Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Quetzal · 10-30-2002, 10:50 PM

What's the scoop on <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/jad-cv.html" target="_blank">John Davison</a>? He has apparently published in peer-reviewed journals (although his most recent articles were in an Italian publication, Rivista di Biologia), and none anywhere since 1998. However, his <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html" target="_blank">Evolutionary Manifesto - a New Hypothesis for Organic Change</a> reads like a typical creationist screed, with all the bells and whistles: Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, the "evolution is not science" argument, the false "creation is the only alternative" idea, the typical creationist "evolution is blind chance" argument, etc.

However, he appears to be gainfully employed as a bio professor at the University of Vermont. So what's the deal with this guy? Anybody run into creationists using him before? (A creationist that I'm arguing with is claiming his "multipurpose genome" idiocy is valid by citing this clown.)

Thanks in advance.

scigirl · 10-31-2002, 05:46 AM

Well I scrolled through his "manifesto" and it consisted mostly of philosophical quotes. Where is his charts, graphs, and data? As a scientist, I'm highly skeptical for that reason alone. But I'll read through it when I have time...

scigirl

RufusAtticus · 10-31-2002, 09:21 AM

I've heard his name brought up by evolutionists on Christian Forums to show that there is no conspiracy to fire evolution doubters. (He just got tenure or something.)

Skydancer · 10-31-2002, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>I've heard his name brought up by evolutionists on Christian Forums to show that there is no conspiracy to fire evolution doubters. (He just got tenure or something.)</strong>

Did it work? Or did they start claiming that he's the token exception?

pz · 10-31-2002, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus:
<strong>I've heard his name brought up by evolutionists on Christian Forums to show that there is no conspiracy to fire evolution doubters. (He just got tenure or something.)</strong>

Errm, read this bit in the preface to his "manifesto":

Quote:

I owe a very special debt to Dr. Judith Van Houten, Chair of the Department of Biology and Associate Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences. In addition to freezing my salary, her continuing and largely successful attempts to isolate me from the students have served only to provide me with a powerful incentive to continue the search for the truth concerning the great mystery of Evolution. We are once more reminded of the profound significance of Arnold Toynbee's celebrated aphorism:
The Virtues of Adversity

It sounds like he got tenure, and then started pushing this ridiculous nonsense of his, and his poor departmental chair is struggling to keep this loon away from the students.

Also, note this capsule summary of his hypothesis:

Quote:

The new mechanism, which I have called the semi-meiotic hypothesis, is based upon an obvious fact that has been before us for a very long time. It has to do with the manner in which the sex cells, the eggs and sperm, are formed. This process, known as meiosis or chromosome reduction, occurs in two steps. Prior to the first meiotic division the chromosomes become duplicated as they do in mitosis. Then two divisions take place. The first returns the chromosome number to the diploid state and so can be considered to be a form of diploid presexual reproduction. This first division takes place in a special way which I feel provides the mechanism of macroevolution. Also since the second division cannot occur until the first has taken place, the first meiotic division is logically the more primitive of the two and accordingly must have evolved first (Davison 1984 1993 1998). Upon this premise I proceed.

The error should be obvious. It is most definitely not "logically true" that the first division has to be more primitive; that's the recapitulationist fallacy! If that were true, we'd have to argue that the amnion was a more primitive embryonic structure than the notochord.

If that's the premise upon which he proceeds, it's quite clear that he's built his story on a foundation of sand.

Buffman · 10-31-2002, 01:58 PM

At 10:27 AM 10/31/2002 -0500, you wrote:

Dear NCSE,

While doing some Net research, I happened upon the following professor's work. Obviously I found the attached extract to be rather supportive of those seeking to place Creationism or Intelligent Design into the public school science classrooms. Since Prof. Davison has had a long and reasonably distinguished career in the biological sciences, his commentary can not be easily shunted aside without considered accurate citations.

I would like to know if there have been any peer reviews of his "Manifesto" and where I might find such reviews. He does make the following statement in his Preface:

"Has evolution been guided? With the exception of the last question, to which no certain answer will probably ever be given, I will answer yes to each of these questions. " ["Has evolution been guided" is his last question. See below.]

In his Conclusion, he states, "In short, Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change. "

Thank you.

NCSE Reply

Thanks for your e-mail. I've seen Davison's web site before, but since it seems to be relatively uninfluential (only about a dozen web pages link to it), it isn't a day-to-day concern around the NCSE office. Davison himself seems to have embarked on a political career, running for governor of Vermont <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/platform.html," target="_blank">http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/platform.html,</a> although he seems to have forgotten to tell the Vermont Secretary of State about it; his name doesn't appear on the state elections web site!

As far as I can tell, Davison's "Manifesto" has not been published (his c.v. describes it as "Offered for publication," leaving open the question of to what publication he offered it), so it is doubtful that it underwent peer review. His last few publications have appeared in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), which is widely considered a fringe journal without a real peer review process.

