Tuesday, July 04, 2006

John Davison's sources

A recurrent theme in threads, here and in other places, where John Davison's ideas on evolution have been discussed is his list of sources. The french zoologist, Pierre-Paul Grassé (1895-1985) and author of the mammoth reference work "Traité de Zoologie" (1963) is the most recent of John's sources. John quotes a book written by Grassé in 1973 (available in English translation from 1977 as "Evolution of Living Organisms") when he was the same age as John is now, 78. This book is not listed on Amazon.fr and Google does not yield much information about his late work, other than from creationist websites.

Grassé appears to have had a distinguished career, becoming president of the French Acadamy of Science, and it seems odd to me that his last work would receive so little attention if it were as controversial as John asserts. One problem with Grassé is he unavailable for comment, and his book is not widely accessible. I seem to glean, from the little available about Grassé, that he was a staunch Catholic, and might fit into the category "theistic evolutionist", taking the Catholic church's line on evolution being part of God's creation.

Am I misrepresenting anything here, John? I welcome your response.

85 comments:

JohnADavison said...

Grasse's book is available at any decent library and can be purchased at Amazon, Barnes and Noble and elsewhere. You will find very little of a religious nature in any of his writings. I know of only one reference to God.

"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 166, his emphasis.

"You can lead a man to the literature but you cannot make him read it."
John A. Davison

You are a loser Falan Ox so quit demonstrating it for all to see.
On second thought don't.

I love it so!

johndarius said...

Alan,

Most libraries have available an online search engine called "WorldCat". WorldCat will retrieve all libraries worldwide having a particular publication.

Using this engine, I found that 566 libraries have "Evolution of Living Organisms" in their possession. I am certain that most libraries in France will have this book.

jujuquisp said...

JAD,
Why do you persist in being RUDE to anyone that disagrees with you???? Quit calling people "losers", "homozygous idiots", "swine", etc. I'm surprised Alan has allowed you to act like a fool on his blog this long. Have some dignity, JAD, and people might respond to you with a little more respect.

Alan Fox said...

johndarius

I have no doubt that the English translation of Grassé's book is widely available in the States, judging by how much it is promoted on creationist websites. Please check here and you will see 52 entries for Grassé, but no mention of "Evolution of Living Organisms".

My point is that Grassé was a hugely respected zoologist, whose books are widely available in France. His last work, however, is out of print.

France being a country where creationism is unknown as a concept (creationism being American in origin and only having managed to spread though to its Anglo-Saxon cultural cousins), and his last book seems to have little general appeal here.

JohnADavison said...

Please all visit my blog to find the depths to which jujuquisp has descended in order to denigrate me and my blog. This man is even worse than Spravid Dinger if thst is conceivable. They are both genetic flotsam and jetsam.

Jujuquisp

I don't want any respect from anyone anywhere ever as my work like that of my sources speaks for itself. It will be remembered when you and all others like you are forgotten and long gone.

Biogeer said...

I don't want any respect from anyone anywhere ever as my work like that of my sources speaks for itself. It will be remembered when you and all others like you are forgotten and long gone.

delusion, n. - A false belief strongly held in spite of invalidating evidence, especially as a symptom of mental illness.

johndarius said...

Alan,

>>France being a country where creationism is unknown as a concept (creationism being American in origin and only having managed to spread through to its Anglo-Saxon cultural cousins), and his last book seems to have little general appeal here.<<

There are differences in Grassé’s view of creation and 'creationism' I am sure. 'Creationism', has its roots in the rise of American religious fundamentalism circa 1900. This was an attempt to negate the rise of secularism, which Darwinism was viewed as a contributing factor.

I have not read the book, but Grassé, I don't think, was religiously motivated in writing Evolution of Living Organisms. Based on the only one reference to God, it would seem that Grassé is writing as a scientist, and from his studies, honestly does not feel Darwinism is correct in supplying the answers to life's origins.

