God but this is fun!

Bye now,

JohnADavison said...

It wasn't Bateson's son Gregory either Falan Ox. Gregory Bateson was born in 1903. It was some other shirt-tailed relative of William Bateson.

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Oh dear, you are correct, John. Please accept my apologies. It was Sir Patrick Bateson (grandson of a cousin of William Bateson) who made the "bird's nest" remarks in a review of Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene". Although it was possible that Gregory Bateson read and commented on Dawkins' book, as he was still working and publishing until his death in 1980.

I should have remembered this exchange with you from a while ago. (I was posting as Xavier).

JohnADavison said...

Thanks for that link back to my post at UD. Brilliant wasn't I.
I own this blog!

Bye now.