David Attenborough, 81, to make one last film - on evolution

I think you have a very simple view of the matter.
First, it is very reasonable to care about what happens to species when our species is having such a disproportianately negative effect on so many other species. What is happening to them is being caused by us and our ways.

Second, our species has something special - an appreciation of the world around us. Surely it is reasonable to care about what happens to all life on earth in order that we may continue to appreciate and understand its diversity, and surely to do so doesn't make you a hippocrate.

Third, creationists believe that 'god' (I use the small g intentionally) gave us the planet and all its variety to do with and use as we will. Surely we must not align ourselves with this belief - in 50 years we'll be at a point where there is nothing left but us in our biodomes eating synthfood, showing our genetically modified kids photos of extinct animals like the butterfly or the frog.

Finally, the rate of extinction is increasing massively due to us. A large number of biologists believe we're currently experiencing a mass extinction event on a par with the Permian-Triassic transition, which is thought to have killed 70% of all known land species at the time. If one half of all species on earth die in the next 100 years, this will surely have a negative effect on us as a species. And there's your Darwin link, evolution says all species are battling to pass on/preserve the genes. The state of the planet could threaten our existance, as could the effects of the subsequent loss of species - surely we must be concerned.

I believe that Attenborough's position is that the actions of man will lead to a mass-extinction which will in turn lead to conditions on our planet becoming significantly less hospitable for our own species.

His worst fear is that our own species will be victims of the mass-extinction. He is also most likely concerned for his children and grand-children who (if what John A. Davison says is true) will be amongst the first to suffer as things change for the worst.

Bob

With respect to "major" vertebrate extinctions, we are ignorant as to how many extinctions have occurred. I have no idea what Attenborough means by "major vertebrates." We don't even know how many total species there currently are. Estimates range from one million to ten million. Extinction in the past was a normal feature of evolution. The present biota represents a very small fraction of the total number of species that have existed, perhaps as low as 0.1%.

The important point is that while extinction continues as it always has and probably faster, creative evolution has ceased. It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize what this means for the immediate future. This is where the Darwinian fantasy collapses. If contemporary forms were capable of change there would be rampant examples everywhere as man has so drastically altered the environment. New species have not appeared because, in my opinion, evolution has ceased, a view I share with Robert Broom, Pierre Grasse and even the Darwinian selectionist - Julian Huxley. That is a primary reason I am convinced that sexual reproduction is incompetent as even a speciation device and certainly had nothing to do with the appearance of the higher taxonomic categories. Those realities are what led me to propose the Semi-Meiotic Hypothesis for evolution in 1984.

Just as ontogeny terminates irreversibly with the death of the individual, so evolution has now ceased with only the extinction of its final products in the future. This is not a pretty picture but it represents exactly what the contemporary scene indicates. In short -

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

The whole thing strikes me as a kind of tragic cosmic joke, a preprogrammed (prescribed) evolutionary suicide just as certain as the death of the individual. Homo sapiens, the youngest mammalian species on the planet will prove to be the one with the shortest life span - under 120,000 years. I agree with Martin Rees, astronomer and President of the Royal Society. This, the twenty-first, is, as the title of his recent book declares -

"Our Final Century"

"La commedia e finita."
Pagliacci

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

OT

@ BobMort

Apologies

I may have done you a dis-service in voicing my suspicion in a private email to ex-professor Davison that you might be a closet neodarwinian evolutionist, on little more evidence than your being aware of the comedy duo, Reeves and Mortimer. I see from some of your comments that you are an independent thinker and I thus congratulate you.

PS to Patrick, sorry to interrupt your normal programming.

Since it relates to this thread I recommend -

http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2007/12/16/th-prescribed-evolutionary-hypothesis/#comment-756

Which can be read on my "An Evolutionary Hypothesis" thread posted August 22 10:20AM

jadavison.wordpress.com

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I offer the following link which serves to demonstrate the extent to which the Darwinians are willing to go to prevent me from observing the proceedings of After The Bar Closes.

http://jadavison.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/why-banishment/#comment-766

The current commentary on my "Why Banishment" thread.

jadavison,wordpress.com

It is hard to believe isn't it?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John, perhaps you should explain - what exactly is this thing that you (or somebody else) is being prevented from observing?

If you had visited and read the link you would know. Esley Welsberry has blocked my computer from viewing the proceedings at After The Bar Closes.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

PS to Patrick, sorry to interrupt your normal programming.