The following exchange appeared on the feedback section of Talk.Origins in 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may00.html):

I recently read a work by John A. Davison, Ph.D., professor of biology at the University of Vermont entitled "AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE." In this work he challenges the traditional Darwinian notion that natural selection is the mechanism by which macroevolution occurs in sexually reproducing organisms. He instead proposes the "semi-meiotic hypothesis" to explain speciation/macroevolution. Essentially, he proposes that "evolution" occurs at the level of the chromosome, not the gene. He does not dispute that changes in gene frequency occur within a species (e.g., peppered moths), but at the same time he does not believe that this same mechanism (i.e., natural selection) accounts for macroevolution. Is this hypothesis plausible?

The response, from NCSE member Wes Elsberry:

It is commonly held that speciation processes are largely, if not totally, independent of natural selection. In this Davison is simply part of the crowd. I recently heard a talk given by Kurt Benirschke which attributed most speciational changes in mammals to chromosomal fusion events. So, when properly delimited, saying that much of the speciation we see in mammals (or perhaps even vertebrate animals) is due to some sort of chromosomal rearrangement is plausible, since that is what the karyotype data seems to show.
In looking at Davison's "manifesto", I personally found some reasons for concern about the validity of various points. Since I have long heard similar claims about chromosomal rearrangement and speciation, the claimed novelty of Davison's hypothesis seems more hype than substance. There seems to be a lot of textual interpretation within the work which purports significance in the real world. Quotations seem to be treated much as "proof-texts" are in apologetics. Many of his claims about what "Darwinism" must entail are arguable, and some are simply wrong. I think that in Davison's particular case, he might hold a correct position with regard to speciation events being often due to chromosomal rearrangement without having grounded his other corollaries in much besides his personal prejudices, buttressed with some quotes from others having congruent prejudices.
In general, when evaluating non-mainstream claims, it is good to keep one's skepticism sharp. The taint of self-aggrandizement is a clue that should not be overlooked. Something of a field guide for such behavior in physics can be applied with a few changes to biological topics.

Sincerely,

Glenn Branch
Deputy Director
National Center for Science Education, Inc.
420 40th Street, Suite 2
Oakland, CA 94609-2509
510-601-7203 x 305
fax: 510-601-7204
800-290-6006
branch@ncseweb.org
<a href="http://www.ncseweb.org" target="_blank">http://www.ncseweb.org</a>

Quetzal · 11-01-2002, 03:10 AM

pz: Yeah, I noticed that about his career. Did you check out his pubs list? Fairly decent for about 20 years (every two-three years) in a non-ambitious sort of way. Then an 8-year hiatus, followed by publication of his semi-meiosis hypothesis in a mainstream journal. It looks from the next pub he got hammered - his last peer-reviewed publication is a "reply", not original research. Afterwards, he's got two in Rivista, and then not even there! Although it's difficult to tell much from a publications list, this seems to be one of the marks of a crackpot.

I also noticed a lot of real warning flags in his "Manifesto". Check out section II-1, "Why has Darwinism Prevailed" - only 'cause Lamarckism is untenable (then why does he idolize de Grasse?). Note the rather "soft" approach to Creationism - as the only alternative. But especially note the pure creationist "evolution is blind chance".

I still think he's a closet creationist. Or he might simply be a crank...

Buffman: Whoeee!! Well done! That's EXACTLY the kind of feedback I was looking for. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Thanks!

10-30-2002, 10:50 PM	#1
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	Stealth Creationist? What's the scoop on <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/jad-cv.html" target="_blank">John Davison</a>? He has apparently published in peer-reviewed journals (although his most recent articles were in an Italian publication, Rivista di Biologia), and none anywhere since 1998. However, his <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/davison-manifesto.html" target="_blank">Evolutionary Manifesto - a New Hypothesis for Organic Change</a> reads like a typical creationist screed, with all the bells and whistles: Pasteur's Law of Biogenesis, the "evolution is not science" argument, the false "creation is the only alternative" idea, the typical creationist "evolution is blind chance" argument, etc. However, he appears to be gainfully employed as a bio professor at the University of Vermont. So what's the deal with this guy? Anybody run into creationists using him before? (A creationist that I'm arguing with is claiming his "multipurpose genome" idiocy is valid by citing this clown.) Thanks in advance.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

10-31-2002, 05:46 AM	#2
scigirl Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Seattle Posts: 4,261	Well I scrolled through his "manifesto" and it consisted mostly of philosophical quotes. Where is his charts, graphs, and data? As a scientist, I'm highly skeptical for that reason alone. But I'll read through it when I have time... scigirl

10-31-2002, 09:21 AM	#3
RufusAtticus Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: NCSU Posts: 5,853	I've heard his name brought up by evolutionists on Christian Forums to show that there is no conspiracy to fire evolution doubters. (He just got tenure or something.)