As to why the book is not promoted in France, there could be a number of reasons. One is that French biologists may look disapprovingly at the use of this work in promoting ‘fundamentalistic’ creationism. Or they may consider this book a fringe work. The important question to ask is, - Why did Grassé have anti-Darwinist views? All biologists, French or otherwise, should read his book, especially in view of the fact that Grassé had an ‘encyclopedic knowledge of the living world’.

Most PhD and research biologists become too narrowly focused in their work, assuming that the evidence from paleontology and elsewhere supports a Darwinian interpretation of life. How many biologists have objectively and critically examined the evidence of Darwinism? How many just go along with tide? It seems Grassé was one that didn’t.

Biogeer said...

Most PhD and research biologists become too narrowly focused in their work, assuming that the evidence from paleontology and elsewhere supports a Darwinian interpretation of life.

Would you care to provide some evidence for this dubious assertion?

Chris Hyland said...

"Most PhD and research biologists become too narrowly focused in their work, assuming that the evidence from paleontology and elsewhere supports a Darwinian interpretation of life."

This is one of the most annoying creationist arguments. When I talk to cell biologists, geneticists, ecologists etc about this they all claim that is in fact their subject that shows the support for evolution and things like fossils are just useful additional pieces of evidence.

JohnADavison said...

Are there still creatures on the surface of this planet who are not creationists of some sort? Are there any poor lost souls who actually believe that chance ever had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny? Where are these people? Where do they publish except in the ephemeral meaningless vacuum of cyberspace?

The only one I really can identify is Richard Dawkins who is obviously deranged. The rest all lurk and hide behind their cowardly aliases posting meaningless drivel just to see their false names in momentary print. You don't any longer hear a single prominent Darwinian mouthing off about natural selection anymore because they know they are finished. In fact you can't even find hardly anyone anymore who will even identify himself as a Darwinian. They are thoroughly ashamed of themselves as well they should be. It is only on mindless forums like Panda's Thumb and EvC and ultratrivial silly blogs like this one that such idiotic creatures still exist.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox
I have no idea how devout Grasse was and neither do you.

There was a very devout Catholic French scientist. His name was Louis Pasteur. As usual Falan Ox tries to denigrate through half-assed, ill conceived associations which have absolutely nothing to do with the substance of this thread. As far as I know Grasse mentioned God only once in a statement in complete accord with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."
Evolution of Livimg Organisms, page 166, his emphasis

Mext time read the book before you mouth off. Or better yet don't! Keep right on revealing yourself as an illiterate Dawkins worshipping atheist idiot.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Needless to say -

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Johndarius,

All I have suggested about Grassé is that which I have been able to glean from the net which is not a great deal. I'll see if our local library carries or can obtain his book in French.

You have managed to draw a few conclusions without reading his book either. I doubt his book was considered scientifically controversial in France, as little or no comment exists about it here on the net one way or the other.

@John,

Exactly. Neither of us can ask Grassé anything, now. My suspicion still remains that he has been quote-mined by creationists.

Anyway, others' religious beliefs are of no real interest to me, only that there should be freedom of and freedom from religion. However I take issue when people pretend that science and religion are not mutually exclusive, and especially when they pretend that ID is scientific.

johndarius said...

biogeer,

>>Would you care to provide some evidence for this dubious assertion?<<

Chris Hyland,

>>This is one of the most annoying creationist arguments. When I talk to cell biologists, geneticists, ecologists etc about this they all claim that is in fact their subject that shows the support for evolution and things like fossils are just useful additional pieces of evidence.<<

The evidence is based in my experience. Generally, a Doctoral Dissertation is based on a highly specialized and narrow subject.

The claim is that geneticists and cell biologists (and others) draw from their field support for evolution. If you examine these claims, you find interpretations of certain data, assumming Darwinian evolution as true, rather than real empirical evidence for evolution.

The only empirical evidence for evolution is the fossil record, since none of us were present to observe the origin of living organisms. And biologists in general do not study paleontology. If they did, they would find that the fossil record doesn't record doesn't support Darwinian evolution.

Saltation or creation, take your pick.

If you believe there is evidence for neoDarwinism, then answer Dr. Davison's challenges that have been posted both at Brainstorm and EvcForum.

johndarius said...

Alan,

>>My suspicion still remains that he has been quote-mined by creationists.<<

I believe that "quote-mine" is a term coined by talk-origin's non-professionals in order to denigrate any "quote" used to argue against Darwiniam evolution. This has now been used universally to dismiss any argument which references a source. "It's out of context," they say! This used only on the internet. Not in a journal or professional debate.

Any authority, such as Grassé, surely is going have their own views. This does not detract from the particular quote wherein they are speaking as an expert in their field.

johndarius said...

Alan,

A good starting point for Grassé's book would be to consider this review:

http://www.arn.org/docs/johnson/drr.htm

I have my copy on order, and will check this out.

JohnADavison said...

I recommend all visit EvC's "showcase" forum where I just had the great personal pleasure of telling off both the EvC and the Pandas' Thumb crowd by pointing out that they have both used very similar methods in dealing with me in the past as in the present. God but it was gratifying!

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Johndarius:

And biologists in general do not study paleontology. If they did, they would find that the fossil record doesn't record doesn't support Darwinian evolution.

Here is a good place to start to appreciate how much evidence there is supporting evolutionary theory. Dawkins has remarked that, even if there were no fossils, Evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence.

But, considering how unlikely it is (especially for terrestrial organisms) for fossils to form, and then be discovered, it is surprising how much fossil evidence there is, none of which, looked at objectively, disproves or calls into question the modern synthesis.

JohnADavison said...

The "Modern Synthesis," a term invented by Jullan Huxley and the title of his 1942 book, was actually destroyed in that same book when he correctly observed that evolution is no longer in progress and hasn't been for a very long time. It is no wonder that the Darwinians pretend this man and his book never existed. The two most effective critics of the Darwinian myth were professed Darwinians themselves, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Julian Huxley. If Falan Ox knew anything at all about the the much heralded "modern synthesis," he would know all this. But no he remains a fan of Richard Dawkins who lives all alone in his own personally designed intellectual cage totally ignored by the scientific community with the exception of Falan Ox of course.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Chris Hyland said...

"Are there any poor lost souls who actually believe that chance ever had anything to do with either ontogeny or phylogeny?"

Yes, both, lots of people.

"The rest all lurk and hide behind their cowardly aliases posting meaningless drivel just to see their false names in momentary print."

Well at least mine's real.

"You don't any longer hear a single prominent Darwinian mouthing off about natural selection anymore"

Evolutionary biologists talk about it all the time.

"Let us not invoke God in realities in which He NO LONGER HAS TO INTERVENE. The single absolute act of creation was enough for Him."

I always found this kind of statement bizzare consideing the bible says God makes the grass grow.

"The evidence is based in my experience. Generally, a Doctoral Dissertation is based on a highly specialized and narrow subject."

Maybe, but In any given week I have meetings with evolutionary biologists, geneticists, cell biologists and structural biologists, so it's not as if you don't have to learn any other science. It's all about interdisciplinery reseach these days.

"The only empirical evidence for evolution is the fossil record, since none of us were present to observe the origin of living organisms."

The best evidence is the ability to predict features of living systems.

"If they did, they would find that the fossil record doesn't record doesn't support Darwinian evolution."

Most paleontologists seem to think it does.

"The "Modern Synthesis," a term invented by Jullan Huxley and the title of his 1942 book, was actually destroyed in that same book when he correctly observed that evolution is no longer in progress and hasn't been for a very long time."

Evolutionary theory has changed a hell of a lot since the 40s.

JohnADavison said...

There is no evolutionary theory yet and nothing fundamental has changed since the 1940's. Darwinism remains what it always was, even at its inception, nothing but a figment of a "prescribed" atheist imagination. There are only failed hypotheses, Darwinism and Lamarckism in particular. and one very promising one, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis, which accommodates EVERYTHING now being revealed in the experimental laboratory as well as EVERYTHING that we have ever learned from the fossil record.

