Stupid Christian Article on Evolution

[randman]

It is apparent that not too many, maybe none, are aware of criticisms of NeoDarwinism, to be hereafter referred to as Darwinism or ND, among front loaders and esteemed scientists like Grasse, etc,..... I use those terms rather than "evolution" because these men all accepted common descent. Behe and some IDers accept common descent as well but are not generally considered "evolutionists." I hope the terminology brings some clarity.

I will discuss 2 papers in 2 posts. The first is from the year 2000 and refers to 4 papers from1984, 1987 1993 1998 by the same author, John Davison who is now a retired professor, and prominent scientists from earlier times.

http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/ontogeny.html

In 1984 I presented the semi-meiotic hypothesis of organic evolution.
This was followed by three other papers which exposed the complete
failure of virtually every aspect of the Darwinian model (Davison 1984
1987 1993 1998). Incorporating the conclusions of Otto Schindewolf
(1896-1971), Richard B. Goldschmidt (1878-1958), William Bateson
(1861-1926), Robert Broom (1866-1951), Pierre Grassé (1895-1985)
and Leo S. Berg (1876-1950), the semi-meiotic hypothesis can be
summarized as follows. Macroevolution is largely finished.

Although his hypothesis of a mechanism for macroevolution may not be correct, I think he was looking in the right direction. Since then, there has been some emphasis on epigenetics and focus as well on gene regulation. My purpose is to focus more on the weakness of ND.

The essential feature of these changes was due not to micromutations
in the genes themselves, but rather to the way in which those genes
express their effects which is dependent upon their arrangement within
the structure of the chromosome (position effect).

Note the comment on information "already present in the genome"; hence front loading.

Such a mechanism does not depend on the production of new information
but rather on information already present in the genome i.e.
preformed. ...
It should also be noted that Schindewolf (1993), Goldschmidt (1940),
Berg (1969) and Grassé (1973) all subscribed to preadaptation
(preformation) during evolutionary change.

He makes an interesting comment which is bolded.

When something is lost during evolution it is rarely replaced.
Examples are the loss of limbs in reptiles and amphibians, or digits
in many tetrapod vertebrates. Returning to the swim bladder example,
the darters, tiny members of the perch family of fishes, have lost the
swim bladder, a loss which allowed them to successfully invade swiftly
flowing freshwater streams. The Darwinian view would be that this
was an adaptation to the stream environment. An alternative view
would be that, having lost the swim bladder, the darters sought out
or perhaps simply stumbled into the stream environment where they
would have a clear advantage over buoyant competitors. Also the
Darwinian interpretation would suggest that the swim bladder was
gradually reduced, yet there is no evidence whatsoever for that
assumption. It would seem that many evolutionary specializations
occur instantly without intermediate forms. Thus, just as ontogeny
goes forward in epigenetic fashion, so has evolution. The two
processes also share irreversibility as a cardinal feature.

Here, in the bolded section, he predicts front loading.

In short, I propose that the information
for virtually all of evolution may have been present from very early
in the onset of that process. I realize that this idea may seem
ludicrous at first glance, yet it remains compatible with an enormous
number of otherwise enigmatic observations from comparative biology.
It also avoids postulating Lamarckian devices for which no evidence
has been forthcoming.

He goes on to cite specific features of organisms as support for preformation. For brevity's sake, I won't quote them but trust those interested will read for themselves. Note one comment mentioning 2 scientists that came to same conclusions:

Considerations like these and many others prompted
Leo Berg (1969) to conclude: "Evolution is in a great measure an
unfolding of preexisting rudiments."

The same view was independently offered by Pierre Grassé (1973):
"The existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be
accepted by any objective mind."

Parallel evolution driven by internal factors not the environment.

Rather than assuming independent inventions of these remarkable
parallels, it seems to me more reasonable to postulate these events
resulted from the activation (derepression) of an enormous yet clearly
limited stockpile of potentialities which were available when those
events took place.
These considerations cast a whole new perspective on what has been
called convergent evolution. The morphological similarities that
exist, especially in the skeletal systems, between placental wolves
and bears and their marsupial counterparts, to my mind, defy any
explanation based on the accidental evolution of these similarities
through chance events. Thus, what has been described as convergent
evolution is not that at all but the expression from preformed sources
of virtually identical morphologies.

Hopefully, some will see here a specific prediction of a front loaded genome. Obviously, the paper is too short to lay out all the arguments and details, but hopefully it introduces the idea to some here. Next post will be another more recent paper by Davison.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So what you're saying is that now you've been comprehensively shown to be wrong about everything you've thus far stated you're going to try a different tack?

The Sceptic Tank Theory of This Thread has a prediction to make: It'll be repeatedly demonstrated that you're wrong about this new avenue you're going down, and you'll ignore where it is, and will probably call those who are showing you that you're wrong names and/or put them on ignore.

 

[randman]

This paper is from 2006 though it repeats a lot from earlier work going back to the 80s.

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/a-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/

I propose that the information for organic evolution has somehow been predetermined in the evolving genome.....For those who may be unfamiliar with the history of evolutionary thought, these notions may seem bizarre, but they are in no way original with me. I only propose to extend them somewhat further.

Leo S. Berg in 1922 published his remarkable book, Nomogenesis or Evolution According to Law, in which he presented several examples of what he called phylogenetic acceleration or the premature appearance of advanced features in primitive organisms.....Generalizing from several such examples, Berg concluded:

“Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments. (Berg [1969] page 406)

In the same volume he quoted William Bateson:

"Finally, Bateson likewise (1914) inclines to the view that the entire process of evolution may be regarded as ‘an unpacking of an original complex which contained within itself the whole range of diversity which living things present"(Berg, page 359).

Pierre Grasse (1977, page 209) reached similar conclusions, apparently independently:

“However that may be, the existence of internal factors affecting evolution has to be accepted by any objective mind"

I propose that these internal factors may prove to be the primary if not the sole causes of organic evolution.

I am leaving out specific evidence cited. Those that wish to can read the paper. My point in part is to show there are indeed scientists, even of great esteem, that consider ND to be a "myth" and wholly unsatisfactory as a mechanism, as Pierre Grasse says, to "any objective mind."

The evolutionist insistence on claims of absolute consensus is mere propaganda.

A similar view was expressed by Otto Schindewolf, again independently:

At most, the environment plays only a similar role with regard to organisms; it can only provoke and set in motion some potential that is already present.” (Schindewolf page 313, his emphasis).

The key words here are already present. Reginald Punnett, in his book Mimicry in Butterflies offered a similar appraisal of the environment (Natural Selection) in 1915:

“Natural selection is a real factor in connection with mimicry, but its function is to conserve and render preponderant an already existent likeness, not to build up that likeness through the accumulation of small variations, as is so generally assumed. (Quoted in Berg, page 314, my emphasis).

He cites specific data which I will leave to the reader once again to examine in the paper and just site quote the claims themselves here.

I

t should also be obvious that if specific information was preformed in the evolving genome there would be no need for gradual transformations from one form to another, which remains in accord with the conspicuous absence of transitional intermediates in the fossil record. Furthermore, since such transitional forms are also absent in the contemporary biota, there seems to be no compelling reason to postulate their existence during their evolutionary emergence. In short, evolution may have proceeded by a series of instantaneous transformation (saltations) asindependently proposed by both Schindewolf [1993], Goldschmidt [1940] and more recently by the present author [2004]. Such a mechanism represents the very antithesis of the gradualist Darwinian paradigm.

a quote from Pierre Grasse in the paper

A cluster of facts makes it very plain that Mendelian, allelomorphic mutation plays no part in creative evolution.

more...

One may note that I have used the past tense in reference to evolution. I earlier presented the evidence that macroevolution (true speciation and certainly the formation of the higher categories) is no longer in progress, again a conclusion reached by others long before me, notably Robert Broom. (Davison [2004]).

Note that Grasse uses the present tense in the above quote as well as in the title for his book, The Evolution of Living Organisms. However, in all fairness to Grasse, he also stated:

The period of great fecundity is over; present evolution appears as a weakened process, declining or near its end. Are we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Are the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?” (Grasse page 71).

Once again, please read the paper for more details of evidence to support his views, but am citing one example where he cited the same paper I have here.

Further support for the Prescribed Evolution Hypothesis comes from studies with one of the most primitive of the animal phyla, the Cnidaria (Kortschelt et al. [2003]). Working with the planula stage of the coral Acropora millepora, they found it to be genetically very complex, containing many genes previously thought to be vertebrate innovations.

......

The great genetic complexity of a primitive form such as Acropora millepora raises an interesting question concerning the nature of the evolutionary process. Is it not possible that evolution might have involved, to some extent at least, the loss rather than the gain of information? Comparing phylogeny with ontogeny once again, certainly the fertilized egg has a greater developmental potential than the individual cells which result from its division. Thus, just as differentiation results in a progressive loss of potential, so may have phylogeny proceeded in a similar fashion. This perspective also offers a rationale for the irreversibility of the evolutionary process.

 

[randman]

So what you're saying is that now you've been comprehensively shown to be wrong about everything you've thus far stated you're going to try a different tack?

The Sceptic Tank Theory of This Thread has a prediction to make: It'll be repeatedly demonstrated that you're wrong about this new avenue you're going down, and you'll ignore where it is, and will probably call those who are showing you that you're wrong names and/or put them on ignore.

It's probably a mistake to respond but clearly you have no idea what's going on with this discussion.

Please note where Davison cites the same paper as I have in support of front loading (preformation).

 

[randman]

As has been pointed out to you this statement is a lie.

Nope. I have quoted Pierre Grasse in context and so does John Davison in his papers I have cited above. Since you start with such an absurd comment, I see no reason to think the rest of your post has merit.

Pierre Grasse called evolution "a myth." That's a fact whether you like it or not.

 

[A'isha]

Ah. So that's where you drew your complete misreading of the paper on A. millepora from.

And where you found your list of names of "prominent scientists in the field" who doubt evolution.

 

[randman]

Here's a comment by the author saying the same thing about his findings in challenging the concept of "a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes."

However, Professor David Miller says its genetic complexity challenges the notion that life started out simple then evolved to become more sophisticated.

"There's this intrinsic tendency to think about a slow accumulation of complexity and a slow accumulation of genes which have allowed an increased morphological complexity in higher animals and what the coral genomes tell us is that that's completely wrong and that most genes were invented very early in animal evolution," he said.

http://www.jcu.edu.au/cgc/MillerHP.html

Now, some here can pretend evos never expected, predicted, etc,....a slow accumulation of genes along with slow accumulation of morphological complexity, but clearly this guy acknowledges that was what was expected and that his study challenges that.

If you don't have the stones to admit this, Ok. But that shows the weakness of your belief system in a refusal to acknowledge facts you are scared to admit since they seem to threaten your beliefs.

It's clear that others can deal with this, such as the author of the study, and try to revise their thinking and still be evolutionists. Maybe they will eventually abandon Neo-Darwinism as others have. Maybe not?

But pretending this didn't turn over preconceived notions of evolution based on NeoDarwinism is just silly.

 

[randman]

Ah. So that's where you drew your complete misreading of the paper on A. millepora from.

And where you found your list of names of "prominent scientists in the field" who doubt evolution.

Not really. Could have on the coral (don't recall), but he's not the only one saying these things. If you were someone truly interested, you'd listen to what critics of evolution have to say instead of pretending you already know what they think.

But do you now admit front loading predicted the findings and NeoDarwinism did not?

Note my post above where the author agrees with my statement that these findings contradict the concept of a slow accumulation of genes along with a slow accumulation of morphological complexity?

After all, doesn't any informed evo know this is what was taught?

Surely you do.

 

[Bad vibe]

How does it not fit the data?

Just saying it does not is not an argument.

I read the articles enough to get the gist, others have explained it far more eloquently than I could and in the most simple terms. I see no point beating your horse anymore since its already deceased. I admit they didn't all seem to address your arguement of front loading in a way you could understand and you've been debating this 20 yrs and still don't grasp it?.......astounding

 

[randman]

Tenets of NeoDarwinism

Though agreement is not universal on the parameters of the modern synthesis, many descriptions hold as basic (1) the primacy of natural selection as the creative agent of evolutionary change; (2) gradualism (accumulation of small genetic changes); and (3) the extrapolation of microevolutionary processes (changes within species) to macroevolutionary trends (changes about the species level, such as the origin of new designs and broad patterns in history). Evolutionary change is a shift of the frequency of genes in a population, and macroevolutionary trends come from gradual accumulation of small genetic changes.

Note, for example, the words of two of the leading figures in evolutionary theory, Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould.
"The proponents of the synthetic theory maintain that all evolution is due to the accumulation of small genetic changes, guided by natural selection, and that transspecific evolution is nothing but an extrapolation and magnification of the events that take place within populations and species." (Mayr 1963)

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism

Some you guys need to take a basic course in what Neo-Darwinism is.

Also, don't recall who said it since there was a lot to respond to, but the idea of junk DNA is passe now due to the Encode project. Of course, that's another succesful prediction by creationists and Iders and a failed on by evolutionists.

 

[randman]

I read the articles enough to get the gist, others have explained it far more eloquently than I could and in the most simple terms. I see no point beating your horse anymore since its already deceased. I admit they didn't all seem to address your arguement of front loading in a way you could understand and you've been debating this 20 yrs and still don't grasp it?.......astounding

They didn't address it all, nada. Just repeatedly said I claimed things I did not and denied what the authors of their papers said it meant.

 

[dlorde]

The Onion nails it again...

 

[A'isha]

http://www.jcu.edu.au/cgc/MillerHP.html

Now, some here can pretend evos never expected, predicted, etc,....a slow accumulation of genes along with slow accumulation of morphological complexity, but clearly this guy acknowledges that was what was expected and that his study challenges that.

As you've been told many times before, it's not that no one thought that. It's that evolution is not built from that assumption. And this was only "unexpected" because it was an obvious conclusion drawn from the examination of other invertebrate genomes, with the paper's authors themselves warning about making too broad of an extrapolation from that conclusion. Which has zip to do with you thinking this study knocked out some sort of mythical fundamental pillar of "NeoDarwinism".

And, contrary to your fervent beliefs, not automatically assuming that older organisms will always be simpler than newer organisms (rather than only being simpler most of the time) doesn't change a single thing about how evolution works.

Which you'd know had you bothered reading the books that Dinwar suggested that you read.

It's clear that others can deal with this, such as the author of the study, and try to revise their thinking and still be evolutionists. Maybe they will eventually abandon Neo-Darwinism as others have. Maybe not?

Considering this actually doesn't change anything about evolution, there's nothing to revise in that regard.

But pretending this didn't turn over preconceived notions of evolution based on NeoDarwinism is just silly.

It changed, maybe, our understanding of when certain genes evolved during the long history of life on earth. But it certainly didn't shake the very foundations of evolution, nor did it "overturn" anything like what you think it overturned.

But do you now admit front loading predicted the findings and NeoDarwinism did not?

This isn't evidence for any kind of front-loading. Because, as I pointed out to you repeatedly, in order to get to even a really really basic vertebrate nervous system from the genes in the coral, you have to add a massive number of genes and change the ones the coral had.

You've found a shock absorber spring and a sparkplug from a '57 Chevy in a box, and because you didn't expect to find a sparkplug at all, you somehow think that means the box contains an entire 2007 model year Ferrari.

Note my post above where the author agrees with my statement that these findings contradict the concept of a slow accumulation of genes along with a slow accumulation of morphological complexity?

After all, doesn't any informed evo know this is what was taught?

Surely you do.

No, because this is exactly what PixyMisa tried to disabuse you of, ten pages ago in this very thread.

 

[A'isha]

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Neo-Darwinism

The New World Encyclopedia? The online encyclopedia that says, on its "Project Vision" page, "The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. NWE editors are guided by scholarly texts expressing the theological and philosophical systematization of his life and teachings, the universal values and ideals inherent in the great religions, philosophies, and teachings of conscience"?

That's your go-to source for things related to evolution?

 

[John Jones]

The New World Encyclopedia? The online encyclopedia that says, on its "Project Vision" page, "The originator of this project is Sun Myung Moon. NWE editors are guided by scholarly texts expressing the theological and philosophical systematization of his life and teachings, the universal values and ideals inherent in the great religions, philosophies, and teachings of conscience"?

That's your go-to source for things related to evolution?

Where's that laughing dog when you need him?

 

[randman]

So you guys think the quote by Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould is wrong?

Kind of unbelievable dodging act you guys are doing.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

So you guys think the quote by Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould is wrong?

Kind of unbelievable dodging act you guys are doing.

Can you point to anyone who has commented on your quote?

Can you paraphrase that quote in your own words?

 

[A'isha]

So you guys think the quote by Ernst Mayr and Stephen Jay Gould is wrong?

Kind of unbelievable dodging act you guys are doing.

You'll kindly note that a) the Mayr and Gould quotes say nothing about a term called "NeoDarwinism", and b) the Mayr and Gould quotes describe evolution as happening through the accumulation of small genetic changes guided by natural selection, but don't say a single thing about what that means (or doesn't mean) for the relative complexity of the organisms involved.

And is there any particular reason you couldn't quote Mayr and Gould directly, rather than what the Moonie Encyclopedia said they said?

 

[randman]

Antpo knocked the web-source for the quote. What do you think she is implying about the quote?

The source means nothing if the quote is accurate, and as far as my own words, I've restated this repeatedly, namely NeoDarwinism predicts the slow accumulation of genes, generally (noting exceptions) as the means of producing greater morphological complexity via the standard evo process involving natural selection acting on populations with these new mutations added slowly.

 

[RecoveringYuppy]

The source means nothing if the quote is accurate, and as far as my own words, I've restated this repeatedly, namely NeoDarwinism predicts the slow accumulation of genes, generally (noting exceptions) as the means of producing greater morphological complexity via the standard evo process involving natural selection acting on populations with these new mutations added slowly.

But your quote doesn't say genes accumulate nor does it say complexity necessarily increases. You seem to have a hard time reading through your filters.