Just so you're aware, Bill passed this website onto Denyse and as such the target audience has changed and the rules designed to protect students have been lifted. Feel free to comment if you like.

I for one would love to hear one constructive comment from Alan Fox, something he has never produced in the long time I have known him. He forced me to delete his participation on my blog so now he is again following me around like a dog. This has been going on for years.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Since when should students, of all people, be protected and from what?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Thanks, Patrick. I will endeavour to come up with something positive for John's sake ;)

PS to John, I am assured personally by Dr. Elsberry that there is nothing in place at "After the Bar Closes" to prevent you viewing the site. You do not have a fixed IP, anyway, rendering any attempt pretty unlikely to succeed.

Patrick

I am still curious about this "protecting students" business. That kind of protectionist, isolationist provincialism is exactly what is wrong with most internet forums. Students are the last group that should be protected from anything. They represent the future and should be free to hear and respond to all elements involved in the debate that should never have begun. There is no room for debate in science. The reality of a past evolution is firmly established. The ONLY mystery is the mechanism by which it took place.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I'll bet that I have left more unanswered messages than any other person in the history of internet communication. Consider the most recent five for example. It is part of the "Davison doesn't exist" syndrome. It is very revealing.

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

It is very revealing when one refuses to respond to questions.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John, I live in Florida and I've been busy. This is my first chance to visit OE in a while. And if you want to know the reasoning behind the previous rules: ask Bill.

Patrick

How can I ask Bill when I am not able to comment at Uncommon Descent? That is why I am asking you! You are the Patrick who is an "author" at Uncommon Descent aren't you? Besides, according to Dave Springer, Dembski thinks I am "nuts." Apparently you choose not to answer me. That is fine too. I won't pursue the matter any further.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I'm just saying that Bill set the rules and I complied. If you want to know his motivations you can ask him. He publishes one of his email addresses on designinference.com . In any case Denyse is now running the show and the site rules are different (very open).

Patrick, whoever that is.

Since when should there be "rules" governing the search for the truth? It is very revealing that Patrick is willing to "comply." I do not communicate with those who regard me as "nuts." They must first communicate with me with an apology. I believe I was publishing before Dembski was born although I am not certain about that since I don't know how old he is; nor do I care.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

http://alanfox.blogspot.comLanguedoc diary blog

Patrick is just pointing out there need to be rules to encourage polite discourse. You retain final sanction about what appears at your own blog, don't you?

"True and Flase are attributes of speech, not of things. And where speech is not, there is neither Truth nor Falsehood." - Thomas Hobbes

Alan Fox

I see you are spewing your vicious lies again. I have never deleted comments even after I have found it necessary to ban the trash that presented them. As a matter of fact I collect and preserve insults as you very well know. You will find many more of them itemized as to source in my "Why Banishment" thread, March 2, 2008.

jadavison.wordpress.com/

You are without question the most degenerate excuse for a human being I have ever encountered on the web or off. I am amazed that Denyse allows you to comment here.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

Professor Davison writes:

I see you are spewing your vicious lies again.

What lies, exactly? For a statement to be a lie, it must be both wrong and known to be wrong by the author at the time it is made. This does not apply to any statement I have made here or elsewhere. I should be happy to correct any mis-statement, if you could point out the error.

I have never deleted comments even after I have found it necessary to ban the trash that presented them.

Though this is trivial, you have indeed deleted comments, as can be seen by your own comments referring to them. For example, from your blog that you link to:

Alan Fox

I am sorry that I had to delete you but I have no intention of tolerating anyone who claimed that I was not blocked at After The Bar Closes after I had presented absolute proof that I was.

You are homozygous at the garbage locus. Got that? Write that down.

And:

Sorry Alan but, true to my word, I deleted your comments as promised.

A man is only as good as his word don’t you know.

It doesn’t get any better than this.

I love it so!

Perhaps you had forgotten. Well, no matter.

Professor Davison writes:

You are without question the most degenerate excuse for a human being I have ever encountered on the web or off. I am amazed that Denyse allows you to comment here.

On the whole world-wide web? Wow!

Might I point out a difficulty I have with your PEH. The standard ToE posits that an organism's immediate environment, its "niche" acts selectively on the gene pool to favour some adaptations over others. The result of this concept is that any organism will thus be better adapted to its niche than elsewhere. We do indeed find organisms in habitats that suit them.