How do you like them apples Chris Hyland? Are you a Dawkins fan too?
I'll just bet you are!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"There are more horses asses than horses."
anonymous

This blog is crawling with them. It is even worse than Panda's Thumb and EvC.

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox or Chris Hyland or anyone else who posts at Panda's Dislocated Pollex.

Please remind your cronies at "After The Bar Closes" of what I have to say about PT over at EvC. That of course assumes you aren't afraid that Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Felsberry) might slap your limp lttle cowardly wrists for having the balls to even mention my name. I miss not being ridiculed by that moronic "groupthink" at PT.

Someone please do the same for me at Uncommon Descent or Pharyngula or any other forum where I have been banned from participation. They all live in mortal fear of me and my sources. The best evidence is their universal silence where I am concerned. Like my many predecessors, I too am not allowed to exist. I no longer wonder why.

Needless to say -

I love it so!

jujuquisp said...

I'm beginning to think we aren't dealing with the real John Davison. That last post was a little too over the top. Anyone here ever hear of Tony Clifton? Ring a bell?

JohnADavison said...

I have reached the biggest pervert in cyberspace, jujuquisp, to such An extent that he found it necessary to deliberately foul up my blog. What better proof could a man ask for? Pigs is pigs. Sties is sties.

I love it so!

Chris Hyland said...

"There is no evolutionary theory yet and nothing fundamental has changed since the 1940's."

Actually, quite a lots changed since the 80s.

"one very promising one, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis"

You should get a grant from the discovery institue to test it then. Or ask David Springer to test it in his basement.

"you a Dawkins fan too? I'll just bet you are!"

He's a good writer I guess.

"Please remind your cronies at "After The Bar Closes" of what I have to say about PT over at EvC."

No one cares.

"They all live in mortal fear of me and my sources."

No they don't, most of the books I've read recently on evolution present most of them in a very favourable light.

jujuquisp said...

John Davison (if you are the real John Davison),
Why do you present yourself in such an undignified way? You'd think a professor emeritus would act differently. My evidence against you is accumulating. Soon my hypothesis shall become theory.

Alan Fox said...

Please remind your cronies at "After The Bar Closes" of what I have to say about PT over at EvC. That of course assumes you aren't afraid that Der Fuhrer Herr Doktor Esley Welsberry (pronounced Felsberry) might slap your limp lttle cowardly wrists for having the balls to even mention my name.
-posts John Davison.

I was merely asked to stop relaying your rants to AtBC. You have had quite a few mentions here and several posters have popped in for a look. People might respond better if you did not invariably insult anyone you disagree with. It might be worth a try. Face it, John, your confrontational style does not bring out the best in fellow posters.

johndarius said...

Alan,

>>Here is a good place to start to appreciate how much evidence there is supporting evolutionary theory. Dawkins has remarked that, even if there were no fossils, Evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence.<<

Thanks for the reference to talk origins. I have visited that site quite frequently over the past eight years.

Dawkins knows the fossil record doesn't support Darwiniam evolution. However, for Dawkins to say 'if there were no fossils, Evolution is the only theory that fits the evidence' is merely a defense mechanism. Even Charles Darwin was more honest than this. I don't think that if Darwin were alive today he would hold to his own 'theory'.

>>But, considering how unlikely it is (especially for terrestrial organisms) for fossils to form, and then be discovered, it is surprising how much fossil evidence there is, none of which, looked at objectively, disproves or calls into question the modern synthesis.<<

It would not be unlikely at all if Darwin's 'theory' were true. 3.8 billion years of evolution, and rock formation can't be wrong. That's why paleontologists such as Schindewolf rejected it, and even Gould struggled with it, adding PE to try to account for the lack of transitional forms.

Creation or saltation, take your pick.

JohnADavison said...

My internet style is a direct response to the character of my adversaries. Besides what transpires on the internet is of no consequence anyway. I do this sort of thing for amusement.

