Davison's Soapbox

More, more I say, don't stop. Keep it up. I love it. What better demonstration could there possibly be that I have reached both camps in this idiotic war of two stupid ideologies, Darwimpian atheist pseudo-materialism and Fundamentalist Bible Banging Baptist Bigotry. You are all full of it right up to the gunwales. Both ships are awash and going down by the stern. Oh how I love it all. I always knew there was purpose in my prescribed predestined life and now it has finally come to fruition. Thank you all for verifying that which I long suspected. This all was meant to be and I am the special messenger to implement it. God but it is a beautiful thing to observe isn't it? Don't stop you mindless automatons. It's too late now anyway. Your fate was sealed millions of years ago when the Big Front Loader (BFL) wrote you into the program. Enjoy your last days. You are doomed.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for the Darwimpians and the religious fanatics alike.

"Then there are the fanatical atheists whose intolerance is the same as that of the religious fanatics, and it springs from the same source... They are creatures that can't hear the music of the spheres."
Albert Einstein

Thank you Albert. God but I am having fun with you clowns.

How do like them two minute soft-boiled eggs? Pretty runny aren't they?

Keep them there wagons in a circle. Geronimo!

John A. Davison

Oh, excellent idea!

John, we've given you your own forum on this site that you are so hostile to. You could be gracious and see this promotion from the bathroom wall as a courtesy being extended to you, as an alternative to banning. Have any other sites that you've haunted tolerated you to this extent?

Professor Davison

I am genuinely interested in your theory. I have tried to read your manifesto but being a layman with only a three year undergraduate course in biochemistry back in the late sixties, I'm afraid I lost the plot. You may not see eye to eye with Richard Dawkins but you might agree that he writes lucidly for a lay audience. Perhaps you could try the same for semi-meiosis.

Here is JAD in a nutshell:

in post 31019:

"I am an evolutionist through and through."

in his very next post:

"Of course I am a creationist. Why isn't everyone is the question I ask."

case closed.

@Sir_Toejam

But if you are a theist evolutionist, the two aren't mutually exclusive, are they?

Of course they aren't Alan. Good for you. Bad for Fungus foot.

John, has no one ever told you that calling a bunch of scientists 'Darwimps' makes you sound, well, STUPID?

literal creationism and evolutionary theory ARE mutually exclusive.

this is why ID was invented. well, that, and because teaching literal creationism has already been ruled illegal in court, so they needed to mask the religious aspect.

that's not saying that a belief in god and evolutionary theory can't work together for some people. A theistic evolutionist is typically described as someone who believes that god had a hand in "getting the ball rolling" so to speak, but then left evolution to itself.

that is not a creationist. A creationist rejects the fossil record and common descent, and rejects natural selection as a mechanism of change.

moreover, if JAD wants to redefine himself as an evolutionary theologist, then he would have to accept evoltionary theory, which he does not (he has his own theory).

now watch, after this is said, JAD will probably try to redefine what creationism is, just like he tries to redefine what evolution is.

Arden Chatfield

Oh yes many times.

What ever happened to my earlier post where I thanked you folks for your generosity? It seems to bhve been lost in the shuffle somehow. I was deadly serious by the way.

John A. Davison

Arden Chatfield

Oh yes many times.

What ever happened to my earlier post where I thanked you folks for your generosity? It seems to have been lost in the shuffle somehow. I was deadly serious by the way.

John A. Davison

Professor,

In your conclusion you state "The semi-meiotic hypothesis is
eminently testable in suitable material." Could you expand on this point?

Sir T

The Prof talks of the BFL and evolution having happened. He could be a theistic evolutionist, at least in his own terms.

alan,

have fun trying to sort out what JAD is.

cheers

Message to David Scott Springer aka "DaveScot" aka "Sad Covet" aka "jordan" and etc.:

Your use of this computer system is unauthorized. You do not have consent to use this system.

There exists a computer security system in place to restrict your access to this system.

This is not a "game of hide and seek". Any further attempts to access this system by you will be treated as a violation of Section 1. Title 7, Chapter 33, Section 33.02 of the Texas Penal Code.

This includes usage of alternate ISPs to evade the security system.

Goodbye.

(yanks chain)

Come on, John. Bark for me.

jaimito
The examples you cite are varieties not new species. Also I am not supposed to post here anymore. You see I have been isolated into my own little cell like I was over at EvC before they finally banned me for life . You will have to communicate with me there I'm afraid. The Bathroom Wall is now reserved for the real intellectuals. I am afraid I have been excluded from this most elite fraternity of head nodding, lock stepping, pseudo materialistic, chance worshipping, mutation happy, natural selection intoxicated bunch of atheist groupthinkers known far and wide as neoDarwinians, a dying breed for which Panda's Disarticulated grasping member is the last retreat. Come visit with me in my new home or don't. I really don't care that much.

How do you like them perennial onions?

John A. Davison

P.S. This post was originally presented in the latrine.

I see you clowns are now deleting my comments. So what was the point in giving me this little cell I ask? I can't even post here.

I don't bark for Darwimps or anyone else. I spout undeniable truths with metronomic regularity to blind and deaf audiences such as those that haunt Panda's Dislocated Thumb, the last refuge for Darwimpianism, the most idiotic and experimentally failed fabrication in human history.

I see DaveScot must be back. Welcome to the snake pit Dave. I thought you might be dead.

"Science commits suicide when she adopt a creed."
Thomas Hnery Huxley

Like hell she does Hank baby. Roll over, lift the lid and take a peek.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them sauteed portabellas?

John A. Davison

I want to know what happened to my lengthy litany of gratitude to you all for not banning me and for erecting this special cell for my intellectual confinement. It is EvC's "boot camp" all over again. I love it. I was sincerely grateful but no one can appreciate that because some guy somewhere didn't permit that post to appear. That sucks if you ask me. I can't even thank you folks. Well I am doing it now again and I am being serious for a change. Of course I can't guarantee I will remain that way for very long. I'm very unstable you know. Thanks again. Enjoy my sobriety while you may.

How do you like them jawbreakers?

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison

"Enjoy my sobriety while you may."

A drunken monkey? isn't that a kung-fu style?

Fungus foot

There is no theory of evolution yet. A past evolution is undeniable. What we have are two major thoroughly tested and failed hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism. Neither has a leg to stand on. In 1984 I proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis which to this day has not been even acknowledged in the professional literature let alone tested in the laboratory. I was unable to find suitable material to test it myself and I am now not in a position to do so having been evicted from my laboratory in 2000 at which time I resigned from the University of Vermont. That is a matter of history and there is no need to discuss it further.

I have continued to publish papers in 2000, 2003, 2004 and one in press to appear this summer, all in Rivista di Biologia. As a derivative of the semi-meiotic hypothesis I have formalized a new hypothesis for organic evolution under the self explanatory title of A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis available for perusal at a numnber of internet sites, ARN, "brainstorms," EvC and elsewhere.

Now that I have been interred here in my own private little cell I will be happy to answer any questions about my hypotheses provided only that the questions come from someone who can demonstrate that they are familiar with my position. I recommend as background the 50 page summary "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change," available at my home page and in the archives of "brainstorms," the forum of ISCID and elsewhere. If, having comprehended that material, anyone has any questions I will be happy to respond to them. If that is asking too much just don't bother.