You, on the other hand, state the environment is not a factor in evolution, and the information was front-loaded by one or more gods, and subsequently unfolds by saltational steps. What mechanism ensures that this infolding remains in lockstep with the necessary environment that is required by particular organisms at any particular stage in the unfolding process?

Sorry Alan but I have no intention of responding to your questions as I have already done so countless times. You are a rabid fan of Richard Dawkins who is, as far as I am concerned, a charlatan. You also represent the perspective and purposes of Paul Z. Myers and Wesley Elsberry, the cofounders of Panda's Thumb and After The Bar Closes, with Pharyngula the last surviving bastions of Darwinian mysticism.

You also insist, now as in the past, on putting words into my mouth that I have never uttered. Any further comments directed to me from you will be ignored. If Denyse chooses to let you speak here there is nothing I can or would do to prevent it. I have better things to do with my remaining time than to suffer the degenerate clientele of After The Bar Closes, Panda's Thumb and Pharyngula.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Sorry Alan but I have no intention of responding to your questions as I have already done so countless times.

I have never seen a response to me (or anyone else for that matter) responding to the question I just put. If there were such "countless" responses, it would be, presumably, possible to link to one.

You also insist, now as in the past, on putting words into my mouth that I have never uttered.

You must be referring to:

You, on the other hand, state the environment is not a factor in evolution, and the information was front-loaded by one or more gods, and subsequently unfolds by saltational steps.

If this summary misrepresents your view, I will certainly correct it, if you could point out what exactly you object to?

I am really interested, nonetheless, however front-loading produces changes to a genome, in how changes are co-ordinated with the immediate current environment of any particular organism.

Alan Fox just doesn't get it. He is still operating under the mistaken notion that evolution is still in progress. There hasn't been a new Genus in two million years or a new verifiable species in historical times. In other words -

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

"Aren't our plants, our animals lacking some mechanisms which were present in the early flora and fauna?"
Pierre Grasse, Evolution of Living Organisms, page 71.

They sure are Pierre. Try explaining that to the atheist Darwinian mystics like Paul Zachary Myers, Richard Dawkins and Alan Fox. I am through casting your pearls before these hamstrung swine. Like all pure white cats they are stone deaf to Einstein's "music of the spheres." There is nothing that can be done for them. They are living proof of the Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis. They are "prescribed" losers, doomed to literary extinction.

"Everything is determined...by forces over which we have no control."
Albert Einstein

I love it so!

He is still operating under the mistaken notion that evolution is still in progress.

That evolution is either a real phenomenon or not seems a possible position to take.

But that evolution did take place and stopped 200,000 years ago is a bold claim. If evolution, up to that time, managed to produce the present diversity of life on earth, what switched the process off so suddenly? Are genomes now all frozen in time? There is evidence of selection still working since that time. For instance in crops and domestic livestock due to selective breeding by early man.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

That does not mean it is wrong.

If the claim "A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable." is intended to be scientific, then some evidence for it and lack of evidence against it would help support it.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

It is, of course, absolutely your right not to attempt to answer inconvenient questions.

is because he is afraid to mention my name at his usual haunts for fear of excommunication. You see -

"Davison is the Darwinians' worst nightmare."
Terry Trainor

This will be my last comment on Alan Fox here at Overwhelming Evidence. His record speaks for itself. He has never offered an original idea in his entire miserable life. His chronic obsession with me betrays a profoundly disturbed mind. He apparently suffers from a rare, incurable condition known as geriatrophilia. In other words he likes old guys a lot.

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I love it so!

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Alan Fox wrote:

"But that evolution did take place and stopped 200,000 years ago is a bold claim. If evolution, up to that time, managed to produce the present diversity of life on earth, what switched the process off so suddenly? Are genomes now all frozen in time? There is evidence of selection still working since that time. For instance in crops and domestic livestock due to selective breeding by early man."

I've often wondered about this aspect of John's theory - he seems to be claiming that an entirely natural process facilitated the kind of evolution that the neo-darwinists claim occurred up to two-hundred thousand years ago. I was less clear on whether he proposes that the limits on evolution are intrinsic to life or were the result of some external agency simply switching it off when things had evolved to it's satisfaction.

Supposing we were to find a DNA sample more than two-hundred thousand years old (which was from an organism with the potential to evolve), in what fundamental way would it be different to a modern DNA sample which by John's definition would be from a non-evolving organism?

Hypothetically, what is it that is "running out" or has "run out"? And given that we now have the ability to sequence DNA - might we be able to put-back whatever has run out into the genome of a simple life-form?