My papers speak for me and my sources and they are all that matters. You will be hard pressed to find my internet style reflected in my professional papers.

Chris Hyland said...

"Creation or saltation, take your pick."

Show me the piece of fossil evidence that contradicts evolution.

JohnADavison said...

Chris Hyland

Whoever contradicted evolution? Certainly not me or any of my references. We are all convinced evolutionists. I cannot believe you would make such an absurd comment. You apparently imagine that any departure from the Darwinian hoax means a denial of organic continuity. For your own sake wake up and get some help.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love its so!

jujuquisp said...

John Davison hates evolution. He hates hermaphrodites also, and I can prove it.

Chris Hyland said...

"We are all convinced evolutionists. I cannot believe you would make such an absurd comment. You apparently imagine that any departure from the Darwinian hoax means a denial of organic continuity.

Nope, when I say evolution I mean the modern theory of evolution as understood by evolutionary biologists today.

JohnADavison said...

chris hyland

There is no theory of evolution, only throroughly discredited hypotheses like neoDarwinism and neoLamarckism and one really promising brand new hypothesis which recognizes and incorporates everything we really know for certain, the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypotheis.

"An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it."
Boris Ephrussi

So much for the biggest hoax in the history of science, the one so many still devoutly believe in.

"Never have so many owed so little to so many."
after Winston Churchill

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

"Stifle yourself Dingbat."
Archie Bunker

Alan Fox said...

One thing puzzles me, John. You assert that life was designed and front-loaded by one or more supernatural beings at some time(s) and/or place(s) in the past, and all is determined.

If so, what do you need a PEH for. These guys can do anything, so why not just "poof!"

Alan Fox said...

You denigrate Richard Dawkins shamelelessly, but I bet you've never read any of his books or papers, John.

(Bit of a non-sequitur, just duplicating a post on John's blog)

JohnADavison said...

I responded to your idiotic support of Dawkins on my blog so I will not repeat it here.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

My "guys" as you so mindlessly characterize them, need not even have been human but that one or more such profound intelligences once existed cannot be denied by any rational objective mind. That immediately explains why you are so hopelessly helpless in the face of that obvious reality. You, neither rational nor objective, are just one more garden variety, "prescribed," homozygous at the atheist locus, chance happy, mutation enebriated Darwimpian imbecile.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

To save anyone the trouble of scrolling down through John's "monopostular" blog to find his response to my question as to whether he has read any of Dawkins' work, I'll paste it here:

You are right Falan Ox. I have great difficulty getting past the title pages. Dawkins is to Darwinism what Paul Kammerer was to Lamarckism. They are both charlatans. When Kammerer was finally exposed he killed himself. I have no idea what Dawkins has in mind. We will soon find out. Of that I am confident.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I will let your drivel stand a while but you may be certain it will be deleted after all have had the opportunity to appreciate your undying alllegiance to the biggest con artist in the history of science. I find it quite impossible to believe the man is sincere.

Thanks for posting.

I love it so!

"I read as little of Richard Dawkins as possible."
Cyrus Noe

"We seek and offer ourselves to
be gulled."
Montaigne

4:15 AM


Which would appear to indicate that he has not. One wonders, then, how he has managed to formulate his opinion of Dawkins.

Alan Fox said...

Your post on front-loading completely failed to answer my question. Just in case you misread it, rather that being unable to answer, I'll repeat it.

One thing puzzles me, John. You assert that life was designed and front-loaded by one or more supernatural beings at some time(s) and/or place(s) in the past, and all is determined.

If so, what do you need a PEH for. These guys can do anything, so why not just "poof!"


(Emphasis added)

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox no longer exists. It is so much easier that way don't you know.

it is hard to believe isn't it?

Alan Fox said...

That makes things a lot clearer now, thanks, John.

JohnADavison said...

My pleasure. Now keep your sorry ass out of my blog.

Alan Fox said...

The medical must have gone OK then, John.

JohnADavison said...

What part of "you don't exist" do you not comprehend?

