Phylogenetic Stem Cells

_{February 14, 2006

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

I cannot find the phrase phylogenetic stem cell used anywhere and suggest when we talk of possible mechanisms underlying guided, planned evolution we equate the hypothetical LUCA (Last Universal Common Ancestor) with a hypothetical Phylogenetic Stem Cell to quickly convey the gist of the front-loaded hypothesis. This phrase should have instant meaning to anyone familiar with phylogeny and stem cells.

Comments

The fossil record is the final arbiter and its testimony is absolute and not to be questioned. There is nothing in that record that is in conflict with the PEH and there is nothing in it that will ever be reconciled with the Darwinian fairy tale. I really don't know what more to say without irritating you and I sure don't want to do that.John Davison_{February 17, 2006
February
02
Feb
17
17
2006
11:16 PM
11
11
16
PM
PDT}

JAD

If evolution was an unfolding of preexisting rudiments then the complexity was there from the beginning. Unexpressed genomes don't leave imprints in rocks hence the fossil record has nothing to offer in way of support or contradiction. Is this not correct?
DaveScot_{February 17, 2006
February
02
Feb
17
17
2006
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

Interesting idea. I think you should write a paper to that effect or maybe use it as a theme for a science fiction story. The one lesson from the fossil record is that the simple preceded the complex. Furthermore the whole sequence violated every thing we know from classical thermodynamics which predicts exactly the opposite.John Davison_{February 16, 2006
February
02
Feb
16
16
2006
06:15 PM
6
06
15
PM
PDT}

Thanks JAD. That was a great answer.

Why millions of years between first prokaryotes and first eukaryotes?

Maybe eukaryotes came first and are simply missing from the fossil record for some reason. That's why I asked about the multicellular original ancestors. If we're going to speculate about possible wholesale creation or instant appearance of metazoans then the speculation can run right up to one or more whole humans, even Adam and Eve, who were here billions of years ago and they didn't survive but the bacteria and parasites inside them did survive. A small number of complex animals that started the ball rolling then disappeared wouldn't leave much chance of discovering then in the fossil record - they'd be like the proverbial needle in a haystack. In fact a fully populated Garden of Eden, 3 billion years ago, could have been the size of Kansas and it would still be a needle in the haystack.
DaveScot_{February 16, 2006
February
02
Feb
16
16
2006
01:32 AM
1
01
32
AM
PDT}

johnnyb Yes DaveScot I'm afraid I don't know the answer to that question. I am not being evasive. I just don't see the merit in pure speculation. The Burgess shale sure doesn't suggest any intermediates. Without intermediates it is pretty hard to accept transformations. It is bad enough when one can't demonstrate intermediates between species. It gets worse with every higher taxon. Like I said before we can account for a common origin for all the primates based on structural chromosome homology. If there were independent creations, their number lies somewhere between 1 and some really big number. I can't imagine how there could be separate creations of multicellular organisms but that doesn't mean they didn't take place. Leo Berg without ever explaining himself just flat out claimed: "Organisms have developed from tens of thousands of primary forms, i.e, polyphyletically." Nomogenesis, page 406 It is no wonder the Darwinians have ignored him. I intend to give him the benefit of doubt until it is proven that he was wrong. I don't believe that proof is as yet at hand. Of course the most satisfying view is that there was a single origin and I admit that there is plenty of evidence for it. The nice thing about the PEH is that it can explain a lot of what may be only apparent reproductive discontinuities. Just exactly how much remains to be seen. I don't see any way that eukaryotes can be derived from prokaryotes which gives us two origins right there. Of course those diferences could have been preprogramed in a single precursor cell. If that were the case, then why the millions of years which elapsed between the first bacteria and the first eukaryotes? What do I know? What does anybody know? "An hypothesis does not cease to be an hypothesis when a lot of people believe it." Boris Ephrussi "I do not understand; I pause; I examine." MontaigneJohn Davison_{February 15, 2006
February
02
Feb
15
15
2006
02:45 AM
2
02
45
AM
PDT}

Well, thought I'd run it up the flagpole to see who salutes. :-)

A question for Professor Davison:

Is it your belief that all life started from one or more single celled organisms or do you think some original forms may have been multicellular?
DaveScot_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
10:06 PM
10
10
06
PM
PDT}

Davison -- Do you reject Lamarckism as an explanation for producing varieties?johnnyb_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
09:26 PM
9
09
26
PM
PDT}

For a change I was trying to be serious and so I dispensed with my usual menu and what the Darwinians might do with it. "Davison is the Darwinian's worst nightmare." Terry TrainorJohn Davison_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
07:48 PM
7
07
48
PM
PDT}

I don't accept the concept of a common stem cell because I do not feel it is supported by the facts revealed by descriptive and experimental embryology. So instead of reponding to that question I prefer to hold forth on the larger question of evolution generally. We have to forget everything we may have thought about evolition in the past and look at the problem with a cold hard eye. First, there is no evidence that evolution is still in progress beyond the production of varieties. Second, there is not a single demonstration that the environment ever played any role in the formation of new life forms. Just as the development of a frog from a frog egg proceeds entirely independently of the environmnet so then did the evolution of that frog from a fish ancestor proceed in exactly the same way independently of the environment in which it undoubtedly took place. The mistake that the Darwinians made and still make is that there was an exogenous cause for evolutionary progress. Such a cause has never been identified for the simple reason that it never existed. Evolution proceeded, driven entirely from within the genomes of those creatures still capable of producing offspring fundamentally different from themselves. There is no evidence that such creatures are still extant. To assume that they are is without foundation and is the fundamental error in the Darwinain paradigm. They blindly assumed Lyell's Uniformitarian Principle and, as nearly as I can tell, still do. "It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatsoever for believing it to be true." Bertrand Russell Furthermore, neither natural selection nor the sexual mode of reproduction which can reveal such variations as may exist, had anything whatsoever to do with creative evolution. They were and still are both entirely conservative and anti-evolutionary as was understood independently by both Reginald C. Punnett and Leo Berg long ago. The entire Darwinian scenario is a myth resting on the assumption that there was an exogenous cause for evolution. Such a cause has never been identified for the simple reason that it never existed. I have come to agree wuth Otto Schindewolf that evolution is not an experimental science and cannot be studied that way. Surely if it could be, speciation and the formation of the higher categories would have been demonstrated long ago in the laboratory. Phylogeny, like ontogeny, has been driven entirely from within, completely independent of the environment in which it took place. It is questionable if there are still organisms on earth that are capable of producuing organisms fundamentally different from themselves. Until they are found we must assume they do not exist. That they existed in the past however is undeniable. One thing is certain, chance played no role in evolution just as it now plays no role in development. Having rejected Darwinism and Lamarckism I see no remaining explanation except the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis which serves as the only reasonable explanation for ontogeny and phylogeny both of which have always proceeded with no reference to the environment whatsoever. I like to think this will serve to inflame the Darwinian zealots into some sort of frenzy but I really don't think it will.I think it is finally dawning on at least some of them that they have been chasing a phantom that never existed. That is the only reasonable conclusion I was able to draw when not a single evolutionist of any persuasion was willing to respond to my request for a 500 word essay on his version of the great mystery of organic evolution. Mine has been published and I take a certain amount of satisfaction in the fact that it has yet to be challenged. I am confident I am on the right track.John Davison_{February 14, 2006
February
02
Feb
14
14
2006
07:41 PM
7
07
41
PM
PDT}

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply