Okay, I'll consider it. "A Prescribed Evolutionary Hypothesis" was published in Rivista d Biologia. That's not a good sign, since that journal is noted for publishing a wide range of crackpots. Davison's paper was published 12 years ago, and in that time it's been cited once, by Davison in another of his papers. In fact, that's what all of Davison's papers from at least 2000 on look like -- cited by no one, or by Davison himself. It's true that one was cited by someone else, in another Rivista paper, titled "Photons and evolution: Quantum mechanical processes modulate sexual differentiation", which is a completely nutso piece of numerology. (Take a look at it here.)
So it's clear that Davison is not exactly an influential scientist, and there's a good chance he's a crackpot (or was -- I believe he's dead now).
Skimming the paper, I find it to be vague and pretty much devoid of evidence supporting its conclusion. It also ignores almost everything that's been learned about genetics in the last hundred years. I see no reason to take this seriously as a source of information on evolution.
Where do you find these guys?
Yeah! Skimming will do that. Powlidge, Kaskow, Davison, and all others I have cited, along with 100s of others that I have read over the past 3 decades, all have evidence based opinions though their "interpretation" of the data may (but for the most part do not) differ from one another in some places. Most scientists I have ever talked to, or had the good pleasure to read, agree and are of the opinion that DNA is an "information" packed code which produces what that code intended to produce (and voila, here we are).
Upvote
0