Mendel overturned, or just more Darwin?

| 51 Comments | 1 TrackBack

The possible discovery of a non-Mendelian form of inheritance in the tiny mustard plant Arabidopsis thaliana – the lab rat of the plant world – has hit the news in a big way this week. See e.g. Carl Zimmer’s blog post “Move Over, Mendel (But Don’t Move Too Far)”, the New York Times story “Startling Scientists, Plant Fixes Its Flawed Gene,” a blurb from the NSF, “Cress overturns textbook genetics” at Nature News, and the actual March 24 Nature article, Lolle et al. (2005), “Genome-wide non-mendelian inheritance of extra-genomic information in Arabidopsis,” Nature, 434, 505-509.

Basically, there is a gene, HOTHEAD, abbreviated HTH, and the recessive null mutant of this gene, hth, produces plants with fused flowers. When HTH/hth heterozygotes are self-fertilized, the progeny phenotypes are 75% normal and 25% mutant, as Mendelian genetics predicts. However, when hth/hth plants are self-fertilized, instead of producing 100% hth phenotypes, up to 10% of the progeny are HTH/hth and have the HTH phenotype.

As Project Steve Steve Steven Jacobsen put it in Nature News: “It’s really weird.”

Lolle et al. eliminated several possible sources of error, and hypothesized that some form of extra-DNA, RNA-based heredity could be at work. If true, this would indeed be Big News. Most researchers are expressing skepticism for the moment.

Over on his personal blog, De Rerum Natura, PT regular and genetics grad student Reed Cartwright has suggested one of several possible alternative explanations, this one involving natural selection at the level of pollen grains. Basically the alternative explanation is this: imagine that during the generations of cell replication leading to pollen grains, or during the pollination process, HTH pollen has a large advantage over hth pollen. In this situation, the rare revertant mutations from hth to HTH might spread to substantial frequency in the “pollen population” of a flower fairly quickly, and/or it might successfully fertilize ova at a higher rate than hth pollen. If these advantages were large enough (in other words, if hth pollen is highly impaired), this could explain how HTH reappears at a frequency of 10% in the offspring of the hth homozygote.

You heard it first on De Rerum Natura. I have not read enough on this to reach much of a conclusion as to how likely Reed’s explanation is, but it does highlight the important fact that selection occurs at multiple levels: not only between organisms, but between gametes, and between the cell lineages leading to gametes. This “selfish” intra-organism competition between cells in a single organism is not necessarily beneficial to the organism as a whole, and thus some multicellular animals have evolved methods to restrain this competition, such as setting aside gamete cells early in development. This topic is discussed thoroughly in a 1987 book by Leo Buss, The Evolution of Individuality.

1 TrackBack

I guess I'm blogging too much when I see a http://www.facultyof1000.com/article/15785770/evaluationhot paper mentioned at http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/05_03_20_corner-archive.asp#059172the Corner before I've heard about it from my colleagues... Read More

51 Comments

Bratwurst lovers have known for years that there was a little bit of the divine in mustard.

It’s that time of year. Has an April fool’s joke been ruled out?

It seems to me that there are two obvious experiments that aren’t addressed in the Nature paper:

1. Does RT-PCR detect the presence of wild-type HTH sequences? If the double-stranded RNA hypothesis is correct, it should be detectable.

2. Is a similar phenomenon observed when hth homozygotes are intercrossed rather than selfed?

FYI:

This discovery is one of the topics on NPR “Science Friday” tomorrow–more info at:

http://www.sciencefriday.com/pages/[…]_032505.html

Bratwurst lovers have known for years that there was a little bit of the divine in mustard.

LOL! Good one.

I don’t know whether this particular research will hold up or not, but it serves an example of how the contemporary understanding of the mechanisms of heredity and evolution continue to wander farther and farther away from the ID model, which is pretty much just a thawed out version of 18th Century mechanistic deism. Which all goes to show that theories follow Cope’s Law no less than organisms. They don’t evolve backwards.

Ooops! I meant Dollo’s Law.