I can assure you that while I am a creationist of sorts (isn't everyone?), I am very definitely an evolutionist and a bench scientist and I remain convinced that all of evolution has resulted from natural causes which can be, have been and are being disclosed through controlled laboratory science as well as the final arbiter, the fossil record. I have discussed those findings in my most recent paper in the two sections "The indirect evidence" and "The direct evidence." Earlier indirect evidence was presented in my 2000 paper "Ontogeny, Phylogeny and the Origin of Biological Information" available at my home page and elsewhere. You can find my papers and the reactions they have produced by simply entering the words 'davison' and 'evolution' in the Google search engine.

And so to bed.

" "An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change," available at my home page and in the archives of "brainstorms," the forum of ISCID and elsewhere. "

don't forget to mention it being listed on crank.net as well.

http://www.crank.net/evolution.html

Fungus foot.

You are a credit to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Take another bow. And just where may the rest of us find your publications? That is other than Crank Dot Com? In the meantime keep them wagons in a circle folks. There is strength in numbers don't you know.

John A. Davison

Professor

I promise you I tried to read your manifesto. Sorry if I'm oversimplifying but do I undestand you to say: There were several separate starting points to life on Earth and that all genetic information necessary for the development of all species known today was "preloaded", natural selection does not have an effect on speciation, and that evolution by survival of the fittest does not occur but may have done in the past. (The inference here is that there must be an on/off switch somewhere), and that semi-meiosis better explains what is observed? Could you briefly explain semi-meiosis and how it fits with the evidence.

"In 1984 I proposed the semi-meiotic hypothesis which to this day has not been even acknowledged in the professional literature let alone tested in the laboratory."

John, your hypothesis wasn't tested because it's untestable. An untestable hypothesis is worthless to science.

There's no conspiracy to bury genius, John. Worthwhile ideas in science are examined and tested. Surely there's a masters student in a bible college in Tennessee looking for a good thesis subject. Maybe one of Dr. Dembski's new students is looking for an idea.

Here you go monkey, tell us all you know about semi-meiosis :P

My oh my. See how little activity there is here now that I have disappeared from this trench. The same thing happened over at your sister forum EvC after they finally banned me for life. I predict that the activity will pick up at Davison's Soap Box as it declines here. This post originated at the Bathroom Wall.

The Catholic Encyclopedia:

"Certain patients develop ever-increasing fixed delusions with clear consciousness and without any weakening of the intellect. The individual stages of this disorder may usually be distinguished. At first, these patients believe themselves to be under observation, to be pursued by enemies. Everything that is done has a deliberate reference to themselves; people slander them, spy upon them, or watch them. Hallucinations of hearing develop (e. g. mocking, abusive voices). The circle of their persecutors gradually enlarges; it is no longer a definite person (an enemy, a rival, a business competitor, etc.) who is the originator of this persecution and slander, but entire classes or bodies (Freemasons, Jesuits, political parties, the entire Civil Service, the members of the royal household, etc.). As their grandiose ideas develop, the patients believe themselves the victims of widespread intrigues and persecutions, because others are envious of them, or because of their importance. The concrete content of the delusions varies greatly in different cases, but remains fixed in the same individual. One believes himself to be an important inventor; another, a reformer; a a third, a legitimate successor to the throne; a fourth, the Messiah. In addition to the hallucinations of hearing, different bodily hallucinations develop. The patients feel themselves electrified, penetrated with the röntgen rays, etc. In the initial stages the patients are very often well able to hide their delusional ideas in case of necessity, and to pretend that they no longer believe in them (dissimulation). By reason of the obstinacy of the ideas of persecution, and especially because of their clearness of thought in other respects, these patients may become very dangerous, attacking those about them with violence, taking their revenge by killing, or by well-planned murders of their supposed persecutors.

In many cases the apparent sanity of these patients, and the fanaticism with which they promulgate their ideas, deceive an uncritical following, so that healthy but undiscriminating people share in their delusions (induced insanity). Many cases of so-called psychic epidemics, of perversely abstruse religious sects, belong to this category. In some cases the ideas of persecution are based on real or imaginary legal injustice suffered by the patient, who then believes that all advocates, judges, and administrative authorities are in league against him (Paranoia querulans, litigious paranoia). Traces of this are seen in the cases of obstinate litigants, who spend large amounts of money on lawyers to recover absurdly insignificant sums. When their complaints are dismissed everywhere, they commit a crime merely in order to come before a jury and thus enabled to renew their old suit."

Don Grimm

Just what the hell does your lengthy quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia have to do with organic evolution, presumably the subject matter of concern to the denizens of Panda's Dislocated Thumb, emphasis on the word presumably?

If you would rather not say and prefer just to hit and run I will understand. That, in my experience, is standard practice here as elsewhere on all internet forums dominated by monolithic groupthink mentalities. I'll wait for your response for about ten minutes.

How do you like them black olives?

John A. Davison, inmate.

In all honesty, Mr. Davison, I think Grimm's post has hit the nail on the head as regards your contributions to the scientific worlds...

"You are a credit to the spirit of scientific inquiry. Take another bow. And just where may the rest of us find your publications? "

*bows*

In Pacific Science (I used to research ontogenetic color change in fish), tho my last publication in the peer reviewed literature was in 1993. Mostly i work with non-prof ngo's now.

[banana]What's far more interesting to me, is that you had some decent publications before 1984; what happened to you to turn you into the screaming monkey you are now?

you keep dancing around that, but I have never actually seen you answer the question.

Don:

What was the name given to the mental illness described in the reference you quote?

Though I'm only guessing, I believe Don's definition is for 'paranoid schizophrenia'.

Professor

Did you notice my post 31175?

It's all over folks. Get used to it. Quit fantasizing and come to grips with reality. Evolution is finished and so are Lamarckism, Communism, Gradualism, Mutationism, Natural Selectionism, Darwimpianism and Antidisestablishmentarianism. Ain't nothin' goin' on no more. Trust me.

This post originated in the latrine.

John A. Davison

Alan
Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism, which is my position, will never be taken seriously until it is as the very least subjected to experimental testing. That simply as not been done yet. If the Darwimps were so confident of their mutationist, gradualist, selectionist model they would have tested my heresy decades ago. Why haven't they is the question. After all they gave up testing their own scheme long ago. Darwinism has never been an experimental science. When an hypothesis is tested and fails that test it must be abandoned. Darwinism should have been abandoned in Darwin's own day. Actually it was by Mivart who wrote a book titled, with tongue in cheek, Genesis of Species. I am willing to bet that not one member of this forum has ever read it. They are afraid to just as the evolutionary establishment is afraid to test the Semi-meiotic hypothesis.

Science is nothing but the discovery of what is there and what was there, both just waiting to be revealed. Darwimpianism is not science by any stretch of the imagination. It is a belief system which denies the obvious which is that there has never been a role for chance in either ontogeny or phylogeny. If there had been neither could exist.

I hope this helps to answer your question.

John A. Davison

OK Fungus foot. My early research, which included three solo publications in Science, was in developmental biology and included the experimental inhibition of the second meoitic division in frogs. By this means I was able to obtain perfectly normal animals. Others as early as 1905 had obtained normal frogs of both sexes without the intervention of sex by simply activating the egg with a platinum needle. These undeniable facts served as the basis for the Semi-meiotic hypothesis. If you had read the Manifesto you would know all this but obviously you have not.

