Where did the Universe come from?
Part 1: Einstein’s Big Blunder
100 years ago, Albert Einstein published three papers that rocked the world. These papers proved the existence of the atom, introduced the theory of relativity, and described quantum mechanics.
Pretty good debut for a 26 year old scientist, huh?
His equations for relativity indicated that the universe was expanding. This bothered him, because if it was expanding, it must have had a beginning and a beginner.
Since neither of these appealed to him, Einstein introduced a ‘fudge factor’ that ensured a ‘steady state’ universe, one that had no beginning or end.
But in 1929, Edwin Hubble showed that the furthest galaxies were fleeing away from each other, just as the Big Bang model predicted. So in 1931, Einstein embraced what would later be known as the Big Bang theory, saying, “This is the most beautiful and satisfactory explanation of creation to which I have ever listened.” He referred to the ‘fudge factor’ to achieve a steady-state universe as the biggest blunder of his career.
As I’ll explain during the next couple of days, Einstein’s theories have been thoroughly proved and verified by experiments and measurements. But there’s an even more important implication of Einstein’s discovery. Not only does the universe have a beginning, but time itself, our own dimension of cause and effect, began with the Big Bang.
That’s right — time itself does not exist before then. The very line of time begins with that creation event. Matter, energy, time and space were created in an instant by an intelligence outside of space and time.
About this intelligence, Albert Einstein wrote in his book “The World As I See It” that the harmony of natural law “Reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.”*
He went on to write, “Everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe–a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.”*
Pretty significant statement, wouldn’t you say?
Stay tuned for tomorrow’s installment: “Bird Droppings on my Telescope.”
Respectfully Submitted,
Perry Marshall
*Einstein quotes are from “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer
Download The First 3 Chapters of Evolution 2.0 For Free, Here – https://evo2.org/evolution/Where Did Life And The Genetic Code Come From? Can The Answer Build Superior AI? The #1 Mystery In Science Now Has A $10 Million Prize. Learn More About It, Here – https://www.herox.com/evolution2.0
I have been reading all the posts and the replies here. There exists a great book, first printed in 1955, having nearly 2200 pages in modern English language, clearly and logically explaining all you wanted to know about God, evolution, science, religion, universe, big-bang, evolution of life, super humans, celestial intelligences, universe administration, purpose of life, relation of man to God, life after death, etc., etc. I have read this book. It is the most advanced and logically written book I have ever encountered. It explains the universe origins and the existence of the supreme intelligence that Einstein visualised. It explains the situation before and after the big-bang. It explains the the design of the atoms from ‘nothing’ or pimordial forces and explains the existence of hitherto unknown particles called ‘ultimatons’ that constitute the electrons.
Evolution of not only the physical universe, but life (pre-intelligent life to intelligent life) and the evolution of thought processes comprising religion and science are also explained.
Once you read this, and if your intelligence is capable of assimilating the knowledge this book presented, there would be hardly anything left that went unanswered!
The book is available fully free of cost on-line.
To read this use the link below:
http://www.truthbook.org/index.cfm?linkID=1661
To know about the history of this book use the wikipedia link below:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urantia_Book
Rajan C Mathew, Bhilai, India
Darwin DID originally believe in a god. He lost his faith as he lost his family, this is well recorded.
Perry’s arguments are, of course, utterly absurd. Cherry picking what happens to fit your argument is the same old bs that creationists have been trotting out for years. Take, for example, this crap about English language and DNA – they are not equal for the sake of this comparison. Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not. This very fact blows any comparative analysis out of the water.
So far as I am aware Perry is not, repeat NOT educated in the field he is trying to debunk (biological chemistry or a related field). This would be like a taxidermist trying to perform heart surgery – with predictable results. If he were educated in biology he wouldn’t make such embarrassing – if convincing – mistakes. He is, however a dedicate Christian and liable to find what he seeks. If you look for design, lo and behold you find design. From reading tea leaves to seeing the virgin mary in a toastie – it’s all the same.
But you go Perry – I’m sure your bank account is in a better way than mine – fortunately, I’m not so morally bankrupt to pretend to be something I’m not.
Marc,
Please produce peer-reviewed scientific literature that empirically demonstrates (and does not just merely assume) that the following statement is true:
“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
I have been debating this topic for 5 years and I have yet to have anyone step forward with such a paper or research.
I submit to you that a more untrue statement has never been made. There is a reason why DNA has redundancy mechanisms and error correction protocols.
You mentioned in an email that you would like to invite me to a live debate. So long as the debate is not a ‘circus’ I would be happy to participate. You may want to listen to my debate with atheist Peter Hearty at http://evo2.org/origin-of-life-the-english-way/
Unfortunately, as for “in print” I cannot participate in debates on everyone’s blogs and websites. I will debate this topic here or on Infidels, all public of course. That’s why this blog is here.
Perry Marshall
Actually, Peter Hearty and I were friends and of similar mind on this issue. The difference is that Peter knows humility.
As for peer-reviewed science, I call you out on that very issue Perry since your ideas are based on something that cannot be proven a scientific audience. You might consult the comments on the infidel’s discussion which takes issue with precisely this point about the confusion of English data with DNA. Sure you use lots of scientific prose but the basis of your proof is based on a fundamental error: which if you were educated in this field and not an engineer you would already know. Were that the case we would not be having this discussion.
IF your ideas held any weight in the scientific community, they would be there… but they aren’t. Instead you publish them on the internet to confuse and support long debunked ideas which you, descending from generations of ignorant and blind, believers support.
You claim your ideas are better than Darwinian evolution yet they obviously are not because if you they were, you’d be the most famous biologist on the planet and since you aren’t I submit that you’re wrong.
You have said, elsewhere there is no scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution. This is a direct contradiction of the known facts and discourteous generations of biologists – people who actually studied the topic. DE is the most researched and demonstrated scientific theory in the history of science but like all theories, it is easily disproved by finding the “black sheep”.
Perhaps I can also remind you that Darwin’s theory concerns the origin of SPECIES not life. That is, the development of species by the successive mutation of DNA – the discovery of which provided the mechanism which Darwin could not understand.
You have stated that we can’t directly observe evolution – except we can. Micro evolution happens all the time. Macro evolution has been observed in birds too.
Fruit fly experiments prove evolution on another level: you misunderstand because you refuse to see what is provided for you. That kind of self-delusion is typical of people who have found god.
So here I challenge you: if your ideas are correct. PUBLISH them in a universally respected, peer reviewed journal.
If you can get Nature or similar to accept them I’ll submit that you are right and I’m wrong. If not, I challenge you to correct the mistake and admit you’re wrong. Then perhaps real scientists will forgive you.
This blog is where we make a point and you make light of it. When we correct your mistakes – here or otherwise – you refuse to accept them. I see no point in talking further when you continue to plead the special case like so many of your counterparts. Prof. Behe’s mousetrap allusion was destroyed within days of publication – yet as I recall it is still held high as the pinnacle of irreducible complexity.
Scientists accept and correct their errors – that is the nature of science when it’s done properly. Your “god did it” method won’t do.
I submit you have to self-publish on the internet because it’s the only way you can get your message out. No self-respecting scientific house (my own included) would take this boilerplate as anything other than cleverly worded, but ultimately self-indulgent nonsense.
Marc,
Please refer to the place where I said “there is no scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution.” I do not recall having said that. This makes me wonder if you’ve actually read what I have written. State the quote in context with a link.
I also asked you to present evidence to back your previous statement:
“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
And finally, proof that you haven’t been listening: You say:
“You have stated that we can’t directly observe evolution”
Where did you ever get the idea that I said that?
Marc, it’s time to do your homework. You are welcome to come back when you have your facts straight. You must be thinking of somebody else; I never said that.
Perry Marshall
OK, you’ll also find your arguments destroyed here: http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=46&t=88665&sid=909db4a8f410dbd45d003f236032dfd7
You’ll find the discussion about jumbled DNA from a chemist on the infidels link which you supplied.
“Be sure to tell him along the way that unlike English in which not all words have meaning, in DNA every string of triplets between start and stop codes generates a meaningful RNA sequence and that sequence in turns generates a meaningful protein sequence of AAs.
“Then please point out that in a string of say 100 AAs in a protein it is very unlikely that more than single mutation will occurr concurrently in the same organism. If the mutation rate is 10^-6 per nucleotide per generation then the rate if 10^-12 for two concurrent mutations. For a 100 nucleotide sequence there is 1000^-6 odds for a single mutation in the protein per generation and 1000^-12 for a double concurrent mutation. These reduce to 10^-4 and 10^-10 respectively.
“This makes mince meat out of his “model” based on English. Within a population of a million organisms the 100 unit polypeptide is likely to have only 100 mutant forms with a single mutation (many of which will in fact be neutral) and only a 10^4 chance of a single organism carrying a single double mutation to the peptide (and again these may mostly be neutral). To propagate these mutant forms have to survive and reproduce and many will not do so. That means that by the next generation there will be even fewer mutant forms per million population, and the survivors will be selectively more fit (statistically) than the ones which get dropped out.
“His argument stands upon the failed foundational premise that mutation rates are so high that the original reasonably fit genome would be driven to extinction by degradation via mutation. That’s simply not how it works since mutational rates are below the rate necessary to do that.”
I apologise if I oversimplified this but in essence what you said is wrong and I was trying to appeal to the less educated readers who won’t be able to follow the more learned argument.
YOU SAID: Please refer to the place where I said “there is no scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution.”
I’ll quote from From “Perry Marshall’s Intelligent Evolution Quick Guide” (PDF) – (c) 2005 part VIII. evolution 3 kinds:
“1) Deliberate Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Business, Technology, NBA Playoffs)
“2) Random Mutation + Deliberate Selection + Time = Design (Scrabble, Genetic Programs)
“3) Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Never scientifically proven)
“However there is no empirical evidence that truly random processes create significant evolutionary progress.”
Point 3 – Which is the basis of Darwinian evolution – you say never proven: this is wrong. It’s been proven time and time again. You don’t use those exact words, of course, but then I wasn’t quoting you, I was paraphrasing and you’re spinning it.
I comes as no surprise to me that almost all intelligent design arguments (from simple to complex) come from a country which was founded by deeply religious people from my own shores. American is, in all but name, a virtual theocracy anyway. Little wonder that you’re so hated in the Muslim world.
If anyone needs his facts straight Perry, it’s you. I assume that unlike you, I’ve actually studied evolutionary biology and because I don’t enter the fray assuming that a god was behind it, I can follow the evidence where it leads, not where I want it to.
Simon and Garfunkel said it best in The Boxer:
“A man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest.”
This could apply to us both equally, but like all scientists (and I’m just a science writer) I was trained to resist the temptation to fit the observations around my own reference frame and prefer to follow the evidence where it leads.
IF I believed in your god (which I obviously don’t) I would have absolutely no trouble in reconciling the blind, non-intelligent evolution of species with the theistic creation of life because the evidence supports that. Just as Darwin did in the beginning and just as the Roman Catholic church does today.
Anyway, I’ve answered your questions and have no interest in discussing it further as you’re blind to anything that even hints you’ve erred. You may wish to revise your remarks in your 2005 paper because they’re clearly wrong. I know you won’t accept that, but you know how real scientists would feel about that.
Marc,
Saying that every sequence of base pairs makes a meaningful triplet is no different than saying that every sequence of 1’s and 0’s makes an ASCII character. In fact the two concepts are identical. Of course every sequence of base pairs makes a meaningful triplet. You can see that from the genetic code table.
But that’s not the question.
The question is: Do all scrambled ASCII characters make meaningful words?
No.
Likewise do all scrambled sequences of triplets make useful proteins?
Again, no.
Marc, I again ask you to present EVIDENCE to back your previous statement:
“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
You have not provided such evidence so far.
I have also asked you to provide peer-reviewed scientific empirical evidence that random mutations add useful information to the genome.
Please present this evidence as well.
In my point 3 I said: Random Mutation + Natural Selection + Time = Design (Never scientifically proven) “There is no empirical evidence that truly random processes create significant evolutionary progress.”
To which you said: Point 3 – Which is the basis of Darwinian evolution – you say never proven: this is wrong. It’s been proven time and time again.
Marc – NO IT HAS NOT. This is always assumed, never proven. I challenge you: Go on an expedition. Scour the entire Internet. Find PROOF that evolutionary change and speciation is driven by random corruptions of DNA.
I dare you to find empirical evidence that supports the “evolution through random mutation” theory.
You will not find it. It’s not there.
Perry Marshall
First question asked and answered in detail by a more educated person than I – link supplied – I have already apologised for oversimplifying it and I’m sorry if you can’t accept or understand it – I’m not going to feed your ego further by wasting my time with you; better people have tried and failed.
You earlier denied ever saying that “there is no scientific evidence supporting Darwinian evolution.” and admonished me by adding “This makes me wonder if you’ve actually read what I have written. State the quote in context with a link.”
So I did and then you go off on a tangent (without admitting your earlier mistake) and bang on that there isn’t any empirical evidence to support the Darwinian evolution model. This is, of course, a misdirection at best and a damn lie at worst. If the evidence contradicts your model,that doesn’t make it wrong, it makes you wrong.
Now if you sequence the DNA of a bacteria such as MRSA or SRSA to the DNA of non-resistant staphylococcus aureus – which has evolved by mutation selection: there you have natural selection of random mutations.
A hypothesis (to become a theory) has to make a predictions which then have to be observed. Here’s an example:
Take some fruit flies and put them in a box; feed and nurture them and they don’t change. No pressure (or too much) and an organism remains static – or goes extinct. It takes just the right amount.
Divergent evolution also fits this model – for example the divergence of starfish and sea urchins. The specialization of hair in mammals such as the common hedgehog. Convergent evolution explains why Koalas have fingerprints, but this is all academic.
There are a multitude of peer-reviewed papers out there describing each of these and many, many more.
I don’t expect you to accept this Perry – that would destroy your comfy “god” cushion and that’s not going to happen because if it did, your mind would be unable to cope. I can only hope that edge cases coming here might just realise what you’re doing is feeding a WASPish delusion.
And I’ll ask AGAIN – if you’re so smart, why is it your hypothesis has not been published in a respected, peer reviewed journal? Even Andrew Wakefield, MD managed to slip the faulty MMR research into the Lancet; and he was backed by a team of respected doctors. But you know that already. Like me, you’re a published author and you know what it takes to get into a respected journal.
If you learn what constitutes a theory, you’d know how to overturn one and supplanting Darwin is the holy grail of WASPs across America but try as they might, not one hypothesis has even come close.
I’m happy to admit mea cupla but one of these days that hubris of yours is going to bite you square on the ass.
Marc,
I do not disagree that evolution occurs. I have NO problem with evolution whatsoever.
I just disagree that it’s driven by RANDOMNESS. Because there is no hard evidence in the biological literature to support this and there is no theorem or principle in communication theory which supports this assertion either. You are just assuming this is true. You haven’t proven it. Re-stating it ad infinitum doesn’t prove anything. I am asking for proof.
From reading what you have written, I’m not sure you even understand the distinction I am making here. None of your statements directly address this question, and neither does the person you quoted on the Dawkins board.
The explanation for evolutionary change that I advocate is peer reviewed. See James A. Shapiro, Evolution in the 21st Century: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/21st_Cent_View_Evol.html, also
http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2009.EvolutionIn21stCentury.pdf. Please read Shapiro’s paper before continuing to post these insulting, pejorative remarks and premature judgments.
In fact 100% of the material I cite in support of my core argument is peer reviewed, non-controversial scientific literature. James Shapiro, Hubert Yockey, Claude Shannon, Barbara McClintock.
Marc, for the FIFTH TIME (!) I again ask you to present hard evidence to back your statement:
“Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
Perry Marshall
I am happy to state that there is not a shred of evidence favoring the Darwinian model. There never has been. All that selection, natural or artificial, has ever been able to achieve is the generation of intraspecific varieties or subspecies none of which are incipient species and all of which are doomed to ultimate extinction. Such is the undeniable testimony of the fossil record, a record that will never be reconciled with the Darwinian hoax. Darwinism is atheist inspired mysticism and nothing more, the most ridiculous proposition in the history of human thought. It does not even qualify as a working hypothesis since it assumes it is immune to verification. It should have been eliminated when St. George Mivart disposed of it by asking, and I paraphrase –
“How can natural selection possibly have been involved in the formation of a structure which had not yet appeared?
Mivart dedicated all of Chapter II to that question –
“The incompetency of “natural selection” to account for the incipient stages of useful structures.”
Genesis of Species, pages 35 – 75, 1871.
That was in Darwin’s own day!
“It is not advisable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell
There is absolutely nothing in Darwin’s opus minimus that had anything to do with the title of that fantasy – absolutely nothing. Natural selection is entirely anti-evolutionary serving only to stabilize each species for as long as possible, a hopeless task as the fossil record makes unmistakably clear. Organic evolution proceeded according to a Plan, a word Robert Broom had the temerity to capitalize, much to the distress of the atheist Darwinian worshippers of the Great God Chance. Godless Darwnism persists for one reason only. It is the only position acceptable to the congenital atheist mentality so prefectly represented by Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers, Stephen Jay Gould and Ernst Mayr. and their thousands of devout disciples with which internet blogs are so blessed.
This is no place for me to amplify and promote my convictions, so I invite all to visit my weblog where you will find plenty of documentation for a new hypothesis of organic evolition, one that recognizes the testimony of the fossil record and the experimental laboratory, a testimony that will never be reconciled with Darwinian mysticism, the biggest and most long lived hoax in the history of science.
Thank you for permitting me to hold forth concerning the greatest mystery in all of biological sc ience, the origin of species and all the higher taxanomic categories. I am not the first to propose a planned, determined universe –
“EVERYTHING is determined… by forces over which we have no control.”
Albert Einstein, my emphasis added.
jadavison.wordpress.com
There is no room for “debate” in science. There is only “discovery” and its acceptance by receptive minds. “Debate” is for lawyers, politicians and other questionable types. I challenge anyone to name a significant issue that ever benefited from debate. I can think of none myself. To offer something for debate is a sign of weakness and lack of conviction which immediately produces counter arguments from others suffering from the same defect.
“Men are most apt to believe what they least understand.”
Montaigne
“An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi
Why ask questions? It is perfectly clear that the Darwinian model is a perfect disaster. What is there to discuss on that subject? Nothng I say.
In 1984 I proposed a new cytogenetic mechanism for true speciation, the Semi-Meiotic Hypothsis (SMH). Since then I have publshed several papers providing evidence for a prescribed, highly determinate evolution in which chance played at best a trivial role. Much of what I have proposed is based directly on the contributions of some of the finest minds of the post Darwinian era, not one of whom was either a religious fanatic or an atheist mystic. We collectively have not been allowed to speak by the factions which still dominate the evolution “debate.” We literally do not exist in the evolution literature. The key is provided by the fact that we are not even derided. Who is going to deride William Bateson, the founder of Mendelian genetics who realized that it had nothing to do with evolution? Who derides Otto Schindewolf, the greatest paleontologist since Cuvier? Who even mentions Leo Berg, without question the greatest Russian biologist of all time, or Pierre Grasse, his French counterpart? My sources like myself are not allowed to exist because we have destroyed every aspect of both Fundamentalist and Darwinian dogma.
To contiue to adhere to natural selection as an evolutionary device is inexcusable. It is the most tested and failed hypothesis in the history of science.
The truth lies elsewhere in a sequence that was obviously planned from beginning to end just as Robert Broom, another of my sources, believed.
Just because a God cannot be proven now to exist does not mean that one or more such entities did not once exist.
Furthermore, there is every reason to believe that phylogeny has run its course with the present biota being the climax of that planned and now terminated schedule. All present evidence pleads that only extinction remains.
Those are my convictions and those who chosse to ignore them are ignoring the contributions of the true pioneers in evolutionary biology, intellectuals head and shoulders above transparent self deluded ideologues such as Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Myers, both of whom have abandoned any semblance of science as they now dedicate their entire lives to the only position they are capable of imagining, a world, both animate and inanimate, produced without a purpose. Stephen Jay Gould, another atheist, represented their shared posture perfectly when he declared –
“Intelligence was an evolutionary accident.”
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. They have made their philosophy indelibly clear. The Darwinian atheist zealots have contributed not a scintilla to the solution of the great mystery of phylogeny. Like those who postulated the Phlogiston of Chemistry and the the Ether of Physics, they too will become mere footnotes in the history of science.
I have been reading John Wain’s excellent biography – “Samuel Johnson” – and came upon Wain’s perfect description of Richard Dawkins and Paul Zachary Meyers –
“The average “intellectual”, especially, is the reverse of intellectual in his handling of theoretical questions. His deductive chain starts with self and ends at self. Because he has been ill at ease within the family, he wants to abolish the family. Because the power structure of his society does not automatically waft him to a position of unrestricted authority, he wants to abolish the power structure.”
page 46
I do not believe that “evolution occurs.” I believe only that “evolution occurred.” That is all that can be concluded with certainty. Pierre Grasse questioned contemporary evolution as well –
“”Aren’t we witnessing the remains of an immense phenomenon close to extinction? Aren’t the small variations which are being recorded everywhere the tail end, the last oscillations of the evolutionary movement? Aren’t our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms whch were present in the early flora and fauna?”
Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71.
I answer each of his questions with an unqualified yes. Note the contradiction between his words and the title of his book. His title should have been –
Evolution of Living Organisms?
Grasse, a true scientist, asked questions. When did a Darwinian recently ask a question? They do not ask questions because they are not scientists. It is as simple as that.
Theodosius Dobzhansky, an investigator with enormous energy, asked the question “Can selection produce a new species? When his experimental findings said no, he failed to recognize what that meant and remained a Darwinian nevertheless, a tragedy in the history of science. Dobzhansky was a student of Leo Berg before he left Russia for the New World. I believe if he had remained with his mentor, he would have been instrumental in the permanent demise of the Darwinian myth.
“A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable.”
jadavison.wordpress.com
I am at a loss as to how this forum works. If anyone chooses to engage with me, they are welcome to do so on my weblog –
jadavison.wordpress.com
It seems I am lecturing in an empty auditorium here as elsewhere. So apparently were my distinguished sources, each an acknowldged leader in hs own day and in his field of biological science. My Providence, if I may be so bold, is to resurrect these giants from the intellectual graves into which the ideological fanatics have managed to inter them.
It is hard to believe isn’t it?
Not at all. It is a matter of record.
jadavison.wordpress.com
“A dwarf standing on the shoulders of a giant may see farther than a giant himself.”
Robert Burton
John,
You’re pretty deep in the blog comments here so this corner of the site doesn’t get as much traffic as some. Over time you will definitely get more responses.
Perry
marc, whoever that is and I bet we will never know.
Those who continue to support the Darwinian model are notorious for their anonymity especially here at evo2.org. In fact, those who still support the most failed hypothesis in the history of science rarely identify themselves, with the notable exception of Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins and Wesley Elsberry. It is their disciples who remain unknown, almost to a man, judging from richardawkins.net, Pharyngula, Panda’s Thumb and Elsberry’s “inner sanctum” After The Bar Closes. Correlated with their anonymity is their tendency toward gutter language when expressing themselves.
I would be interested in your reaction to my Prescribed Evoiutionary Hypothesis (PEH) as well as my closely related Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which provides the cytogenetic basis by which the PEH was expressed. Judging from your remarks, it seems you are not familiar with this alternative to the Darwinian hoax. You will find my evolutionary views and those of my distinguished predecessors amply represented on my weblog.
If you choose not to respond here, that will become evident. You are welcome to do so on my weblog. I do prefer that my clientele use their real names, which probably explains why I have relatively few users.
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
I am surprised that marc is unfamiliar with the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH) and my closely related Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH) which present a valid alternative to the Darwinian model, the most failed hypothesis in the history of science. If he is aware, has he dismissed them as of no value?
I find it interesting that the vast majority of those who still support the Darwnian hoax are anonymous in contrast with those of us who criticize it, who typically are happy to disclose our identity. Thus while Richard Dawkins, Wesley Elsberry and Paul Zachary Myers are well known through their so called “forums,” richarddawkins.net, Panda’s Thumb, After The Bar Closes and Pharyngula respectively, their fans are 90% anonymous. That is a conservative figure because I have been informed that some of their users are posing as individuals who do not really exist. Isn’t that interesting and potentially quite revealing? marc hardly identifies who marc really is.
jadavison.wordpress.com
I’m sorry Dr. Davison, I had confused you with someone capable of imparting information rather than childish gloating. My name appears above, in full – and I note that Perry had even told you the same earlier. My own writings can be found smattered around the Internet if you google a little – I rather suspect you might find the odd picture if you look closely – not one that’s 10 years old.
Woot (remember him? I can’t mimic the accents on this keyboard) might choose to hide. I don’t feel the need.
Did you see that that reference to Einstein denying your God as he clearly did. Einstein’s god was not the Abrahamic god at any rate but more of a naturalistic one. I note you have not remarked on it.
You say that your hypotheses are better alternatives to the Darwinian “fairy tale” which is not only the height of intellectual impertinence it is also tantamount to the ranting of the delusional. Little wonder that respectable scientists won’t listen to you.
If you want me or any other interested parties to take you seriously, I submit to you that you cease acting like a jackass – because behaving in this manner is not going to win you any friends in the scientific community.
The neo-Darwinian model (i.e. Darwin’s base theory with corrections due to more recent discoveries) fits all the prescribed criteria of a Theory of which I am sure you are aware. So much so in fact, that in my country it is used as the definitive example of a scientific theory.
I expect that it was more this attitude than your idea that saw you pushed from your post in education: that is regrettable.
As I am trying to evaluate if your hypothesis passes muster as a theory but without you summarizing it, I’ll have to make my own judgment which is unlikely to concur with your own.
Specifically:
a) How/where does your theory meet with observable facts and;
b) What prior predictions has it made that have since been demonstrated.
So in summary, do you have any intention of answering your critics here or my questions? If not I have nothing further to add.
Marc Draco, England, 13:16 BST
I just saw your conference on code and chaos and it is great that someone is finally putting all this information together. Great videos.
Read Dan Brown The Lost Symbol I think you’ll like it.
Is that ‘Superior Spirit’ what Einstein referred to as God?
It seems that’s what he meant.
marc drago
You don’t seem to understand. I do not enter forums with the attempt to convince others of my views. I am a practicing scientist and have been since 1954. I hold forth to enlighten not to engage in debate. The truth has no room for debale and never did.have. As for the Darwinian hoax it is the longest lived fantasy in the history of human communication.
Like the Ether of Physics, the Darwinian fairy tale should also have disappeared the moment it failed the acid test of experimental verification which was before the dawn of the 19th century. The Darwnian myth has no more substance than the Phlogiston of Chemistry had.
Darwinism persists because atheism is a congenital defect immune to reason and incurable. Those who are blind and deaf to that which is transparent to some of us are doomed to oblivion, to be mere footnotes in the history of science. Homozygous atheist ideologues like Paul Zachary Myers and Richard Dawkins have contributed absolutely nothing to the solution of the great mystery of phylogeny. They have each completely abandoned any semblance of science to dedicate all of their energies to the cause of Universal Atheism with a direct assault on the Judeo-Christian ethic upon which Western Civilization securely stands. Such poor souls are to be pitied even as they gather thousands of like minded disciples who are also victims of their “prescribed” fate to be, like their leaders, born to lose losers. Phylogeny remains the greatest mystery in all of science and those who think they have even scratched its surface are fools.
Don’t take my word for it –
“Whoever undertakes to set himself up as judge in the field of Truth and Knowledge is shipwrecked by the laughter of the gods…In oder to form an immaculate member of a flock of sheep one must, above all, be a sheep.
Albert Einstein, Ideas and Opinions, page 28.
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
To John A. Davison:
Heed thy own words! (Or those of Einstein, as it may be!)
Cordially,
Héctor P. Cabán Zeda
Hector
I will be happy to abandon the two hypotheses* which I have offered the moment they are proved to be invalid but not before.
*The Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis (SMH), 1984.
The Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis (PEH), formally presented in 2005.
The Darwinian hypothesis (it was never a theory) should never have even appeared as it was without foundation at the outset, as St. George Mivart proved beyond doubt in 1871, a scant 12 years after the appearance of Darwin’s fantasy.
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
“The Darwinian hypothesis (it was never a theory) should never have even appeared as it was without foundation at the outset, as St. George Mivart proved beyond doubt in 1871, a scant 12 years after the appearance of Darwin’s fantasy.”
Wrong. Again. Mivart accepted evolution (as did Karl Popper, the “father” of modern theoretical proof and supporter of Albert’s methods) but concurred with Wallace on the general issue of “self”. Mivart’s beef was with the church of Rome: unless you know better, Dr. Davison.
Since your hypotheses cannot be demonstrated they are meaningless and will never be accepted as scientific Theories – a fact you are well aware, and I expect jealous of. I might as well hypothesize there is life in another galaxy – this is just as indemonstrable for the foreseeable future and therefore equally incapable of becoming an accepted Theory.
Your continued protestations in this manner (in direct contradiction with every available scientific fact I, and others that you’ve summarily dismissed, can find) does nothing but convince me that I’m having a discussion with a delusional mind – which, in itself, is both educational and enlightening as I’m in the process of researching this very phenomenon. Other readers may wish to follow the discussion and check for themselves against the prescribed definition.
I submit to you that you hate atheists – and in fact anyone who doesn’t follow your brand of God – and that hate has actually poisoned your undoubtedly sharp intellect.
I don’t mind if there IS a god; but I have zero evidence it’s anything like the one in the bible. If I had a god, she would be nature. Einstein, who you obviously admire, seemed to follow Spinoza’s “god” – not the Abrahamic one.
Also, as you’re so fond of dictating what a theory is (and is not) I’ll quote you Karl Popper’s feeling on the subject of theistic evolution that you appear to support or have dignified in your paper:
“…worse than an open admission of failure, for it created the impression that an ultimate explanation had been reached.”
and a paraphrase a quote from my current paper:
“Delusion is not, in and of itself, always a problem: until the deluded start to lead the ignorant.”
Marc,
John said:
And I said:
Both of us are effectively saying the same thing: That nowhere in the scientific literature is there any demonstrated, empirical, factual evidence that evolution is driven by random chance. Nowhere. Evolution through random variation is the greatest urban myth in the history of science.
We are also both countering the random mutation myth with evidence; we have shown that evolution is controlled by a highly ordered, deliberate mechanism. We are saying that the most important question in biology is: what specifically is that mechanism?
We have both come forward with peer-reviewed mainstream literature that demonstrably backs our claims. One of my supporting papers is James A. Shapiro, “A 21st Century View of Evolution”: http://shapiro.bsd.uchicago.edu/Shapiro.2005.Gene.pdf
John has published his own paper which covers similar ground.
Evolution is not the opposite of intelligent design. Evolution requires intelligent design. Everyday experience reinforces this observation.
So far your response is to tell John he’s delusional and to name people who disagree with him and repeat the usual atheist jingoisms. One is hard pressed to find even a single verifiable scientific proposition or research paper referenced in your replies; just broad generalizations, quotations from famous people, name-calling and accusations.
All we are asking you for is presentation of facts and hard evidence. If you cannot bring those things to the table, then you will need to find somebody else to insult.
Again, Marc, I ask: please back up your claim “Jumbled words are nonsense, jumbled DNA is not.”
Perry
John said:
[Darwinism is an] “attempt to explain an ascending self-limiting sequence that took place (past tense), they claim, entirely by accident, the most absurd proposition in the history of science.”
Which is clearly ridiculous – as it proposes a supernatural entity that cannot be proven – as are his self-published papers. They make interesting reading but are filled with mined quotes and other leaps of faith which have no place in scientific literature. Rather than answering criticism, John simply ignores it or trumpets his version. They way he defends and has repeated ignored direct questions is intellectual masturbation is typical of a delusional mind bent out of shape by indolent hatred of non-believers.
As for your evidence, this is simply an interpretation of the effect – an alternative explanation of it. It is not a view shared by the vast majority of respected scientists.
Now, I will go a and review your cited paper and see what it has to offer. As for my previous error, which I have admitted and will expand upon, I have nothing further to add.
However, one thing is unclear to me now, when you say that random change in DNA cannot result in unguided mutation and speciation (I’m paraphrasing from memory, feel free to correct) can you describe precisely how?
Are you (for the sake of simplicity) saying that a sentence such as:
“Cogito ergo sum”
cannot spontaneously mutate into:
“I think therefore I am”
Because I’d agree on that.
But if I misunderstand, please enlighten me.
I learned long ago that one cannot enligthen Darwinian mystics. I have tried and failed too many times. Their response typically has been summary banishment from their “groupthink” bastions or, as is the case here, insult and denigration. Since Perry chooses to allow such reactions and he does, I see no reason to continue here. I will do what I have always done which is to continue to present my thesis elsewhere and of course on my weblog. I am through being a dartboard for unfullfilled, illiterate bullies like Marc Draco.
I will be happy to return following a public apology presented here from Marc Draco. Otherwise –
Good luck Perry. Have a nice flame pit!
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
I am sick of Draco misrepresenting not olny Einstein but Mivart as well ‘ Mivart was a hard headed evolutionist who exposed the Darwinain farce as I will demonstrate shortly. It was the Roman church that had trouble with Mivart, not the other way around. Mivart remained a devout Catholic even after the was excommunicated.
As for Karl Popper, hypotheses are either verified, in which case they automatically become elevated to the status of theory, or they fail to be verified at which time they are properly disposed of on the spot. There is no middle ground which Popper attempted unsuccessfully to create. Darwinism should have been discarded (and was again and again by several subsequent enlightened investigators) when St .George Mivart in 1871, a scant 12 years after Darwin’s fantasy, asked the simple question –
How can natural selection have been involved in a structure which had not yet appeared?
That should have sounded the death knell for Darwin’s infantile dream, and it did for many but not for the congenital atheist which each and every Darwinian most certainly has to be. To be a Darwinian is to deny a purpose in the universe which is to be an atheist. Sooner or later you Darwinian mystics are going to have to realize that you are severely disadvantaged, being not only stone deaf to what Einstein called “the music of the spheres,” but blind as the proverbial bat to the world which surrounds you, a world crawling with fulfilled purpose and great beauty, a world which could never have been created by chance.
Einstein offered the perfect explanation for the likes of Richard Dawkins, Paul Zachary Myers and Marc Draco, compulsive atheist mystics all –
“Our actions should be based on the ever-present awareness that human beings in their thinking, feeling, and acting are not free but are just as causally bound as the stars in their motion …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 who can’t hear the music of the spheres.”
Darwinians ARE religious fanatics. They worship the Great God Chance. They are to be pitied but it won’t be by this investigator!
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
Actually, I too am sick of this back-and-forth of this Davidson-Draco exchange. It’s run its course and you’ve both made you points sufficiently. Please move on – or take it somewhere else ( e.g., to jadavidson’s web site).
Dr Davison by comparing me to PZ Myers and Professor Dawkins, you do me great honour. I would never attempt to elevate myself to the ranks of those great intellectuals.
I eagerly await your thesis and would welcome a chance to respond; especially in the light of being referred to in one sentence as illiterate and in another grouped with two of the best known science writers of current times.
I wonder if you also would be kind enough to prove where I’ve misrepresented Einstein, sir. All I have done is quote the great physicist and remark upon my (shared) interpretation of his belief.
You tell us that Mivart writes:
“How can natural selection have been involved in a structure which had not yet appeared?”
Which seems odd, because that’s logical fallacy – unless you’re quote mining for some rhetoric. If the structure has not appeared, then by definition, it does not exist.
The very mechanism to which I think you/Mivart are alluding (prediction) has been observed in nylon-eating bacteria, however; and is one of the tests of a sound scientific theory.
John, it’s Marc Draco – with a C, not a G. Draco from “Dragon” and also politician of the ancient world who sent anyone committed of a crime to their death.
If find your arrogance unbecoming in one so educated and particularly ironic you choose to quote Einstein deriding folk for precisely the same reason.
The Abrahamic religion of which you seem so fond has a long and bloody history of destroying any discovery deemed to have got in its way. Long before Henry VIII broke ties with the Catholics thus creating your protestant theological ancestry, the Christian church was persecuting scientists who disagreed with their ideas. Who knows how many people were burnt as witches for distilling the Asprin precursor from willow bark?
America might stand as the last great Christian theocracy (which it is in all but name) but the selfish behavior of the last neocons has wrought death on thousands of innocent people.
As for your repeated allusion to the “fantasy” or “hoax” of Darwinian evolution – that is quite laughable and little wonder. If any hoax has been long lived it’s the virgin birth – a story that has absolutely nothing to defend it other than its own writing – and yet millions accept it as fact 2000-odd years after it is alleged to have occurred. (And it wasn’t the first such story, either.)
You may see Neo-Darwinism as a hoax and that is your right; but as a scientist you have a duty to offer alternatives that withstand a scientific scrutiny. Rambling on quoting Einstein and showing your disdain for atheists is simply avoiding the issue.
Before Darwin, biology wasn’t even a serious science and as naturalist, David Hume wrote, “A wise man, therefore, proportions his belief to the evidence” – which Carl Sagan popularized as “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”.
You have made extraordinary claims and therefore I’ve asked you, politely, to provide proof: and (thus far) you have completely failed to do so.
Finding an unexplained part of a theory does not derail it – it merely leaves something else for scientists to explore. Phylogeny, for instance, is a problem that we can only study by inference since the hard evidence (as I understand) is long since decayed.
So far you have refused to offer any proof of your theory – offering only to gloat and offer embittered argument about the wickedness atheism as if the one related to the other.
I’ve walked through your paper on guided evolution and time again you seem to be begging the question – convincing yourself, in other words. I fail to see any predictions – merely speculations. I may be corrected of course.
Either you have something (relevant) to add of you don’t but I have no wish to continue engaging with you on this current course. I would be more succinct, but I rather think Perry would refuse to publish the comment.
Marc Draco
I am sorry that you are unable to understand my papers as my upperclass biology students at the University of Vermont had no difficulty with them at all. As a matter of fact, I believe that I saved some of them from Darwinian nonsense. I would assume that you have read them but you have presented no reason for me to believe that you have.
As for predictions, I have made at least three. The first is that evolution was planned, the second that it is finished, the third that it is quite impossible to reason with congenital ideologues.
“It is not desirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true.”
Bertrand Russell
“An hypothesis does not cease being an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it.”
Boris Ephrussi
Darwinism remains today what it has always been, a futile attempt to explain an ascending self-limiting sequence that took place (past tense), they claim, entirely by accident, the most absurd proposition in the history of science.
I have no desire to continue engaging you either as I resent being harangued and told I am arrogant. I am not at all arrogant. Quite the contrary, I am acutely aware of how very little we know about the major question which has always been before us – the MECHANISM of organic evolution. Those who imagine that we understand that process are living in fantasy worlds, Richard Dawkins being the perfect example. I am not one of them. I have published my hypotheses and they are now for all time on the shelves of the world’s libraries.
My present activites on internet forums are mostly for my own amusement and the gratification I get from evoking the ire of my many intellectual adversaries.
I love it so!
http://www.jadavison.wordpress.com
Wrong again Draco.
Biology was a serious science long before Darwin. Linnaeus, Buffon and Cuvier come to mind. The Linnaean system of classification is possible because evolution was never gradual as Darwin imagined. In a Darwinian world there could be no Genera, species or any other taxanomic categories. There would only be a gigantic blur, impossible to arrange in a rational fashion. Quite the contrary, species are discrete, unmistakable and can be identified with absolute certainty, often with nothing more than a line drawing. or even a verbal description. The living world is and always was entirely discontinuous. That means that species were produced instantaneously. While there were always intermediate forms leading up to the present biota, they could not possibly have been producued by gradual transformations one to the next.
Otto Schindewolf, especially, was acutely aware of these discontinuities and how they could never be reconciled with the Darwinian model –
“The gaps that exist in the continuity of forms, which we always encounter at those very points, are not to be blamed on the fossil record: they are not illusions, but the expression of a NATURAL, PRIMARY ABSENCE OF TRANSITIONAL FORMS.”
Basic Questions in Paleontology, page 105, Bold in italics in the original.
In a more popular vein Schindewolf also said –
“The first bird hatched from a reptilian egg.” and “We might as well stop looking for the missing links as they never existed.”
Richard B. Goldschmidt, The Material Basis of Evolution, page 395.
Schindewolf and Goldschmidt independently arrived at a saltational evolution completely incompatible with Darwin’s silly gradualism. Of course you would know all these things if you had read my papers and theirs.
It is scandalous the way the Darwinian zealots have always ignored their several critics. The time has finally come for reckoning and I am delighted to be part of that process. It is fitting that the reckoning should take place on the 150th anniversary of the publication of Darwin’s fantasy, a book which contains not a word in support of its title, not a word!
“They can run but they can’t hide.’
Joe Louis
“War, God help me, I love it so.”
George S. Patton
So do I George!
Marc Drago claimed that he did not choose to further engage me, but here he is insulting me nevertheless. A man is as good as his word. Need I say more?
I have nothing more to offer Drago as he is obviously stone deaf to what Einstein called “the music of the spheres” as well as blind as the proverbial bat to the world around him. Furthermore, He has misrepresented Einstein who was a great admirer of Jesus Christ –
“No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus Christ. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.”
Alice Calaprice, The New Quotable Einstein, page 196.
Enjoy your transient moment in the sun Drago. There won’t be many more.
Go on call me all the names Dr. Davison and quote mine all you like – it won’t make your protestations any more viable.
As for biology as science, it was not considered a science before Darwin’s time – although Physics and even rudimentary chemisty most certainly were. Nature was not a preserve of scientists – it was something for the clerics – until Darwin published and threw them all into a paddy.
Although today we regard and recognise those early studies as biological science, at the time they were not adopted as such. This is a contextual issue you’ve missed as the devil is in the detail.
You may wish to consult a decent dictionary on the meaning of arrogance and delusion: as you appear to suffer from both. Simple name-calling (ad hominem) attacks if you prefer are the last resort of those beaten in argument. I fail to see any reference to Jesus of Nazareth in any of my postings, I merely corrected you on a point that Einstein was not likely a believer in the Christian god.
The trouble with delusion is that it’s self-fulfilling: if I say the sky is blue and you argue it’s red, there’s nothing I can do to change that – but only one of us can be correct upon the observation of its colour.
The lack of transitional forms argument, from what I understand, is an ancient creationist treatise that even they have abandoned – particularly as the incomplete fossil record is replete with them.
As for your proverbial bat, you know as well as I that bats are not blind: they just see differently. So much for proverbs.
And you’ve accused me of not reading your paper – I called Perry on this one too. If I hadn’t read your paper I would not have been aware of your use of quotations from the likes of even Richard Dawkins to make your points; not to mention your admission on the lack of experimental evidence to back your claims. My claim to misunderstand it was, I admit a slite of hand on my part, to see how you would react: the response was predictable.
In at least one, your conclusion includes the phrase: “I rest my case”.
Now what about Otto Schindewolf and Goldschmidt – the “Hopeful Monster” thesis, I assume? Schindewolf, for whatever his reasons was anti-Darwin – and the pair of them are both dead so we can’t ask them. Hopeful Monster is a tired device used by pro-creationists – which even Stephen Gould, while supporting Goldschmidt, has panned.
The reason I continue discussing this with you is to draw you on your real reasons for your academic and systemic disdain for those who don’t share your belief system – a fact you have tacitly acknowledge by your continued attacks on me. Intolerance is a powerful motivator.
I find Perry’s comments on the ‘Big Bang’ a little amusing:
eg. Perry says, “Science has no materialistic explanation for that (the Big Bang)
Unfortunately this is naturally limited by our current understanding of ‘science’. Who could even guess at what our future, more-enlightened generations will come to learn.
Perry then goes on to say:
“The universe hasn’t been here forever because it would have completely burned out a long, long time ago. Science doesn’t have a way around any of this.”
Unfortunately Mr. Marshall science does have a way to explain this. In our current understanding of matters of science, matter can not be destroyed. Merely changed into a different form/state.
Can you not perceive a situation where a ‘universe’ continually expands outwards until the energy driving the ‘expansion’ is exhausted, and then gravity takes over and pulls everything back into the epicentre, where the ‘Big Bang’ can then start all over again?
The fundamental difference between you and me is…. I’m not conviced ‘God’ does, or does not exist. Unfortunately you, on the other hand are a fervent believer the ‘God’ does actually exist.
Therefore, that fact should force any rational person to recuse their self from this debate and leave it to the uncommitted to have a more unbiased, and free-thinking discusion of the issue of ‘God’
I’ve enjoyed dropping by, and look forward to more stimulating debate.
Regards,
John C.
(currently in training with Prof. Richard Dawkins 😉
John,
If you ever study entropy, i.e. in a thermodynamics class, you will come to understand that if the universe contracts back again there will not be enough usable energy to start another big bang. There is a finite amount of usable energy in the world and once this universe cools it will be spent.
You can have faith in whatever future discoveries that you think science might make, but my statement is currently entirely correct: “Science has no materialistic explanation for the origin of the Big Bang.”
Perry
Let me make something perfectly clear, I have no intention of apologising to Dr. Davison because if anyone has played a game of insult, then he only need to look to his own posts where he engages in childish games insulting an established scientific theory and even deliberately misspells my name.
No matter what I believe, Dr Davison’s writings on this blog and elsewhere demonstrate that when he feels his pet theories threatened he either withdraws, resorts to insult and intolerance or just bans the offending user. This is not, my experience, how respectable scientists behave.
Rather than crowing at ignorance a respectable teacher would impart shared knowledge. Dr Davison is so convinced of his theory, despite the lack of experimental data to support it and the evidence against, that he continues to trumpet his superiority.
Even Perry has politely corrected John C.’s response here about Big Bang.
My own understanding of this theory is that the universe lacks sufficient gravity to pull everything back to a central mass in any event. The first law of thermodynamics is not violated because as the last suns finally burn away the whole place will descend into eternal darkness.
God or no god, we are fortunate to live in the our universe’s stelliferous period. There has never been a perioid like it and never will be again.
dear sir,
i am actually a student and hence am very interested in astronomy.being a student i am doubtful about the big bang and black holes.could u explain me what exactly are these black holes and white holes? and how can you determine exactly to what happened at siberia on june 30,1908.?
You can easily find answers to these kinds of questions with a Google search, Wikipedia etc. Thanks
Dear Perry Have you ever read Indian Vedas and Upnishads? I Request u to read them if You haven’t yet.