Alan Fox said...

You must be a solipsist, then, John. I hope all went well on the medical. It's your ideas that I take issue with, I certainly don't have a doll with pins sticking in. I bear you no personal animosity. If anything, I feel quite sorry for you.

JohnADavison said...

Well I sure don't feel sorry for you. You are nothing but an uneducated trouble maker who never had an original idea in his life and can't abide the fact that others have. Imagine if you can a rational soul who is a fan of Richard Dawkins. That is Falan Ox by his own declaration.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Alan Fox said...

Well, I still feel sorry for you. So there!

JohnADavison said...

You are ignorant trash. How does that grab you?

Alan Fox said...

Still sorry for you, John.

JohnADavison said...

You can't even construct a complete English sentence you illiterate boob!

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Still sorry.

JohnADavison said...

Falan Ox

You said it all. YOU ARE SORRY!
You are the sorriest excuse for a human being that ever posted a message in the history of the iternet.

You remind me of the person President Harry Truman once described -

"He is a living miracle with neither brains nor guts."

He also said -

"Never kick a fresh turd on a hot day."

My kind of guy!

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

You are the sorriest excuse for a human being that ever posted a message in the history of the iternet.

I think that's a bit harsh, John. I am currently re-reading Dawkins' "The Extended Phenotype". Whilst a little dated, (1982, revised 1999), it is interesting to note how he addresses some issues. I was particularly struck by his defining of units of inheritance as any convenient length of DNA from a codon to a chromosome which has alleles.

If only to better know your enemy (though I suspect Dawkins is unaware of your threat to his ideas) you should read this book.

JohnADavison said...

Dawkins is his own enemy and will never be able to extricate himself from the world in which he has isolated himself. I still expect him to do himself in.

Dawkins knows all about me as I informed him personally.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

Alan Fox said...

Dawkins knows all about me as I informed him personally.

Hmmm!

JohnADavison said...

You are a hummer alright, a Dawkins hummer no doubt. keep on sucking.

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

You are a hummer alright, a Dawkins hummer no doubt. keep on sucking.


We seem to be divided by a common language, here, John. Hummer is the nickname for a US military vehicle, no?
I know you wish to be insulting, but you will have to be a bit clearer (within the bounds of my mother wouldn't like it).

Doppelganger said...

"How many biologists have objectively and critically examined the evidence of Darwinism?"



How many creationists/IDists/anti-Darwinists have objectively and critically examined the claims made against Darwinism?

Clearly, very few.

From my reading of Grasse, he seems more of an arrogant nationalist than one who objectively looked at anything.

Doppelganger said...

"That's why paleontologists such as Schindewolf rejected it, and even Gould struggled with it, adding PE to try to account for the lack of transitional forms."



Still relying on 50+ year old data, I see.
Gould, of course, also pointedo ut that, in fact, there are nice examples of gradual change, just not for everything.
That is part of the problem with paleontologists. They think the bones tell the whole story.

They don't.

JohnADavison said...

For someone who is not regarded with much respect I sure have the capacity to evoke a lot of comments. Thanks for the free publicity. I'll take all you are willing to provide.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.
John A. Davison

Naturally -

I love it so!

Alan Fox said...

Thanks for the free publicity. I'll take all you are willing to provide.

No problem, John. Whenever you feel like beginning to explain how your PEH has any relevance or creates any difficulty for modern evolutionary theory, please take as much space as bandwidth allows.

JohnADavison said...

I already have stupid. It is called publication. I'm on the shelves of the world's libraries right along with my distinguished sources. Where may I find your contributions to the great mystery of evolution? Come on, don't be shy. I am sure others want to know too.

Oh I forgot.

You are the one who admitted that he gave up a career in science right after he "earned" his B.S. in Biochemistry. What a loser you really are.

Naturally -

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

I'm on the shelves of the world's libraries right along with my distinguished sources.

Actually, Rivista di Biologia (and therefore the PEH) is deservedly absent from all but the very largest (or most creationism-friendly) libraries. You might as well have scribbled it in crayon as published it in that fifth-rate crank rag.

