Intelligent Reasoning

Promoting, advancing and defending Intelligent Design via data, logic and Intelligent Reasoning and exposing the alleged theory of evolution as the nonsense it is. I also educate evotards about ID and the alleged theory of evolution one tard at a time and sometimes in groups

Sunday, October 08, 2006

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis

Something for my readers to enjoy. I have only placed the opening two paragraphs here so please read the entire article by clicking on the link provided:

A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis by John A. Davison

Abstract

I propose that phylogeny took place in a manner similar to that of ontogeny by the derepression of preformed genomic information which was expressed through release from latency (derepression) by the restructuring of existing chromosomal information (position effects). Both indirect and direct evidence is presented in support of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.


l. INTRODUCTION

Historically there have been two major hypotheses to explain organic change, that of Lamarck, based on the transmission of characters acquired during the life of the individual and that of Darwin, which placed Nature in the role of selecting and thereby preserving those genetic changes which proved to be of advantage to the organism. These changes were presumed to be the means by which evolution proceeded. Each of these hypotheses has been thoroughly tested.
The Lamarckian hypothesis was tested by August Weismann in Darwin’s own day with negative results. The Darwinian hypothesis has been tested with limited success. There is no question that artificial selection can significantly alter the phenotype as demonstrated with dogs, goldfish, and a host of other domesticated forms, both plant and animal. Nevertheless, the products of the most intensive selection have not exceeded the species barrier. It seems that sexual reproduction is incapable of transforming species even to new members of the same genus. Even if this could be
demonstrated, it seems very unlikely that such a process could ever produce the higher categories of genus, family, order or class. I realize that these are contentious matters and it is with some trepidation that I have abandoned each of these hypotheses in order to offer what seems to me the only real viable alternative. It is the responsibility of the scientist to expose failed hypotheses,
but it is equally his responsibility to offer a replacement for them. That is the purpose of this paper. Some of what I will present is not new with me but was proposed long ago by those I will cite, in their own words, so there is no misunderstanding of what they meant.

5 Comments:

  • At 12:13 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Hi Joe,

    I applaud the presentation of an affirmative ID proposal. I was already somewhat aware of John A. Davison's position.

    Joe, I noticed you didn't indicate whether or not you agree with Davison's proposal.

    Do you?

    I will gladly study and understand this proposal if someone is willing to explain it and answer questions I have concerning it.

    Will someone explain it, or am I expected to take it on faith that it is correct? (yes, I have read it)

     
  • At 10:39 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    I will attempt to get Dr Davison to answer you concerns but I make no promises he will comply.

    I agree with the PEH in that it is the only viable mechanism for common descent. However I have issues with CD for the reasons I have already stated.

     
  • At 11:17 PM, Blogger Thought Provoker said…

    Joe wrote...
    "I will attempt to get Dr Davison to answer you concerns but I make no promises he will comply."

    That is all you can do, thank you.

    "I agree with the PEH in that it is the only viable mechanism for common descent. However I have issues with CD for the reasons I have already stated."

    I am sorry Joe, this comes across as "I will never drink milk, but if I did, I would only drink chocolate milk". Either you will drink milk or you won't.

    Dr. Davison's arguments are compelling. Of all of the proposed evidence for ID, the similarities between marsupials and placental animals is one of the strongest.

    I am not as convinced about the evidence that "position effects" causes derepression. It is a little too close to assuming the conclusion for my taste.

    I have some questions...

    1. Do I understand correctly the larger the genetic separation (measured by genetic drift) between similar looking marsupials and placental animals the stronger the evidence for PEH?

    2. What are your thoughts on the existence of the fundamental difference between the two groups? Namely, one in placental and the other is not. A repressed feature that didn't get derepressed in marsupials?

    3. A follow-up to question #2. You seem to leave open the possibility that the "Darwinian hypothesis" might explain speciation in limited cases. Would the placental feature be something you would accept as possible via mechanisms other than PEH?

    4. I offer that the similarity between great apes and us meets or exceeds the similarities between marsupials and placental animals. Why do you feel there was a significant derepression when going from ape to man?

    5. Uncommon Descent had a recent thread on Voles. Here is an excerpt from the referenced article... "Within the genus (the level of taxonomic classification above species), the number of chromosomes in voles ranges from 17-64.
    http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/2006/060914DeWoodyVole.html
    Would you accept that this evidence presents a weakness in the assumption that chromosome position/number is directly linked to derepressed states?

    6. PEH touches on information theory. I have asked this question of Joe before and have yet to get an answer. Can non-living things have "information content"? For example, does a simple rock contain information (e.g. weight, mass, dimensions, etc)? If that is the case, do two rocks contain more information than one rock (not necessarily double, just more)?

     
  • At 4:12 AM, Blogger JohnADavison said…

    I am always happy to answer questions either here or preferably over at Uncommon Descent or "brainstorms." I have been banned at most other blogs.

     
  • At 8:07 AM, Blogger Joe G said…

    "I agree with the PEH in that it is the only viable mechanism for common descent. However I have issues with CD for the reasons I have already stated."

    Thought Provoker:
    I am sorry Joe, this comes across as "I will never drink milk, but if I did, I would only drink chocolate milk". Either you will drink milk or you won't.

    Ya unfortunately I understand how things get twisted in your mind's eye.

    The point being I have always stated that the ONLY way common descent is even possible is via Intelligent Design/ pre-programming aka "Evolving Inventings" SciAm Feb 2003.

    HOWEVER, seeing that we do NOT know what makes an organism what it is ANY thoughts on historical events of this nature are speculation that cannot be objectively tested.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home