Here’s CNN’s story which strikes me as a tad overblown:

DENVER, Colorado (AP) – Challenging a scientific law of inheritance that has stood for 150 years, scientists say plants sometimes select better bits of DNA in order to develop normally even when their predecessors carried genetic flaws.

The conclusion by Purdue University molecular biologists contradicts at least some basic rules of plant evolution that were believed to be absolute since the mid-1800s since Austrian monk Gregor Mendel initially experimented with peas and saw that traits are passed on from one generation to the next. Mendelian genetics has been the foundation of both crop hybridization and the understanding of basic cell mutations and trait inheritance.

Contrast with this summary of events in the same article:

“inheritance can happen more flexibly than we thought,” said Robert Pruitt, the paper’s senior author.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/scienc[…]p/index.html

Syntax Error: mismatched tag at line 1, column 97, byte 97 at /usr/local/lib/perl5/site_perl/5.16/mach/XML/Parser.pm line 187.

@Tim;

How can scientific research be provocative?

@Tim;

Or are you referring to the following:

We postulate that these genetic restoration events are the result of a template-directed process that makes use of an ancestral RNA-sequence cache.

I find the Arabidopsis observations to be quite compatible with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. It is similar to atavism which also has evaded a Mendelian explanation. It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. In any event I am confident that there is a whole new kind of genetics waiting to be discovered. This may be an example.

John A. Davison

It seems quite obvious to me for some phenomena which cannot be readily explained to be accepted as “compatible” to a theory that explains absolutely nothing (e.g. PEH)

In any event I am confident that, at sometime in the future, real scientific explanations for this new phenomenon will be readily discarded by the likes of John due to their compatibility with evolution “theory”.

It will be interesting to see how this is accomplished. Seems if there is an error correcting mechanism in DNA we’ll have to figure out how it is performed. Cartwrights hypothesis seems very plausible too and in light of the initial findings of searching for backups copies and finding none it might well be the answer. Only time will tell.

Sandor - What you quoted would usually go in the Discussion section if Nature separated Discussion from Results. What I mean is demonstrated evidence for a particular mechanism. By ‘provocative’ I mean that they’ve shown that what we think about heredity may not be entirely correct, without providing evidence for what _is_ right. It’s exciting work but I’ll be waiting for the follow-up. If somebody confirms it with a demonstrated mechanism, that IMO is where the Nobel is going to go.

Wayne

Seems if there is an error correcting mechanism in DNA we’ll have to figure out how it is performed.

I know it’s all in the interests of efficiency but since the issue is highly technical we scientist types should try to be as precise as possible.

The existence of “error correcting mechanisms” in DNA is not controversial and hasn’t been controversial for decades. Every animal from bacteria to humans has mechanisms for correcting “errors” in DNA. For example, the mismatch repair system in E.coli is relatively well-understood. Also, cells use homologous DNA recombinases such as those belonging to the RecA family for aligning homologous sequences and facilitating DNA repair.

Just to be totally stupid, I’ll throw out to the peanut gallery the fact that mustard derivatives can be highly mutagenic … ;)

Hmmm…

Does this mean that 10% of those who should be able to play Dueling Banjos, in fact can’t?

:)

Sandor

The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is not a theory as is evident in its title. It is an hypothesis which happens to be receiving a substantial amount of support from molecular biology, chromosome karyology and what has erroneously been assumed to be “convergent” evolution. Darwinism is not a theory either. Rather it is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. It is a scandal, a complete fabrication and a hoax.

“An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.” Boris Epphrussi

So much for Darwinism.

John A. Davison

novisad Wrote:

The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis is not a theory as is evident in its title. It is an hypothesis which happens to be receiving a substantial amount of support from molecular biology, chromosome karyology and what has erroneously been assumed to be “convergent” evolution. Darwinism is not a theory either. Rather it is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science, dwarfing both the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the Ether of Physics. It is a scandal, a complete fabrication and a hoax.

“An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.” Boris Epphrussi

So much for Darwinism.

John A. Davison

Interesting. Perhaps the poor deluded novisad could tell us what (living) biologists, especially those specializing in chromosome karyology or molecular biology support his “work.” Two, three, ten? I doubt it.

The only hoax around here is the one novisad is trying to perpetrate.