10-31-2002, 01:58 PM	#6
Buffman Beloved Deceased Join Date: Oct 2000 Location: central Florida Posts: 3,546	At 10:27 AM 10/31/2002 -0500, you wrote: Dear NCSE, While doing some Net research, I happened upon the following professor's work. Obviously I found the attached extract to be rather supportive of those seeking to place Creationism or Intelligent Design into the public school science classrooms. Since Prof. Davison has had a long and reasonably distinguished career in the biological sciences, his commentary can not be easily shunted aside without considered accurate citations. I would like to know if there have been any peer reviews of his "Manifesto" and where I might find such reviews. He does make the following statement in his Preface: "Has evolution been guided? With the exception of the last question, to which no certain answer will probably ever be given, I will answer yes to each of these questions. " ["Has evolution been guided" is his last question. See below.] In his Conclusion, he states, "In short, Darwinism must be abandoned as a meaningful instrument of organic change. " Thank you. NCSE Reply Thanks for your e-mail. I've seen Davison's web site before, but since it seems to be relatively uninfluential (only about a dozen web pages link to it), it isn't a day-to-day concern around the NCSE office. Davison himself seems to have embarked on a political career, running for governor of Vermont <a href="http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/platform.html," target="_blank">http://www.uvm.edu/~jdavison/platform.html,</a> although he seems to have forgotten to tell the Vermont Secretary of State about it; his name doesn't appear on the state elections web site! As far as I can tell, Davison's "Manifesto" has not been published (his c.v. describes it as "Offered for publication," leaving open the question of to what publication he offered it), so it is doubtful that it underwent peer review. His last few publications have appeared in Rivista di Biologia (Biology Forum), which is widely considered a fringe journal without a real peer review process. The following exchange appeared on the feedback section of Talk.Origins in 2000 (http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/feedback/may00.html): I recently read a work by John A. Davison, Ph.D., professor of biology at the University of Vermont entitled "AN EVOLUTIONARY MANIFESTO: A NEW HYPOTHESIS FOR ORGANIC CHANGE." In this work he challenges the traditional Darwinian notion that natural selection is the mechanism by which macroevolution occurs in sexually reproducing organisms. He instead proposes the "semi-meiotic hypothesis" to explain speciation/macroevolution. Essentially, he proposes that "evolution" occurs at the level of the chromosome, not the gene. He does not dispute that changes in gene frequency occur within a species (e.g., peppered moths), but at the same time he does not believe that this same mechanism (i.e., natural selection) accounts for macroevolution. Is this hypothesis plausible? The response, from NCSE member Wes Elsberry: It is commonly held that speciation processes are largely, if not totally, independent of natural selection. In this Davison is simply part of the crowd. I recently heard a talk given by Kurt Benirschke which attributed most speciational changes in mammals to chromosomal fusion events. So, when properly delimited, saying that much of the speciation we see in mammals (or perhaps even vertebrate animals) is due to some sort of chromosomal rearrangement is plausible, since that is what the karyotype data seems to show. In looking at Davison's "manifesto", I personally found some reasons for concern about the validity of various points. Since I have long heard similar claims about chromosomal rearrangement and speciation, the claimed novelty of Davison's hypothesis seems more hype than substance. There seems to be a lot of textual interpretation within the work which purports significance in the real world. Quotations seem to be treated much as "proof-texts" are in apologetics. Many of his claims about what "Darwinism" must entail are arguable, and some are simply wrong. I think that in Davison's particular case, he might hold a correct position with regard to speciation events being often due to chromosomal rearrangement without having grounded his other corollaries in much besides his personal prejudices, buttressed with some quotes from others having congruent prejudices. In general, when evaluating non-mainstream claims, it is good to keep one's skepticism sharp. The taint of self-aggrandizement is a clue that should not be overlooked. Something of a field guide for such behavior in physics can be applied with a few changes to biological topics. Sincerely, Glenn Branch Deputy Director National Center for Science Education, Inc. 420 40th Street, Suite 2 Oakland, CA 94609-2509 510-601-7203 x 305 fax: 510-601-7204 800-290-6006 branch@ncseweb.org <a href="http://www.ncseweb.org" target="_blank">http://www.ncseweb.org</a>

11-01-2002, 03:10 AM	#7
Quetzal Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Ecuador Posts: 738	pz: Yeah, I noticed that about his career. Did you check out his pubs list? Fairly decent for about 20 years (every two-three years) in a non-ambitious sort of way. Then an 8-year hiatus, followed by publication of his semi-meiosis hypothesis in a mainstream journal. It looks from the next pub he got hammered - his last peer-reviewed publication is a "reply", not original research. Afterwards, he's got two in Rivista, and then not even there! Although it's difficult to tell much from a publications list, this seems to be one of the marks of a crackpot. I also noticed a lot of real warning flags in his "Manifesto". Check out section II-1, "Why has Darwinism Prevailed" - only 'cause Lamarckism is untenable (then why does he idolize de Grasse?). Note the rather "soft" approach to Creationism - as the only alternative. But especially note the pure creationist "evolution is blind chance". I still think he's a closet creationist. Or he might simply be a crank... Buffman: Whoeee!! Well done! That's EXACTLY the kind of feedback I was looking for. <img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" /> Thanks!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.