JohnADavison said...

Giuseppe Sermonti, the Editor of Rivista is a scholar and gentleman as proved by the fact that while he disagrees with me on a number of matters, he has done what few editors have proven willing to do. He has published my heresies, several of them. I owe him a great debt and am pleased to make that public.

As for denigrating his journal that is just one more example of "when you can't criticize the message you criticize the messenger," one of the shabbiest ploys of all time.

Thanks for exposing yourself.

"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
George Bernard Shaw

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

Incidentally, this has proved to be the most popular thread on your blog Falan Ox. Doesn't that please you? It sure pleases me!

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

As for denigrating his journal that is just one more example of "when you can't criticize the message you criticize the messenger," one of the shabbiest ploys of all time.

Wishful nonsense. Your PEH is irrelevant on its own merits. That you could only get it published in the most obscure and absurd of biology journals is a direct consequence of its uselessness.

As it stands, the PEH is notable only for the self-humiliating retarded monkey antics of its author.

Biogeer said...

Incidentally, this has proved to be the most popular thread on your blog Alan Fox. Doesn't that please you? It sure pleases me!

It pleases me that you have proudly displayed that your incompetence extends to basic arithmetic.

JohnADavison said...

biogeer, just another anonymous unpublished cowardly blowhard.

I love it so!

JohnADavison said...

If biogeer were a published author he would use his real name. That goes for all the other anonymous hate mongers wherever they post.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

If biogeer were a published author he would use his real name.

Wrong again. I shouldn't be surprised: you've made a career of being incorrect. That you should choose to obsess on my identity in place of defending your joke of a publication history suits me just fine.

JohnADavison said...

Gregor Mendel was a joke too. He published in his own journal!

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

Mendel:Davison::Newton:Dembski

JohnADavison said...

I jeer at biogeer who is nothing but an anonymous coward who probably never published anything worth while in his entire miserable existence. If he had he would be happy to use his real name.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

I am forced to repeat:

Your PEH is irrelevant on its own merits. That you could only get it published in the most obscure and absurd of biology journals is a direct consequence of its uselessness.

As it stands, the PEH is notable only for the self-humiliating retarded monkey antics of its author.


Don't worry, Salty: I am content to be jeered by a man who has published fewer journal papers in the last 20 years than I have in the last 18 months (to say nothing of conference papers). That those papers have consisted solely of ridiculous screeds in a single fundie rag that no actual scientist reads, without a single novel experimental result amongst the lot, positively tickles me. That my anonymity annoys you is icing on the cake.

JohnADavison said...

biogeer

I hate to tell you this but it looks like I might have a publsher for:

"The Collected Evolutionary Papers of John A. Davison."

How does that grab you? I hope it gives you indigestion followed simultaneously by the runs and the dry heaves.

I love it so!

Biogeer said...

How does that grab you? I hope it gives you indigestion followed simultaneously by the runs and the dry heaves.

Not at all, I am nothing if not a great believer in free speech; congratulations on finding someone willing to invest in putting those papers into a special volume. I have little doubt that your works will get all the accolades they deserve.

JohnADavison said...

My work, like that of my sources will be denigrated, ridiculed and then ignored by the establishment which is still dominated by chance-worshipping atheist, ultraliberal, mutation-crazed Darwinian mystics.

My time has not yet come, just as Mendel's hadn't. That is what prompted to say:

"Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!"

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

JohnADavison said...

I see this is by far the most popular thread on your blog Falan Ox. Have you wondered why? You should and recognize it for what it means.

Biogeer said...

Actually, Springer's thermodynamic embarassment is still ahead.

As for "Darwinians", I am not liberal, atheist or a chance-worshipper, and still recognize intelligent design as a sham. Sorry if I let reality intrude on your screed.

JohnADavison said...

