Creation Bits

This blog has been superceded, and is only here for archive purposes. The latest blog posts, depending on topic, can be found at one of the blogs at the new location!

These are very uneditted and underthought ideas that I get while debating the creation/evolution debate. This is the more-often-updated but less-thought-out version of the crevo blog.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

New Baby!

If anyone is interested, information about my new baby is available here!

I have a favor to ask. Nearly all of my evolutionary papers are available on the internet. DaveScot was kind enough to put most of them on the side bar at Uncommon Descent from which blog I am now banned. In many ways my 84 paper is the most significant as it was the first and directly addressed the issues of homology and the incontravertible evidence provided by experimental and descriptive comparative embryology, evidence that must be recognized by any realistic evolutionary paradigm.

This paper is not available on the internet and I am not presently in a position to make it available.

If someone with access to the paper could scan it and present it somewhere, it could be a great asset to me in the way of explaining my position on several critical evolutionary matters.

Davison, J.A. 1984. Semi-meiosis as an evolutionary mechanism. Journal of Theoretical Biology, 111: 725-735

Thank you.
Apparently I accidently posted this to the wrong thread. Forgive me.

"A past evolution is undeniable. A present evolution is undemonstrable."
John A. Davison
Is anyone listening anywhere?
Yes! Sorry for the delay. Been busy. Anyway, as soon as I get a chance, I'll scan it in.
Just let me know where it is. Thanks.
My preference is over at brainstorms where I am able to carry on a civilized dialogue.
It is always a good idea to occasionally stop and ask ourselves what we really don't know about the great mystery of evolution. Here is a partial list.

No one knows how life was created, how may times it was created, where it was created or even when is was created.

All that this investigagor knows for certain is THAT it was created and that chance had absolutely NOTHING to do either with its creation or its subsequent history, a history we know as evolution.

We don't even know for certain how many Gods were involved, but that one or more must have been involved cannot be denied by any rational observer. To stubbornly adhere to a monophyletic evolution is just as irrational as to insist on a living breathing God, presumably guiding the process, a process apparently finished long ago with the appearance of the final product, ourselves.

Leo Berg said it all long ago commenting on both ontogeny and phylogeny:

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

"Evolution is in a great measure the unfolding of pre-existing rudiments."
ibid, page 406.
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?