By 1984 I was in my mid fifties and decided to dedicate the rest of my life to the problem of organic evolution because I felt it presented a challenge to my considerable abilities and was worth whatever antagonism that might provoke from a bigoted evolutionary and administrative establishment. It has been exactly as I anticipated and I have relished every moment of this journey which I have not yet finished. Now as for you, you mouthy little nothing, this is my blog now and I don't welcome you or any other arrogant little intellectual zeros in my cozy little cell. Have you got that? Crawl back into the latrine which I note has now lapsed back into a coma with my departure. There are some here who are interested in what I have to offer. You are not one of them. You are a disgrace. You offer nothing and detract from a rational discussion with your shabby, mindless drivel. You have named yourself well. Kiss off. You make me sick.

John A. Davison

absolutely true, John... this is your little corner. I thought you enjoyed being harrangued.

since you decided to at least attempt an answer to my question, I'll leave you be.

enjoy.

I leave you with one last question, which you don't have to answer.

why exactly, did you decide to abandon a promising career? so you could become Einstein and prove everyone wrong?

does that sound like a likely thing, John?

Einstein based his thinking on sound principles and existing evidence that most folks agreed on, but simply couldn't explain. You are basing your theory on evidence that has already been explained, and your thinking does not appear to be sound most of the time.

do you really think there is a grand consipiracy against you?

perhaps you should re-read the comment by Don.

bye.

Get out of my little sanctuary Fungus foot. You contribute nothing here just as you contribute nothing any where else on this forum. I am through with you. Is that clear? You no longer exist so don't bother making an ass of yourself here you unfilfilled little twerp. Do it elsewhere. You have it down pat.

Can this little JAD cell be modified to delete comments older than a week? That way Yang Yang wouldn't have to make new ones every so often. As we've all seen, this makes pandas cranky sometimes.

We should have a couple more of these.

Great White Wonder's Insult Factory

Dave Heddle Stat Chat

Charlie Wagner Destroys Evolution Over, and Over, and Over, and Over,...

Great White Wonder's Insult Factory

It was a joke. I like GWW too, but he's unproductive sometimes.

Somehow this has the feel of a caged animal at a zoo. Walk up. Watch him jump up and down. Dodge the feces he throws at you. Watch him bang the cage and yell 'darwimp' over and over and over again. Maybe snicker and throw some popcorn at him. Then wander away, leaving him there.

This is a good place for him.

16 years and no 'material' to test your own hypothesis?

Incredible...

I would like to introduce a topic here on my little blog if I may. As you all assume you know, organisms are in a constant state of genetic flux as they respond daily to the demands produced by a highly variable environment. I say balderdash to all of that.

This topic I have called the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" concept.

In support of this heretical notion I call your attention to two organisms which demonstrate it beyond any reasonable doubt, one an animal and the other a plant.

The animal is Amoeba, a creature which has no know means of genetic recombination (sex to the uninformed. This lttle bugger has been around far longer than any known living higher metazoon. Now how can this be in a Darwimpian world? I will explain that for you now. It's because if it ain't broke don't fix it, that's why. You see sex is a dangerous practice because you don't know what the hell you are going to get, something that every California housewife who ever had more than one kid can testify. Not only is it unpredictable but it is also very poorly designed for the elimination of recessive lethal genes which the vast majority are. So, as the fossil record so well demonstrates, obligatory sexual reproduction is a sure fire formula for extinction. You can't argue with success.

Just think, if it weren't for all that extinction there never could have been any evolution at all. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn't, which is why I am introducing the "If it ain't broke don't fix it" topic for your serious consideration.

As for the plant I have chosen, from literally thousands of possibilities, the lowly but rampantly successful Dandelion.

How do you like them edible spring greens?

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison, proprietor and sole owner of Davison's Soap Box Inc.

Scott (Mad Dog) Page

There is plenty of material out there I am sure. I don't have a laboratory any more or haven't you heard. By the way it has been 21 years now that the Semi-meiotic hypothesis has remained in oblivion. It took 32 year before Mendel was recognized. The dummies finally found something that occurred in pairs, the chromosomes, the instruments of all evolutionary change. Incidentally, Mendelian genetics had nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with creative evolution. Get used to it. Grasse did and so have I. Wrap your nasty little mind around that one, Mad Dog, and inhale.

Who is next?

John A Davison, proprietor of Davison's Soap Box.

Meine Zeit wird schon kommen!
Gregor Mendel

Just think, if it weren't for all that extinction there never could have been any evolution at all. Did that ever occur to you? Of course it didn't

The animal is Amoeba, a creature which has no know means of genetic recombination (sex to the uninformed. This lttle bugger has been around far longer than any known living higher metazoon.

Thank you Neo-did. You are right on!
(This post originated in the urine trench).

John A. Davison

bump

I don't recall which one of you morons claimed that the Semi-meiotic hypothesis was not testable. All that is required is a female frog known to carry a major chromosomal rearrangement in heterozygous form. Having found that female the next steps are as follows.

You induce ovulation in this frog and you squeeze her eggs into a dish containing pond water in which heavily irradiated frog sperm are swimming happily around waiting for an egg if you will. One of these sperm will enter each of her hundreds of eggs and turn that egg on. Now if nothing else is done. Each egg will proceed to eliminate the second polar body, become haploid and fail to develop. That group is known as the control group. Got that?

The next and only remaining step is to prevent that second meiotic division from taking place by any of a several available means ranging from the application of heat to chilling the eggs to subjecting the eggs to high hydrostatic pressure, all of which prevent the second meiotic division from taking place. Now if you are really lazy and have lots of eggs you don't even have to do that because occasionally the second division fails spontaneously. All such cases yield diploid frogs of both sexes which are perfectly normal animals as we know from experiments I and others did way back in the sixties before some of you clowns were even born. Actually much of the detail was known as early as 1915 as I confirmed in the Manifesto which apparently no one here either has or even can read and of course comprehend. I don't know what your problems are and don't care to.

Exactly one half of the eggs from such a female will develop into frogs homozygous for the new chromosome rearrangement. The other half will be original wild types like the female frog which is the common mother to all of her progeny. Both in theory and principle the new chromosome homozygotes will be new species. Until these experiments have been performed and reported in the literature the Semi-meiotic hypothesis will remain as sound as can be and nothing any one says to the contrary will ever alter that conclusion.

I have omitted the rearing of the tadpoles through metamorphosis which requires lots of parboiled spinach and about six weeks. Got that?

The fact that such experiments have not been undertaken is understandable. The Darwimpians are not interested in performing an experiment that could, in a single afternoon, destroy their shabby hypothesis. They don't even test their own thoroughly discredited hypothesis any more so it is no wonder they have abandoned the experimental method entirely in a vain attempt to save the most idiotic scheme ever concocted by mortal man.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them Reuben's on rye served up from Davison's Soap Box Delicatessen? We use only the best kosher meats, blessed by the Rabbi.

So far today there have been 7 posts on this blog, only three on the Urinal. It seems I am a lot more interesting than what's on the Wall. Exactly the same thing happened when EvC committed me to solitary confinement in "Boot Camp." I'm pleased as punch. As near as I can see I'm keeping Panda's Pathetic Pollex alive just as I did EvC when I was similarly confined in "Boot Camp."

It's hard to believe isn't it?

The one thing we learn from history is that we don't learn from history. Keep them there wagons in a circle folks. Geronimo!

I dig the hep asides of the commenters, but couldn't you put JAD on a live web-cast? I'm sure his twitching and jerking way of locomotion would interest/entertain, but end the need to listen to his unfunny, venomized ramblings.

What unpleasant, silly, greedy, cowardly, deceitful, etc., people ALL the long-term crowd of anti-TOE are!

Glen Davidson

I was referring to the genus Amoeba and any of the species in that genus such as Amoeba dubia. If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest you better be prepared to document it. Personally I don't think you can. Write that down.

Who is next as I used to say over at EvC before they banned me.

Since even prokaryotes have forms of genetic recombination, and since specific enzymes and recombination processes are well known to exist in amoeba, I think you are full of the usual BS. Go get an education, or at least take your professor's advice and get a good idea.

Oh, and you left out pusillanimous.

Rustopher.

Re 31433,

....and that and all other sorts of mutations occur and are propagated are some rate or another without artifice.

Hmmmm, I seem to remember that heritability of genetic change is not exactly incompatible with Darwin.

That being said, such major chromosomal rearrangements are generally fatally drastic, whereas cumulative smaller changes have a far better chance of survival.

Rustopher.

Cosely related animals that have significantly different chromosome numbers are definitely different species because their hybrid can't carry out normal meiosis. The Muntjak is a classic example. I thought everybody knew that. But not Fungus foot.

This post originated in the urine trench.

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from the Big Front Loader (BFL).

Closely related animals that have significantly different chromosome numbers are definitely different species because their hybrid can't carry out normal meiosis. The Muntjak is a classic example. I thought everybody knew that. But not Fungus foot.

This post originated in the urine trench.

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from the Big Front Loader (BFL).

Darwinfinch

There is as yet no theory of evolution (TOA). Evolution doesn't require a theory as it is an undisputable fact. All that we have so far is a couple of thoroughly tested and failed hypotheses, Lamarckism and Darwinism, neither of which is worth a nickel. The truth lies elsewhere and I think I know where. It is called the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which will one day be known as Bergian evolution in tribute to a great Russian scientist.

Custy Ratheter

Please produce evidence for sexual reproduction in the genus Amoeba. Just saying that it might be so doesn't feed the bulldog don't you know.

Is that the only thing you have to say about my thoughts concerning -"If it ain't broke don't fix it." If it is I am disappointed.

How do you like them Concord grapes?

John A. Davison*

* special messenger from BFL

you said genetic recombination. Doesn't require gametes for the majority of the biomass around here, including unicellular eucaryotes. You *have* heard of phage, virions, viruses and those thingys yeast use, let alone those convenient satellite chromosomes in bacteria.

Rustopher.

Custy Ratheter

I did like hell. Can't you read? In Post #31496, directly above, I said and I quote myself:

"Please provide evidence for sexual reproduction in the genus Amoeba."

Where is it?

Did you know that Amoeba is immortal and never dies?
Did you now that Amoeba never needs to reproduce its DNA? Did you know that the secret to immortality is nothing more than continued growth and if you never stop growing you can live forever?
You leave me with the distinct impression that you don't know any of these fundamental characteristics of living things. Now, if you or one of your numerous cronies and fellow members of the Benevolent Protectorate of Darwimpians (BPOD) ask nicely, I may, and I emphasize may, take the trouble to present the proof to you of these fundamentals that you seem to have missed in your biological education if you ever had one. What is your background by the way or would you rather not get into that? I really don't care if you do or don't as it obviously doesn't really matter to me in the least at this point. I just hope to God you aren't a physicist like PaulP.

I'll even explain why we all die if anyone is really interested, but ya gotta ask nice, don't ya know.

I periodically invade forums like this one to enlighten the Phillistines if they will simply let me. That of course is exactly the problem. They won't because they can't cut it. Write that down.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison, B.S. (1950), Ph.D. (1955), SMBFL (2005)*

*Special Messenger from the Big Front Loader.

How do you like them Spanish omelets?

Sir,

Your argument must be very clear to you but I would thank you some patience. Are you saying that Darwinian evolution, powered by spontaneous mutations and other genetic errors, and filtered by natural selection, does not generate new species? That new species are produced only by drastic genetic re-arrangement?

By the way, one of my examples, maize (Zea mays) is a spontaneous hybrid of Central American grasses. Is maize a variety as seem to have stated?

Thanks in advance.

jaimito

The short answer to your question is an emphatic yes. Only varieties and subspecies can be generated by strctly sexual reproduction. I know of no documented examples to the contrary. I have repeatedly requested evidence that any contemporary species can be shown beyond doubt to be ancestral to any other such species. None has appeared. We see the products of a past and finished evolution, not evolution in action as the Darwimpians so blindly continue to believe.

Thank you for the excellent question presented in a civilized manner which is why I am willing to respond to it in the same tone.

John A. Davison, B.S. Ph.D. SMBFL

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

I read your Manifesto but I could not understand why evolution has ended. I dont think its hypothetical slowing down has been proved by Huxley or other.

I see you are fond of calling people by names. jaimito is ludicrous enough, making it innecessary for you to make up something even more offensive.

Sorry for the repeated posting. Maize, is it a variety? Normally it does not fertile with Theosint, its presumed ancestor.

Man and chimp share almost all the genes, but we underwent several inversions and other re-arrangements. Are we the same species?

What I want to know is if B.S. stands for Bachelor of science why isn't it D.PH. for Doctor of Philosophy? Why is it bass ackward, does anybody know? After all F.R.S. stands for Fellow of the Royal Society doesn't it? M.D. stands for Medical Doctor doesn't it? What gives with this Ph.D. crap?I'd really like to know.

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL.

jaimito

Of course we aren't the same species and the ONLY reason we aren't are those rearrangements you describe. Even if the hybrid proved to be viable it would be sterile for the same reason that any two forms that display basic differences in chromosome structure produce, at best, sterile hybrids. Meiotic pairing simply cannot be achieved and so unbalanced gametes are produced. I recommend a basic book in cytology for the details.

John A. Davison, B.S. , Ph.D., SMBFL.

You like hell did in post 31452, more immediately above type with your very own hand:

"If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest..."

As with some other threads, if terms are like hell kept straight, fewer hellish problems ensue.

I prefer to think of sex having a viral origin, but that really is just my personal fancy. Maybe one day when I'm old and crotchety.

Rustopher

Sir,

You didnt answer why evolution has stopped, and why maize is not a new species originated in historic times, and not a variety.

I know man and chimp are not interfertile, they appear to have diverged because of the Rift Valley plus repeated inversions. It is a clear case of speciation. Regarding dogs, we already have several breeds that are almost infertile except when paired with the same breed. Even in our own species there are differencial fertilities that, if left alone, may have led to speciation. If that is the gist of your manifesto, I dont think modern evolutionary thought disagrees much with you.

Regarding Ph.D., it goes back to the Medioeval Guild System, and no one expects Ph.D.s to excel in Phylosophy nor in Medicine.

BTW, I think amoebae undergoes periodical genetic rearrangements thanks to intraorganismic ploidy cycles. I dont like the sex & virus combo.

I like GWW too, but he's unproductive sometimes.

In true Christian fashion, even though I am not one, I now invite ANYONE to post on MY BLOG. I only request that they treat me with a modicum of respect even though I don't probably deserve it. Is that asking too much? I don't think so. That includes Great White Wonder, Scott Page, assuming they are not one and the same, DaveScot, Dilliam Wembski, John Rennie, Jonathan Wells, Phillip Johnson, Richard Dawkins and anyone else who is interested in receiving tuition-free instruction in basic biological principles, delivered with the clarity and profound insight that comes from 51 years of classroom and laboratory experience in the following institutions in chronological order since my Ph.D. Washington University, Princeton, Florida State University, Louisiana State University, RPI (I can't spell Renselaer) and last and definitely least, the University of Vermont. It's all been down hill, don't you know.

Come one, come all. You will all receive certificates at the end of the course provided you can survive a rigorous final exam by producing all the right answers.

Ypu may register right here at DAVISON'S SOAP BOX INC.

How do you like them genetically engineered rutabagas?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

I was referring to the genus Amoeba and any of the species in that genus such as Amoeba dubia. If you think Amoeba practices genetic recombination I suggest you better be prepared to document it. Personally I don't think you can. Write that down.

Glen,

Your replies re. Amoeba certainly beat me to the punch. I'd add only that Davison would be sell-served to take a look at last week's issue of nature, in which the genomic sequence of Dictyosteium was reported, along with a great deal of evidence of horizontal gene transfer in its evolution. Davison of course chooses an organism for which genomic data are not yet available, and builds a bizarre house of cards on that lack of a foundation.

I have a hypothesis that might explain some of John Davison's odd behavior. It is that he was trained as a classical embryologist but that, for whatever reason -- stubbornness, selective stupidity, mental illness, laziness -- he was utterly unable to assimilate the flood of molecular biological and developmental genetic information that began to emerge in the early- to mid-1980s and has only accelerated over the last two decades. This is exactly when his publication record began to tank, and his loopy and untestable ideas came to the forefront. It's too bad. He made a contribution once, and could have continued to do so.

Glen Davidson and Alex Merz together since you are in perfect agreement. Groupthinks are like that don't you know.

I see you are quite unable to respond to my specific question. Why did it take you such a long insulting and denigrating harangue to demonstrate that?

The simple truth is that there is no evidence that any true species on this planet ever arose through obligatory sexual means from an ancestor who engaged in the same practice. The primary and perhaps sole role for sexual reproduction has been and continues to be that of stabilizing evolutionary change by limiting it entirely to the production of varieties and in some instances subspecies. Many organisms cannot even manage that. Neither of you can produce a single bit of hard evidence to the contrary and the sad part of it is that you don't even realize that you can't.

You both are so utterly brain-washed by the mindless, idiotic, atheist inspired and perpetuated Darwimpian fairy tale that the idea of a predetermined, executed and terminated evolutionary scenario is completely beyond your capacity to even imagine even though everything we are now learning about the origins and great antiquity of all molecular mechanisms points directly to that unavoidable conclusion.

Dictyostelium, not Dictyosteium, is not Amoeba and neither is capapble of even speciation let alone the formation of any of the higher categories. Like it or not, there is not a shred of evidence in favor of creative organic evolution in the present biota. If there are such organisms, and there may well be, they have yet to be discovered. One thing is for sure. Such creatures will not be reproducing by obligatory sexual means. Of that I remain certain or I never would have published a single evolutionary paper in the last 21 years.

I am unimpressed with your bravado and innuendo about my rationality as well. You are just two more representatives of that arrogant, supremely confident mentality that invariably characterizes groupthinks such as Panda's Pathetic Pollex. Grasse called it "Olympian assurance" I call it ideological ignorance and monumental moronic myopia myself.

I was never trained as a classical embryologist. My background was in General Physiology and Physical Chemistry. I was entirely self educated as an embryologist and "training" is for animals and Darwimpian mystics not for real scientists like myself.

How do you like them lollipops? Be sure to take the wrappers off before you suck on them.

Who is next?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

I'd like to see an analysis of the cryptic speciation reported in Cordylochernes scorpioides. The researchers say that there is post-zygotic reproductive isolation between populations.

Well I'd hate to be praised by anyone as worthless as JAD has become. 'Nough said re one as intellectual dishonest as he.

Say, what happens when this thread gets too long for Davison's browser to handle it?

Henry

I love that term "cryptic speciation." It is almost as good as "incipient speciation" which is what Dobzhansky ended up using after he was quite unable to transform Drosophila through the most intensive and extended selection imaginable. Natural or artificial selection when carried to extreme invariable leads to loss of fitness. I doubt if Dobzhansky's final stocks even still exist. He probably selected them to extinction. He was a decent man and admitted his failure which is very much to his credit as a confessed Darwinian. He should have stayed in Russia under the guidance of his mentor Leo Berg. He would have accomplished so much more I am sure. He wrote a Foreword to the paperback edition of Nomogenesis. He finished that foreword with the following:

"As a person, he was remarkably kind and completely free of any pomposity or supercilious airs of a scientific bigwig (by no means a usual quality among famous Soviet scientists). A scientific beginner could always ask for and receive wise and friendly advice from him. The present writer will never forget such advice, received a few days before his departure for the new world."

I repeat my conviction that soon Darwinian evolution, a myth, will be replaced with Bergian evolution a process he described as follows:

"Evolution is in a great measure an unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
Nomogenesis, page 406

Berg was, in my carefully considered opinion, much more than a great naturalist which all agree he was. He was a prophet in his own day in a class all by himself. Without his wisdom and insight I would never have been able to publish my own papers. I owe him a great debt and have said so in hard copy.

How do you like them dried plums (prunes)?

John A. Davison, B.S. Ph.D. SMBFL

I noticed that the "dried plums (prunes)" were remarkably unforthcoming concerning the item at issue, the speciation noted by researchers in Cordylochernes scorpioides. If you've never heard of that species before, just say so.

jaimito

I am not a person who "enjoys being thrown out."
What I enjoy is proving that by being thrown out I have established beyond doubt that my adversaries were bigots totally unable to accept any views not in perfect accord with their own. You are welcome in my blog called Davison's Soap Box. Perhaps someone here in the latrine would be so kind as to direct you to it.

This comment originated in the Bathroom Wall.

I am happy to admit that I never heard of Cordylochernes scorpioides. I presume it is an animal. It would take a great deal more than the demonstration of speciation, cryptic, incipient or otherwise, to make me abandon the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Hypotheses are to be abandoned after they have been tested not before. Why the Darwinian myth persists remains a mystery as it is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science. It should have been abandoned immediately following the publication of Mivart's Genesis of Species in 1871. Actually it was by some of the finest minds of two centuries. I won't list them again here as I have done it several times both here and elsewhere.

How do you like them dried grapes (raisins)?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

I am delighted to see that the Administrator of Panda's Thumb is among those willing to interact with me here on Davison's Soap Box. I regard that as a sign of progress. I appreciate the opportunity to interact with any and all. That is why I came here in the first place. I hope it can be done in a civilized fashion which seems not to have always been the fashion at internet forums generally.

Alan Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism,...I hope this helps to answer your question.

His proposal that meiotic rearrangements play a fundamental role in the creation of new species, is not looney at all. That natural selection tends to protect and conserve existing species, well, it may be conceivable.

Yes please, all that want to seriously communicate with me, go to the new cell they were kind enough to build just for me called Davison's Soap Box. God only knows how long they will permit me to orate, pontificate, promulgate, propagate, fulminate and desecrate before they decide to terminate, fumigate and irreversibly eliminate me from any further participation in Panda's Pathetic Pollex.

I'll see you in my Soap Box if it is still there.

How do you like them hush puppies?

This post originated in the two hole out house with the little crescent moon on the door and the bucket of lime and the corn cobs inside. You know the one.

John A. davison

Yes please, all that want to seriously communicate with me, go to the new cell they were kind enough to build just for me called Davison's Soap Box. God only knows how long they will permit me to orate, pontificate, promulgate, propagate, fulminate and desecrate before they decide to terminate, fumigate and irreversibly eliminate me from any further participation in Panda's Pathetic Pollex.

I'll see you in my Soap Box if it is still there.

How do you like them hush puppies?

This post originated in the two hole out house with the little crescent moon on the door and the bucket of lime and the corn cobs inside. You know the one.

John A. davison

Alan

Thank you for your interest but I hope that you understand that there is no need for me to explain something that I have already published. I have summarized my views in a form specifically intended for consumption by undergraduate students. I refer you to my home page and the unpublished but very readable:

"An Evolutionary Manifesto: A New Hypothesis for Organic Change."

It is about 50 pages long and presents the arguments and their basis in detail. It would be different if I hadn't already presented my work in the form of several papers and the Manifesto but I am not prepared to duplicate that material here. I hope you can understand that. Read first and then come back with specific questions. I will be happy to try and answer them.

John A. Davison

Re. Amoeba:

Your argument is that absence of evidence for recombination is evidence of the absence of recombination.

Are you making this stupid argument because you are stupid, because you are dishonest, or both?

Alan

I am not prepared to repeat what has already been presented in a form for undergraduate biology student consumption. I refer you to my home page.

"An Evolutionary Manifesto: A new Hypothesis For Organic Change."

It is around 50 pages long and I recommend you start with the Preface so you will know what to expect in the body of the text. You may not choose to proceed. That is of course entirely up to you.

John A. Davison

Having considered that material, if you still have questions I will be happy to answer them if I can.
I hope you understand.

Malex Erz

In order to gratify your sociopathic tendencies I'll answer both. You no longer exist so don't bother posting here if you expect a response from me because you won't get it.

John A. Davison

Malex Erz

In order to gratify your sociopathic tendencies I'll answer both. You no longer exist so don't bother posting here if you expect a response from me because you won't get it.

John A. Davison

This is the funniest comment thread I've ever read on a science board. If you ever get tired of tearing down the scientific establshment, John, I suggest you try stand-up.

Thank you for your interest but I hope that you understand that there is no need for me to explain something that I have already published.

Professor

I have a day job and am unable to devote enough time to read your work in-depth. I have read your manifesto and it seemed to me that you considered the process of semi-meiosis important. I think I undestand meiosis, but I cannot work out what you mean by semi-meiosis. If it is too much trouble to expand on it here, perhaps you could point out to me where in your work I could find a definition.

Professor

I have a day job and am unable to devote enough time to read your work in-depth. I have read your manifesto and it seemed to me that you considered the process of semi-meiosis important. I think I undestand meiosis, but I cannot work out what you mean by semi-meiosis. If it is too much trouble to expand on it here, perhaps you could point out to me where in your work I could find a definition.

Alan,

Good luck.

Henry

Malex Erz

I don't invade internet forums in order to get my ideas accepted. Where did you ever get that silly idea? I do it to enlighten dummies like you and give them an opportunity to realize that their pet hypothesis is pure unadulterated garbage. Now if they don't pay any attention and they apparently don't here at PT, just as they didn't at brainstorms and EvC, that is not my fault.

You didn't see Mendel running around Europe giving seminars, interviewing the press and making a damn fool of himself did you? No of course not. That sort of foolishness is for guys like Richard Dawkins and Stephen Jay Gould. I'll never forget that interview that Gould had with David Gergen on the tube. Gergen couldn't believe his ears. That is when I think Gould came up with that plum "Intelligence was an evolutionary accident" emphasized with some hand waving and nose picking as I recall.

No, Mendel went right to the top which is what I did when I tried to correspond with Gould and Mayr and Dawkins all of whom paid no attention to me whatsoever. Only Mayr even answered me to tell me how many thousands of words he had written on the subject of evolution.

Here is what actually happened when Mendel wrote to Karl Nageli, the Czar of European botany explaining his results. Nageli responded to Mendel as follows:

"You should regard the numerical expressions as being only empirical, because they cannot be proved rational."

Of course that which is empirical doesn't have to be rational or does it? Apparently it does for you. Well it doesn't for me. Facts speak for themselves and need no further embellishment. The fact is there is NOTHING in the Darwinian fairy tale that had anything to do with a past evolution, a phenomenon that isn't even going on any more. Get used to it. Robert Broom did, Julian Huxley did, Pierre Grasse did and I have too. Man I must really be stupid. Oh, but no one here at Panda's Pathetic Pollex has have they? Oh no. They know by instinct that evolution is going on all around them don't they? Well don't they? I'll answer that very fundamental question for you. You bet they do and that is why I am full of it right up to my nose. Well folks, the undeniable fact that I am swimming in a sea of you know what doesn't mean Im wrong.

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

"Hypotheses have to be reasonable, facts don't."
Anonymous

How do you like them tasty little chocolate coated bon bons?

John A. Davison

Mendel's work sat stagnant for years and was recognized when he was dead, while Mitchell's work was recognized and built upon while he was still alive.

Which would you choose, if you could?

My wife says I'm wasting my time here. I think I agree with her.

Bye Professor

There is no question that political liberalism and Darwimpianism are pleiotropic manifestations of exactly the same genetic condition. In all probability it is the same locus and is probably on chromosome # 12. That is why it is very hard to find a politically conservative Darwimpian or a left leaning, abortion happy Creationist.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

How do you like them malted milk balls?

This post originated in the basement water closet.

Eugenie Scott should be deported either to Cuba or China.

"PEt Hypothesis"

"PEt Hypothesis"

Alan

You tell your wife that I agree with her too. Is she one of them California housewives by any chance? You know. The ones that have more natural horse sense than to ever believe that evolution occurred by chance.

From here on out I will post on this thread exclusively with reference to this checklist...

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/crackpot.html

...because it looks as though Davison is taking a shot at the record.

I finally figured out why you people do not ban me. Do you want me to tell you why? I will tell you why if someone asks nicely for me to tell you why. Otherwise I will never tell you why. The choice is yours. The ball is in the Darwimpian court.

I'm goimg to have a drink now. I'm a hopeless alcoholic you know. My liver is like Swiss cheese.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do like them fermented Greek olives?

John A. Davison

Do you want me to tell you why?

Figures.

Yup.

Malex Erz has directed us all to THE CRACKPOT INDEX which I have just visited.

Criterion number 2 is especially revealing. It goes this way:

1 point for every statement THAT IS WIDELY AGREED UPON TO BE FALSE. (my emphasis)

Isn't that precious, a perfect definition of the groupthink mentality. The truth folks depends on what is widely agreed upon. Think about it or don't. I couldn't care less.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

How do you like them stewed prunes?

John A Davison

Henry J

Post #31674 also supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis.

How do you like them individually wrapped Tilapia filets?

Posted in the pee pee trench.

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

Your spelling of my name is widely agreed upon to be false.

+1.

Re "Post #31674 also supports the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis."

How can something that's fully consistent with the current theory somehow support an idle speculation like PEH?

Henry J

I learned how to fix my browser when a real scientist by the name of DaveScot showed me how. Of course he is not allowed to post here any more.

This post from the outdoor necessarium is in response to post #31818. I will not be the least surprised if my thread is disposed of. That is just one of many ways one can deal with dissent. You are to be congratulated on your tactics. They remind me so much of EvC and Boot Camp. What more could a critic of the Darwimpian fairy tale want.

John A. Davison

Let me take this opportunity to point out why I think I am allowed to have this little blog called Davison's Soap Box. It is so that, in a few days, when it disappears into the sunset as all other intoduced threads do here at Panda's Pathetic Pollex, I will have no place left to present my comments. Do I have that right by any chance?

Assuming I do for the time being let me say that if I am banned from participation at PPP for whatever reason it will not be because I have violated any rules of internet etiquette. It will be for one reason only. It will be because the owner and manager of PPP has ordered it. He has already prevented me from posting on his own private blog just as Dilliam Wembsi has and probably for the same fundamental reasons. There is no place for dissent in either camp involved in this idiotic pissing contest in which it is perfectly clear to me at least that both sides are completely without a clue with respect to the great mystery of organic evolution. If I am denied posting here it will only prove that I have been right on in comparing the tactics employed here with those employed at EvC. John Rennie has not yet made that fatal error at SciAm. I think he knows better. So do the folks at ARN. The ball is in Esley Welsberry's court and the choice is his and his alone.

How do you like them seedless watermelons?

John A. Davison

Let me take this opportunity to point out why I think I am allowed to have this little blog called Davison's Soap Box. It is so that, in a few days, when it disappears into the sunset as all other intoduced threads do here at Panda's Pathetic Pollex, I will have no place left to present my comments. Do I have that right by any chance?

I see my post has not appeared so I guess I will have to try again.

If I am banned from Panda's Pathetic Pollex it will not be because of a breach of internet etiquette. It will be because the owner and manager of PPP ordered it. To give me this Soap Box, knowing it will disappear in a few days, is just one more shabby tactic employed by one who is transparently insecure. He has already denied me posting in his private blog just as Dilliam Wembski has and for the same reasons. If I am denied posting here for any reason, it will prove beyond any doubt that PPP is no better than EvC. Neither can tolerate the idea that they might be dead wrong. John Rennie at SciAm has not made that fatal error yet. Neither have the folks at ARN. I think they both know better.

The ball is in yout court Esley Welsberry. Do what you have to and be prepared for the repurcussions.

How do you like them overripe avocados?

John A. Davison

I finally figured out why you people do not ban me. Do you want me to tell you why? I will tell you why if someone asks nicely for me to tell you why. Otherwise I will never tell you why. The choice is yours. The ball is in the Darwimpian court.

Let me take this opportunity to point out why I think I am allowed to have this little blog called Davison's Soap Box. It is so that, in a few days, when it disappears into the sunset as all other intoduced threads do here at Panda's Pathetic Pollex, I will have no place left to present my comments. Do I have that right by any chance?

My blog had better not fall off in a few days.

John A. Davison

Malex Erz

When your initial letters have been transposed it means you no longer exist. Got that? Write it down.

John A. Davison

Unsympathetic reader

You don't seem to understand. We are dealing with matters of principle here. Is there or is there not any place for dissent in this forum. I have already established that there is no room for dissent at "brainstorms," FringeSciences and EvC. It is really very simple. As I just said, the ball is in Esley Welsberry's court. This forum is on trial just as the others were. Got that? Write that down.

I don't care for your tone either.

John A. Davison

The grad students in my lab don't think I exist, either. But that's because I have an NIH grant due June 1. (You're the comic relief, John.)

The grad students in my lab don't think I exist, either. But that's because I have an NIH grant due June 1. (You're the comic relief, John.)

By the way, for #31896: "40 points for comparing those who argue against your ideas to Nazis, stormtroopers, or brownshirts."

However: I offer -35 for getting thrown off of Dembski's site. Running total: +12.

#31896, contains no reference to Nazis, stormtroopers or brownshirts which makes Malex Erz a self demonstrated liar. No surprises there. I also got thrown off his fearless leader's blog. I guess that is a good thing here at the good old Panda's Pathetic Pollex and Groupthink Extraordinaire.

It is not my ideas that people argue against. That has yet to be seen in hard copy anywhere. It is the undeniable facts that they cannot see that prevents them from saying anything sensible about evolution. The Darwimpians live in a fog and I am the fog horn warning them of their impending doom. Unfortunately for them, they are all stone deaf to Einstein's music of the spheres. At this point it pleases me immensely as I have had a bellyful of the whole current evolutionary scenario. I think you are all losers on both sides of this idiotic pissing contest. Keep it up. I thrive on adversity and always have.

How do you like them candied carrots?

Ask not for whom the fog horn blows. It blows for Darwimpian evolution, the biggest hoax in human history.

John A. Davison

The Darwimpians live in a fog and I am the fog horn warning them of their impending doom.

John Davison writes:
"You don't seem to understand. We are dealing with matters of principle here."

I do understand. Perfectly.
It's not about 'tolerance of dissent' but how much slack should be given to persistently disruptive individuals. Not principles, not communication, not the ability to promote one's ideas, not dissent per se, because others with reasonable behavior have overcome such problems.

This is your soapbox, John. How productively have you used it so far? From my viewpoint, I would say it hasn't been good.

I'll leave you alone with your thread from now on. It's all yours.

It seems that the technical staff can't keep PT operating tonight. I have been unable to post. Here is a second attempt.

You want totalitarian. Try Ernst (dyed-in-the-wool) Mayr, Stephen Jay (intelligence was an evolutionary accident) Gould and Richard (blind watchmaker) Dawkins on for size.

You want more totalitarian? Consider some of the tactics employed right here like isolation, disemvowelization, arbitrary deletion, transfer of comments to the latreen and most recently transferring to a thread scheduled to disappear in a few days. Now that's totalitarian, arbitrary, hide bound, intolerant bigotry pure and simple.
Don't talk to me about totalitarian or about my behavior. Consider your own behavior. Mine pales by comparison.

John A. Davison

yes, yes, cry us a river, little monkey.

shall i get Wayne Francis to repeat some of your more choice posts from the past? you know, the ones where you threaten people physically and generaly claim a rather dictatorial stance yourself?

or shall i render your comments where you compare all of us to satan (you know, the one that got you wiped off the bathroom wall)?

or any of the literally dozens of comments where you insult or berate all of us to an extreme degree?

or perhaps you would prefer a complete list of all the attempts at discussing your PEt Hypothesis that you say nobody here has done? Hell, I myself made a futile attempt to discuss your "theories" with you when i first came here. If you can't accept criticism on your ideas, and you provide no positive evidence in support of your ideas, and then accuse all of us of not even attempting to discuss them with you, I think even you should be able to see that isn't quite rational.

really, John. You are only amusing as a prime example of someone who has gone round the bend. It almost makes me frustrated that your family has not seen fit to get you professional help. It's obvious that you can't seem to recognize how far gone you are yourself.

maybe it's all that drinking you refer to, or maybe it's a more deep seated psychological problem (your constant accusations that we are all out to get you suggests a mild form of schizophenia). Whatever the issue, you are in dire shape there, old man.

Your thread will not disappear. just bookmark it on your browser.

if perchance, your thread closes after a time (it should stay open for quite a while)... i have already mentioned that you could open a free forum for yourself over at google.com. it's really not hard.

Joe Tam

You are my greatest ally. By continuing to demonstrate to the universe that you are convinced I am daft you are proving beyond doubt that it is you that are lacking some of your buttons, actually several of them.

As for being out to get me, you clowns haven't a chance. You see my schlock is already published or will be and that is all that matters in case you didn't know that and I don't think you did. You, Joe Tam in particular, act if I was just another unfulfilled, feckless, foolish, fumbling fearless Fosdick like yourself, unpublished, uneducated, unaware and unconcious. I really appreciate having you as my unpaid agent. You are an invauable asset.

I have already indicated what will happen if I am denied posting priveleges at PPP (Panda's Pathetic Pollex) and I have no interest in opening my own forum. I get my rocks off invading and devastating other peoples blogs don't you know. It has become a way of life for me, a second career if you will. I love it so.

How do you like them hundred year old eggs?

John A. Davison, B.S. 1950, Ph.D. 1955, SMBFL 2005

Sorry Burt but you don't speak for everybody here because nobody here speaks for me here except myself. I thought everybody knew that by now

This post was sent from the Dawkins thread. I'm sure it won't appear there. Groupthinks operate that way don't you know.

"All for one and one for all,
Here we go for that big fall."
John A. Davison

John A. Davison

If you want real science you can't beat that old tried and true combination - Mayr plus Dawkins, Harvard plus Oxford, that's a winner for sure. Unfortunately neither one of them has or ever had a clue about evolution, a phenomenon of the past.

This posted on the Dawkins thread.

Where all them there posts I been pollutin' all them there other threads with? Am I being deleted again? That won't do don't you know. Cough up them jewels ya'll hear.

"I have already indicated what will happen if I am denied posting priveleges at PPP (Panda's Pathetic Pollex)"

other than vague threats, actually you haven't.

could you be more specific as to what you will do when everyone forgets about you again?

Ordinarily I read as little of Dawkins as possible but this time the article was short enough so I could manage it without incident. I can only conclude that the man belongs in a home with rubber walls. That anyone could possibly take him seriously cannot be so. Even Lewontin has expressed as much.

This post originated on the Dawkins thread.

John A. Davison, B.S., 1950, Ph.D. 1955, SMBFL, 2005

Joe Tam

Why I'll throw a petit mal siezure of course and dedicate the rest of my utterly wasted life demonstrating to the world that Panda's Pathetic Pollex is no better than EvC, FringeSciences and "brainstorms," just another blog dominated by a bunch of Darwimpian illiterate ideologues incapable of hearing Einstein's music of the spheres. That's what I will do. So there. How does that grab you? Incidentally, you promised not to come back here again didn't you.

How do you like them cream filled chocolate eclairs?

Incidentally, I have been holding forth over at ARN before a much more tolerant audience.There I can post on any thread I choose and my posts stay right there too.

It's hard to believe isn't it?

John A. Davison

John, you would seem to be your own worst enemy. Is the demeanor you display here the same demeanor you have displayed throughout your career? If so, your apparent spurning by the scientific community is understandable; if not, what happened that turned you into the person we see here?

You've been given a gratis podium from which to present your hypotheses and the scientific support/evidence for them, but you've used that podium instead to throw combative vitriol at anyone who questions your claims. You're squandering a freely gifted resource for the sake of momentary sensory pleasure over your various insults and denigrations.

When did you propose your hypotheses, and when did you lose your lab privileges. There seems to be a substantial gap between the two occurances, during which you evidently did no further research to add to the body of evidence supporting your hypotheses. Why? Did you, like Behe, claim that it was up to others to disprove you, rather that up to you to validate your claims? Or is the answer worse?

You're a real piece of work, John - and I can only hope it's all just shtick, 'cause the alternative has some seriously bad downsides. Do take care.

Bob

Mob Baurus

Just what has my demeanor got to do with the eternal search for the truth? I'll answer that question with a resounding NOTHING. If you have read any of my published papers you would know that they are presented in civil, even formal fashion. There is not a word of vitriol in anything I have ever put in hard copy. My behavior on this blog, as it has been on others where I have been treated with similar contempt, is simply a reaction to the knee jerk fashion in which my offerings have been received. Never have the substance of those offerings even been mentioned. Forums like this one and EvC have acted as judge and jury without even considering any other interpretation than the one they have been brought up with. The simple undeniable truth is that Darwinism is a myth and I have offered a reasonable rational and testable alternative which remains in perfect accord with everything we really know about an event which has never been observed and probably is not even occurring any more.

Since when am I obligated to explain my laboratory experience to you or anyone else? Who the hell do you think you are? You sound like a latter day Spanish High Inquisitor interrogating a heretic from on high. I did my level best under circumstances that were far from ideal I can assure you. I finally got fed up with being treated like garbage by an administration completely victimized by the atheist Darwinian paradigm. That treatment was recognized by the Provost who is now President of Montana State University. We resigned from the University of Vermont on exactly the same day and for exactly the same reasons on December 1, 2000. Go interrogate some one else. You bore me to tears.

I don't have to disprove Darwinism. The Darwinians have already done that thousands of times. The cowards just aren't decent enough to admit it. It's too late for them now anyway which pleases me enormously.

How do you like them rare pork loin roasts?

John A. Davison

Alan

If you must insult me please do it on a thread from which I can respond. I find your tactics cowardly. There is no need for me to offer a definition of semi-meiosis. That is what journals are for and that is where you will find it. My papers are a touch of your mouse away.

This post originated in the one holer out on the back forty.

I see the Soap Box has reached the bottom of the list of threads. It seems crunch time has come upon us. What is your pleasure folks? The ball is in your court and always has been.

John A. Davison, B.S., Ph.D., SMBFL

DohnA Javison - Hm-m, sounds suspiciously like JennA Jamison. You haven't made any films, have you?

You see what I mean?

Alan

Why don't you follow your wife's advice and find something else to do with your precious infantile life.

From the outhouse.

OK Professor

I have read your manifesto. I coudn't glean from that a coherent definition of semi-meiosis. Maybe the failing is mine, but, there you are. Do you want to offer a definition that I could follow, or indicate the relevant passage(s) in your work? I'm still curious.

PS I think you are well in front on the insulting stakes.

Hey folks what happens to my posts now that they have no place to go?

John A. Davison

The piece by Mustafa Akyol is a beautiful dissection of the Darwimpian myth.

John A. Davison

I am more coherent now than at any other time in my life. Unfortunately, Esley Welsberry has made it impossible for me to ever demonstrate my coherency at his pathetic little blog again. He is a living example of the lengths to which a failed hypothesis must be frantically sustained in its death throes so obviouly demonstrated here as at EvC and every other blog dedicated to Darwimpian mysticism, the most failed hypothesis in all of human history.

This comment originated only to be deleted in the Bathroom wall.

John A. Davison

Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished.
This post is destined for oblivion in the Welsberry gas chamber as just another example of his Nazi tactics.

John A. Davison

Neither allelic mutation nor selection ever had anything to do with organic evolution which was predetermined executed and now finished.