Oh, by the way, it’s “A hypothesis .. “ not “An hypothesis …”

Wildlifer

We will not easily find out how many biologists support my work or that of my predecessors because forums like this one and a thoroughly dominated Darwinian establishment are very effective in supressing or ignoring their views. As for those whose findings do support my interpretations, I refer you to my manuscript. They are not all dead unless they died in the last 4 years.

When I went to school all words beginning with vowels and the letter h are preceded by an. Has that changed somehow? If it has, no editor of any paper I have ever written has corrected my error. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this one? I sure don’t want to keep on making a grammatical mistake.

I remain unaware that majority opinion ever had anything to do with unvarnished naked truth. I can’t think of a single example. Can anyone?

I also resent being described as “poor deluded nosivad.” This is not the Bathroom Wall. Or is it? They closed that down. I wonder why.

John A. Davison, unfair, unbalanced and unafraid to keep right on eliciting the kind of knee-jerk hostile, defensive, bigotted, mindless, nasty, unnessary and counterproductive responses as he is still receiving right here at Panda’s Thumb and other forums still dominated by Darwinian mystical groupthinks devoutly worshipping something that never existed. It boggles his mind.

novisad Wrote:

Wildlifer

We will not easily find out how many biologists support my work or that of my predecessors because forums like this one and a thoroughly dominated Darwinian establishment are very effective in supressing or ignoring their views. As for those whose findings do support my interpretations, I refer you to my manuscript. They are not all dead unless they died in the last 4 years.

Awwwww, playing the the poor martyr doesn’t suit you. Your “manuscript” is a joke, containing nothing reflecting reality. Perhaps you should leave the business of science to the scientists and return to the political arena? Little in politics is based on reality - you are well suited.

When I went to school all words beginning with vowels and the letter h are preceded by an. Has that changed somehow? If it has, no editor of any paper I have ever written has corrected my error. Would anyone else like to weigh in on this one? I sure don’t want to keep on making a grammatical mistake.

Try saying both outloud …

I remain unaware that majority opinion ever had anything to do with unvarnished naked truth. I can’t think of a single example. Can anyone?

I’ll agree. But when it is a minority opinion of one, well, you get the picture.

I also resent being described as “poor deluded nosivad.” This is not the Bathroom Wall. Or is it? They closed that down. I wonder why.

Sorry to be brutally honest, but even you, in your tag-lines confirm my assertion. read on …

John A. Davison, unfair, unbalanced and unafraid to keep right on eliciting the kind of knee-jerk hostile, defensive, bigotted, mindless, nasty, unnessary and counterproductive responses as he is still receiving right here at Panda’s Thumb and other forums still dominated by Darwinian mystical groupthinks devoutly worshipping something that never existed. It boggles his mind.

Or: John A. Davison, just to ignorant to know when to shut up. It’s better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt. Anyone who believes “darwinism” is mystical, or that evolutionists worship “darwinism,” is deluded.

Prof. Davison,

From “Is Evolution Finished? by John A. Davison”: “The more we learn about the complexity of even the simplest living systems, the less likely becomes the probability that life originated by chance…”

I posit that this is the crux of contention. This statement implies, correct me if I’m in error, an external teleology or Intelligent Design.

Without Inelligent Design there never could have been life and it never could have evolved. It is a mandatory precondition for any discussion of the living world or the non-living world for that matter.

The next thing you know, the atheist Darwinians will be telling us that Newton’s Laws of Motion or Mendeleef’s Periodic Table were produced by natural selection. After all, why stop with just evolution? No guts, no glory. Go for it.

John A. Davison

“Without Inelligent Design there never could have been life and it never could have evolved. It is a mandatory precondition for any discussion of the living world or the non-living world for that matter.”

This is an assertion that I do not agree with.

Although I’ve been publishing in peer reviewed journals for 15 years, I suppose I would be classified as a pseudo-scientist by your defined criteria. I’ve taken the time to peruse some of your earlier posts on PT, and I believe this discussion is at an end.

Somehow, I just knew that Arabidopsis was part of God’s master plan.

Ya’ll better be expecting some Rapture-style shit in the upcoming weeks…

Regarding use of “a” vs. “an” before a word beginning with the letter “h”, see:

http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/anhistoric.html

Without Inelligent[sic] Design..

Actually, life is pretty inelegant, which is one of the strong arguments against IDC.

RE: Davison’s PEH, I have disregarded my vow not to read anything un-useful, and read it. I am astounded that any peer-reviewed journal would publish such a poorly documented, scientifically empty hypothesis. Its predictions are either vapid, unobservable, or just plain wrong. This horse isn’t just dead, it’s already been through the glue factory.

I fear that the scientific community has given PEH the deafening silence it deserves.

Guy_Montag

Don’t read my posts Read my papers and those of my predecessors and you might understand my position a little better.

My “discussions” at Panda’s Thumb have never existed. I have been lecturing in an empty auditorium in which the chairs are all occupied with either Darwimpian mystics who already know everything about a phenomenon that has never been observed or with fundamentalist bible-banging Christers who deny evolution entirely. Both camps are of course dead wrong and always have been.

And since you all loathe my chronic tendency to quote my sources,

“Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know.” Montaigne

“Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.” ibid

“He that I am reading seems always to have the most force.” ibid

“Man in sooth is a marvelous vain, fickle and unstable subject.” ibid

“We seek and offer ourselves to be gulled.” ibid

John A.,Davison, unfair as they come, unbalanced by majority decree, and unafraid, indeed gleefully engaged, in what has become one of the primary goals of his existence which is to resurrect all those great minds that over the last century and a half have repeatedly and often independently exposed Darwinism as the most perfectly discredited hypothesis in the history of science. He has even offered his own finishing touches to the demise of the Darwinian hoax with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. He is one very happy and thoroughly fulfilled man.

How do you like them apples?

As I used to say over at EvC while I was confined to “boot camp,” by some of the biggest intellectual bigots I have ever encountered:

Who is next?

I didn’t realize that one can predict anything about a phenomenon that was predetermined and is no longer going on. It seems to me at least that predictions have to do with future events not past ones. Of course I could be wrong. But am I, that is the only question. If I thought so I would never have published in the peer-reviewed Rivista di Biologia or the Journal of Theoretical Biology either. I have another paper in the works demonstrating that, as yet, there is no theory of evolution, only failed and untested hypotheses a couple of the latter having been proposed by me.

“Evolution, a unique, historical course of events that took place in the past, is not repeatable experimentally and cannot be investigated that way.” Otto Schindewolf, page 311.

While I am not 100% convinced he was right about that, there is as yet no evidence that he was wrong. It also supports the PEH which is why I have quoted him here.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison, not bothering with all the rest as he is running out of ways to describe those who still support the biggest hoax in the history of science. They defy further characterization.

You mean those Road Apples? I’ll keep ‘em, they’ll make great fertilizer for my garden!

FYI for the yanks, Road Apple is Okie/southern for Horse Shit!! Ever follow a parade w/horses in it?

Just wondering how cataclysms are factored into the PEH. Foresight? Or were meteors and iceages prescribed too?

It’s just too bad novisad has abandoned science to quote-mine his dead heros.

Even if the subject of a theory is in the past, it can make predictions about new observations or discoveries.

Haven’t a number of posters here referenced studies of ongoing evolutionary processes?

Henry

Using the near-omniscient Google-meter,

“an hypothesis” 127,000 hits

“a hypothesis” 612,000 hits

So it’s not unanimous for ‘an’, but it’s a strong majority.

I find the Arabidopsis observations to be quite compatible with my Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. Since these observations are very recent, the supernatural PEH phenomenon must still be occurring. I didn’t realize that one can predict anything about a phenomenon that was predetermined and is no longer going on. Or, perhaps it isn’t. Oops.

Maybe it comes out of the closet when it’s needed to rationalize something that’s already happened, but then it runs away and hides when asked to predict things. Such a curious creature, no wonder so few can be persuaded to believe in it.

LOL (you meant to say “a” had the majority?)

On Google Scholar:

an hypothesis - 11,000 hits

a hypothesis - 149,000 hits

When I went to school all words beginning with vowels and the letter h are preceded by an. Has that changed somehow?

You yourself know better than this, because in the same passage that was criticized, you say a hoax… ‘an hoax?’ ‘an hat?’

The rule is that “a” is used with ‘consonant-sounding’ beginnings (eg ‘a hair’) and “an” with ‘vowel-sounding’ beginnings (eg ‘an heir’). Thus “a union” and “an onion”.

It’s archaic, but “an” can also be used with any word starting with “h”, as long as the first sylable is unstressed. So “an hypothesis” is still acceptable English, according to Webster. http://webster.commnet.edu/grammar/[…]erminers.htm

Maybe Prof. Davison could explain how antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria are predicted by PEH.

BTW - maybe I’m old-fashioned, but it pains me to say “a hypothesis” or “a historical figure”. But then, it also pains me to say “…and I was like, ‘whatever’ “.

Antibiotic resistance is not evolution. The bacteria are still bacteria, always have been and always will be. My entire hypothesis is based on diploid higher organisms and the role of sexual reproduction in bringing evolution to a virtual standstill. Prokaryotes are not models for diploid evolution.

Sexual reproduction, which involves the recombination of allelic mutants, has and had nothing to do with organic evolution beyond the production of varieties or, in some instances, subspecies. I realize this is unacceptable to the Darwinian mentality but it is my conviction nevertheless. All tangible evidence favors this conclusion. None opposes it.

It is not surprising the establishment ignores these realities as they are lethal to the Darwinian mindset.

“Here I stand. I can do no otherwise.” Martin Luther

Let’s just let majority rule on everything shall we folks? That is such a simple solution. I guess that takes care of Schindewolf, Grasse, Berg, Broom, Bateson, Goldschmidt, Punnett, Osborn, Mivart, Petrunkevitch, Vorontsov, Lovtrup and Davison. What a collection of lightweights. No wonder no one pays any attention to them.

Have a nice majority groupthink.

John A. Davison

moioci

Unanimous is not a word.

Air bear

It pains me also to say “a historical figure” or “a hypothesis.” which is why I wouldn’t dream of doing it and neither should anyone else.

I am pleased that Webster says it is permissable for me to use “an hypothesis.” Boy, for a while there I was afraid I might gave to recant everything I have ever published. What a relief!

In any event usage determines usage so I will probably go right on with my usage, eternally hopeful that maybe somebody out there might do the same.

Surely there are other of my many defects that can be discussed here that might have some bearing on organic evolution, a process that has never been observed and whose mechanism remains shrouded in mystery. Or is everyone, as seems to be the case, confident that we already know that mechanism in the form of the aimless, puposeless, randomly generated, highly selected mechanism implicit in the Darwinian model? Now there is a question worth answering. Let’s get some answers. But will we?

John A. Davison

Dr. Davison,

It’s clear to me that you and I disagree on the meaning of ‘science’ and what that entails, but I assumed we shared common ground on what is and is not a proper word. My bad.

From the American Heritage Dictionary via dictionary.com:

u·nan·i·mous, adj. 1. Sharing the same opinions or views; being in complete harmony or accord. 2. Based on or characterized by complete assent or agreement.

wildlifer is right; I meant to say: So it’s not unanimous for ‘_a_’, but it’s a strong majority. BTW, my pedantic ear prefers “an.”

Davison, my characterization of your PEH still stands. Can you give us any contemporary observation that is better explained by the mechanisms (if any) of your PEH than by the MS?

Frank schmidt

Thanks for an excellent question which I will attempt to answer as follows.

If by MS you mean allelic mutation and selection, I can say without reservation than neither had anything to do with evolution beyond subspeciation and the formation of varieties and breeds. Natural Selection never had any role whatsoever in evolution and that explains why one has never been demonstrated. It has been entirely anti-evolutionary which explains why variation is virtually unknown in most wild animal and plant species. That is what makes field guides so very effective. It is only when man gets them under domestication that artificial selection can produce some very limited results none of which have yet exceeded the species rank. It never crossed the mind of Luther Burbank, probably the greatest plant breeder of all time, that he might create a new species and he said as much. I refer you to my Manifesto for the details, revealed in his own words.

The PEH does not presume to explain the mechanism of evolution beyond the indication that the mechanism has been endogenous and proceeded largely independently of the environment. There is not a single documentable demonstration of the introduction into the genome of information that caused the transformation of that genome into a new species. The transformations have come from within the genome not as a result of events occurring in the environment. Therefore the information must have been there all along which is why it is called The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH.

I hope this also explains why PEH cannot have direct predictive value since that which no longer occurs can hardly be predicted. However, speciation may occur experimentally if someone is willing to run the risk of trying my Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH) which is a corollary of PEH. So far no one seems interested. I think I know why. Religious zealots are not anxious to destroy their faith, which a single experimental result could very easily do.

John A. Davison

If by MS you mean allelic mutation and selection, I can say without reservation than neither had anything to do with evolution beyond subspeciation and the formation of varieties and breeds. Natural Selection never had any role whatsoever in evolution and that explains why one has never been demonstrated. It has been entirely anti-evolutionary which explains why variation is virtually unknown in most wild animal and plant species.

Can you support your assertions with data? (ie with more the quote-mines from dead scientists) We both know you can’t.

That’s aside from the fact you’re contradicting yourself. Either there are varieties of species, or there are not. Seeing how man is only a variety of mammalian vertebrate, I don’t see the relevance of your point.

What exactly are you proposing as a barrier to speciation? Sexual reproduction doesn’t fly. Post-reproduction epigenetics/Evo-Dev research destroys that assertion.

That is what makes field guides so very effective. It is only when man gets them under domestication that artificial selection can produce some very limited results none of which have yet exceeded the species rank. It never crossed the mind of Luther Burbank, probably the greatest plant breeder of all time, that he might create a new species and he said as much. I refer you to my Manifesto for the details, revealed in his own words.

Again, where’s the data? Don’t refer us to some quote-mined text in your manfesto.

The PEH does not presume to explain the mechanism of evolution beyond the indication that the mechanism has been endogenous and proceeded largely independently of the environment.

So, IOW, the PEH is the equivilent of sticking your hands over your ears and screaming “NUH UH!!”

Where’s your data Mr. Scientist? Show us how the environment hasn’t played a role in evolution with data, not quote-mined assertions. Show us how mass extinctions failed to open niches to exploitation while selecting for advantages traits. And while you’re at it, wouldn’t you predict molecular “clocks” should show the “prescriptions” initiation post-cataclysm? Come on, have some guts and quit hiding behind dead scientists.

There is not a single documentable demonstration of the introduction into the genome of information that caused the transformation of that genome into a new species. The transformations have come from within the genome not as a result of events occurring in the environment.

Well that’s a no-brainer. Modern theory does not make the claim the environment made the genetic transformations - although there is some evidence - still under debate - it may influence the frequency of mutations.

Therefore the information must have been there all along which is why it is called The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH.

That doesn’t make a lick of sense. Was the Bubonic plague prescribed to mutate a resistance to HIV? Was Sickle Cell Anemia prescribed as a resistance to Malaria? And again, wouldn’t a prediction of PEH also be that there is possibly a discoverable timing mechanism by which the “prescription” unfolds?

I hope this also explains why PEH cannot have direct predictive value since that which no longer occurs can hardly be predicted.

Which makes it a bunch of worthless assertions.

However, speciation may occur experimentally if someone is willing to run the risk of trying my Semi-meiotic hypothesis (SMH) which is a corollary of PEH. So far no one seems interested. I think I know why. Religious zealots are not anxious to destroy their faith, which a single experimental result could very easily do.

John A. Davison

I’m in partial agreement here. It does appear major speciation events were chromosomal. You also seem to be saying such chromosomal events are now impossible. Based on what data?

By MS, I meant the Modern Synthesis, which is rather more extensive than simple Mutation and Selection, since it includes such things as gene duplication, recombination, and chromosomal rearrangement - but that’s a minor point.

More tellingly, Davison admits that his PEH is essentially useless:

The PEH does not presume to explain the mechanism of evolution beyond the indication that the mechanism has been endogenous and proceeded largely independently of the environment.

He won’t be bothered by making predictions, suggesting mechanisms, or any of the other stuff that we call science. Seems to me the PEH is less useful than phlogiston, or the luminiferous ether. Even Morris, Dembski and Behe make predictions (although they don’t ‘fess up when the predictions turn out to be wrong).

The most charitable interpretation is that PEH is misnamed, and should be called “Precious (anti)-Evolution Harangue” since it consists merely of the first of Genie Scott and Glen Branch’s three common creationist memes: “Evolution isn’t real science.”

How Boring.

In case someone hasn’t noticed. I am placing nearly all my stock on chromosoaml rearrangement as anyone who was even remotely familiar with my papers would recognize. Evolution has been little more than “position effect”, the silencing and reactivation of predetermined genetic information which had nothing to do in its origin with any aspect of the Darwimpian fairy tale. Wake up and here the evolutionary birdies sing folks. Its all over but Dawkins’s intellectual suicide. Trust me, but of course you won’t. I couldn’t care less.

How do you like them apples?

John A. Davison, eternally unfair, clinically certifiable (ask PvM) yet still unafraid to go right on, oblivious to the mindless denegrations of the atheist, illiterate Darwinian Phillistines, demonstrating to any objective observer that evolution, like ontogeny, has been the realization of preformed, predestined forces which have inexorably and with glorious certainty reached their final expression with the production of rational creatures some of whom, but obviously not all, are capable of realizing that undeniable reality.

Mr. Davison, your sig is absolutely breathtaking in its hubris and arrogance. I salute you.

Stan said:

Mr. Davison, your sig is absolutely breathtaking in its hubris and arrogance. I salute you.

novisad could save a lot of verbage and simply truthfully state:

John A. Davison, … oblivious .…

Thank you Stan Gosnell. I thought it was pretty good myself. It was entirely sincere I can assure you. It is Dr.Davison and has been since 1954.

My apologies, Dr. Davison. I assumed it was entirely sincere, which is what makes it so breathtaking.

Stan Gosnell

Please do not confuse hubris and arrogance with carefully reached conviction.

I have elsewhere compared my self with Robert Burton’s dwarf:

“A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself.”

The giants on whose shoulders I stand have been, in no particular order, Robert Broom, Otto Schindewolf, Richard B. Goldschmidt, William Bateson and Pierre Grasse, every one a leader in his field and not one a self- described “professional evolutionist.”

You see there are no “professional evolutionists” because the evolutionary process has never been directly observed. Until it is everyone remains an amateur.

I should point out that recently with yeast a kind of reverse evolution has been observed which resulted from the rescrambling of existing chromosomal information exactly as I have postulated with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. I predict that one day we will be able to reconstruct our own ancestors by manipulating our own chromosomes in a kind of reverse evolution comparable with what has already been achieved with yeast.

I remain convinced that the most important instrument for organic evolution has been the restructuring of previously programmed genetic information, a process that did not involve the introduction of new information from outside the evolving genome. Isn’t that exactly what the development of the organism from the fertilized egg involves? Evolution WAS, as far as can be experimentally demonstrated, derepression and position effect and apparently little more.

John A. Davison, unfair to the extreme, unbalanced by fiat, and unafraid to confront both Darwinian and Biblical mysticism by declaring both ideologically driven factions as having absolutely nothing to do with organic evolution, an irreversible self-limiting phenomenon of the past no longer in operation.

Wildlifer

I did not say that major chromosomal rearrangements were impossible at all. Quite the contrary. I suggested how they might be instantly produced experimentally with the Semi-meiotic hypothesis.

What I did say is that sexual reproduction is not capable of macroevolutionary change. The reason for that is because any major chromosomal change immediately creates great problems with the completion of a normal meiosis, producing unbalanced gametes. The semi-meiotic mode of reproduction avoids that.

John A. Davison

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Nick Matzke published on March 24, 2005 1:42 PM.

Fort Worth Museum of Science and History Reverses Decision was the previous entry in this blog.

Challenge Accepted is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Categories

Archives

Author Archives

Powered by Movable Type 4.381

Site Meter