Why don't you just quit. Your blog contributes nothing of substance to anything. It is nothing but a gossip mill like After The Bar Closes.

johndarius said...

biogeer,

Fundamentalists may have done more damage than good in pointing out the many flaws in Darwinian evolution. Along with their YEC views, and their political agenda, they have only casued many Darwinsists to dig in their heels.

You don't have to be a fundamentalist to recognize the obvious designs in nature, and in particular biological systems. Behe, for example, is not a fundamentalist.

Biogeer said...

Fundamentalists may have done more damage than good in pointing out the many flaws in Darwinian evolution. Along with their YEC views, and their political agenda, they have only casued many Darwinsists to dig in their heels.

No, the primary issue is that "the many flaws" they point out are uniformly imaginary.

You don't have to be a fundamentalist to recognize the obvious designs in nature, and in particular biological systems.

Being a fundie, like being ignorant, is not necessary to buy into ID, but it helps. For that matter, ID/creationism is not about "recognizing obvious design", it is about misattributing apparent design to supernatural intervenors, when it is entirely explicable in purely natural terms.

johndarius said...

biogeer,

>>No, the primary issue is that "the many flaws" they point out are uniformly imaginary.<<

No, they are not imaginary.

For example, Dr. Dean Kenyon, a biology instructor and co-author of the book, Of Pandas and People, demonstrated the problem of convergence with marsupial and placental animals. He noted that the body plan and skeleton of the marsupial Tasmaniam wolf is identical to that of the placental north American Timber wolf. Yet, both are said to be the result of independent phylogenies having much different reproductive physiology. This is also true of other marsupial/placental comparisons.

Therefore, Kenyon implied how absurd it is to believe that random mutations and natural selection could have just have happened to produce the same animals of different physiology yet the same general morphology.

Now the interesting thing here is that atheist and evolutionist Arthur Koestler demonstrated, more effectively in my opinion, the same conundrum some 20 years before in his book, The Ghost in the Machine!

Most of the flaws in Darwinism have been elucidated by men like Mivart, Berg, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Grasse and others, men who are not fundamentalists. These flaws are not imaginary, but just studiously ignored by Darwinians.

You mention 'apparent' design, therefore, I assume you believe there is actual or *real* design that exists, Right? Can you tell me how you tell the difference between apparent design and real design?

Biogeer said...

No, they are not imaginary.

Oh, this should be good.

For example, Dr. Dean Kenyon, a biology instructor and co-author of the book, Of Pandas and People, demonstrated the problem of convergence with marsupial and placental animals.He noted that the body plan and skeleton of the marsupial Tasmaniam wolf is identical to that of the placental north American Timber wolf.

Identical? Really?

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/2254_56_sonleitner_what39s_wr_11_24_2004.asp
http://www.naturalworlds.org/thylacine/skull/skull_comparison.htm

Yet, both are said to be the result of independent phylogenies having much different reproductive physiology. This is also true of other marsupial/placental comparisons.

Putting aside your (and Kenyon's) drastic misrepresentation of the degree of similarity between the two animals, how is parallel evolution a "problem" for evolutionary theory? Other than your unconvincing incredulity, I mean.

Most of the flaws in Darwinism have been elucidated by men like Mivart, Berg, Goldschmidt, Schindewolf, Grasse and others, men who are not fundamentalists. These flaws are not imaginary, but just studiously ignored by Darwinians.

What flaws have they "elucidated" that have been "studiously ignored"? Vague accusations will not suffice: be specific.

Can you tell me how you tell the difference between apparent design and real design?

Sure, in an abbreviated form suitable for comment space:

Real design is conducted by designers, with tools, methods and purpose. Complexity in the absence of these things (especially where natural causes are adequate explanation) is apparent design.

Thus, cars (designers are known, tools, purpose and method are known or deducible, no known natural methods for the production of cars) = real design.

Life (no evidence of a designer, no evidence of tools, methods or purpose of design, natural causes are sufficient explanation) = apparent design.

JohnADavison said...

biogeer is a hopeless, "prescribed," Darwinian, chance-happy mystic and there is nothing that can be done for him.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison