Abnormal Interests

There should be no conflict between creationism, in the non-sectarian sense, and evolution. A past evolution is undeniable. The error that the IDists made was to introduce it as a subject for debate. Intelligent Design is manifest everywhere in the living as well as the non-living world. It is a given without which nothing in either ontogeny or phylogeny can ever make sense.

The error that the Darwinians made and still make is to insist that evolution had an exogenous cause. There is not a shred of evidence to support that notion. Everything we really know about evolution, a phenomenon no longer in progress, indicates that it proceeded inexorably driven entirely by endogenous, prescribed, front loaded devices exactly as ontogeny does today. Chance, now as in the past, has played no role in either process. To continue to claim that it has is inexcusable.

There is nothing new in this view. Leo Berg in 1922 recognized what the Darwinians still fail to realize. Commenting on ontogeny and phylogeny:

"Neither in the one nor in the other is there room for chance."
Nomogenesis, page 134

As for P.Z. Meyers, he has characterized me after banning my participation at both Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula with the quaint phrase "Your stench has preceeded you."

Accordingly it does not surprise me in the least that he would call for the humiliation of anyone who might question Darwinism, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. For that reason I now refer to him as M.P. Zeyers just as I now refer to Esley Welsberry and Dilliam Wembski for exactly the same reason. When ideologues are so insecure that they must resort to denigration, disemvowelization, deletion and outright banishment, no further demonstration of the weakness of their intractable positions is required. They have exposed themselves with such tactics.

John,

I think I am getting a better idea of what your view on how biological diversity came about. As I understand it, you believe that at sometime in the past evolution occurred, but do not know (or want to commit on) the mechanism. However, you further believe that at some point in the pass evolution halted. If I am wrong in this interpretation of your views, please set me straight.

If I am correct, please lead me to the evidence for these views. To be clear about what I a looking for: what is the evidence that evolution once happened? And, what is the evidence that it has stopped? Now if there is a very large body of such evidence, please provide an outline of the evidence and a few specific examples that I can look into.

John, I am not interested in what someone said in the past about all this, I what a chance to evaluate the evidence directly.

As to you remark, "there is not a shred of evidence to support" modern evolutionary theory, I hope you meant, "there is not a shred of evidence, when properly interpreted, to support" what you call "Darwinism." The body of evidence that most biologists bring to this discussion is extremely large involving every entity that ever lived and the chemical processes that support and control their existence (and evolution). A few weeks ago, I suggest that you respond to the evidence of the so called ring species, Ensatina escholtzii. If I understand your response correctly, you dismissed this evidence as coming from a Darwinist. Certainly, Ensatina escholtzii are evidence for something. To me the subspecies seem to support modern views of evolution. I may be wrong. Perhaps they, in some way are supportive of your view. Simply dismissing them does not address my question.

As to PZ Myers: While I think he has one of the most informative blogs going, I do think that he sometimes uses excessive language when attacking some of those with whom he disagrees. I don't know why you were banned from his and other blogs. I have noticed that some commenters on some blogs, while well meaning themselves, are a catalyst for other commenters who consistently drag the thread off subject. On the other hand, PZ may have just become tied of asking for evidence and not getting any.

Duane

I HAVE proposed a mechanism for a past evolution in the form of the Semi-meiotic Hypothesis which I first presented in the Journal of Theoretical Biology in 1984. I have further elaborated on this hypothesis in several papers since, none of which have even been acknowledged, let alone critiqued, by the evolutionary establishment. I, like Grasse, Bateson, Punnett, Schindewolf, Berg, Broom, Osborn, Lovtrup and the many others who have exposed the Darwinian hypothesis as a total failure, simply am not allowed to exist. We are all conspicuously absent from a literature which blindly continues to support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. The Darwinians have even ignored some of their own in the case of Julian Huxley, Theodosius Dobzhansky and Alfred Russel Wallace, all of whom thoroughly exposed the weakness of the Darwinian model. The same thing is happening right now on internet forums. I have a half dozen terminal unanswered evolution posts at SciAm Perspectives alone. John Rennie is doing what the Darwinians have always done. He ignores the critics. Others, like William Dembski, P.Z. Meyers, Wesley Elsberry through their forums, Uncommon Descent, Pharyngula, The Austringer and Panda's Thumb along with ARN, EvC, ISCID's "brainstorms" (what a misnomer), FringeSciences and others have found it necessary to muzzle me completely by disemvowelization, deletion, denigration, personal insult and, finally, when all else fails, lifetime bannishment. These tactics speak for themselves. They expose the Darwinian model for what many of us have long known it to be, a pathetically failed explanation for the great mystery of evolution. My postion has consistently been that Fundamentalist sectarian Creationism and Darwinian atheist materialism are both dead wrong. I appreciate this opportunity to offer my response here at your blog. Thank you very much. I am still posting freely at Post-Darwinism and a few other internet blogs if anyone is interested.

John,

Evidence please.

I will look up and read your papers if you will be so kind as to outline the evidence for your position and give a detailed example or two here. My trips to the research library mostly focus on my interest in Ugaritic and other ancient languages but I will look up the articles you suggest when I have time. Of course, I will be looking for the evidence.

I remain surprised that you have, as far as I can see not provided anything in wha tI have seen of your comments here and else where that is evidence for your position. It is true that you cite an array of other people with the same or similar positions as yours. But this is like a mainstream biologists citing Darwin. The fact is they seldom do it except in response to certain types of criticism. They cite their evidence and offer an interpretation. Please try that and see if it works for you.

Don't feel bad abut being banned from Dembski's cite. He doesn't even let people who disagree with him last a single comment. At least the others put up with disagreement for quite a while before they use their prerogative to limit debate that they see as futile.

Thank you Duane. I regard both opposed camps as dead wrong and have made my reasons for that evident both on the internet and in published peer reviewed articles. The rest is up to those who disagree with me and my sources. So far they have not done so in hard copy which is all that matters in the long run. The internet is ephemeral. The shelves of the world's libaries are for eternity or at least we hope so.

Thanks again.

Duane

As for the evidence which you request, in the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis paper I have presented both The Indirect Evidence and The Direct Evidence under those headings. That paper can be found without the single figure at ARN, ISCID's Archives and at EvC where I am sure it played a part in my lifetime banishment. At least I sure hope so as that is the only reason I can offer for such a reaction. Thankfully there are still a few forums like this one that will tolerate my heresies.

Duane

You are pretty good at closing down threads when they get a little sticky yourself. Debate over what our significance is in the universe is one of the most important issues at stake here. I think it should be kept right on the front burner and let the devil take the hindmost. Thus is the only thread on which I have posted that hasn't been closed. Is it next?

John,

I have software that automatically closes threads that are more than a week or two old. I don't remember the exact timing. This is to prevent spam and it seems to work fairly well. I prefer this to black listing but may need to go to that because of the large number of trackback spam I get. If you look, you will se that posts with no comments (that would be most posts on my site) are also closed down. This was not aimed at you or any other commenter who comes to might site in person rather than by way of some robot.

In time this thread will be closed down also, but not because of you.

Duane

You underestimate my willingness to keep after ideologues of any persuasion. I am always disappointed when denied the opportunity to express my contempt for both Darwinian mysticism and Fundamentalist Bible-banging. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where that is. However, it is your blog and I'm confdent you will do what you think is best. All in all, I'm pleased you have let me say as much as you have. That is more than I have been allowed at many other forums, too numerous to mention.

There is only one reason to close down a thread and that is because the moderator, yourself, doesn't care for the substance of the comments. So close this one too or better yet ban me. I'm used to that sort of shabby response. Don't disappoint me. Bye.