Information and Genetics

quote:

---

For example, your two examples of evolutionists that became creationists, Kenyon studies biophysics, not evolution,

---

So for the record, are you prepared to claim that such an accomplished individual who wrote a standard college textbook that dealt with evolution does not know anything about evolution?

quote:

---

Gary Parker was always a creationist and apparently fabricated the story of his "conversion" from evolution to creationsm

---

You rely/trust an internet hack for your information? I perused his page and found what I expected, the usual poor scholarship nonsense full of unsubstantiated, hazy innuendo from a Talk.Origins wacko. I have met Gary Parker, and I trust his version, some of which you’ll find here:Acts and Facts Magazine | The Institute for Creation Research

I always chuckle when I read comments like yours, considering you are an anonymous poster. Don’t you know that elitists only impress their own kind?It seems if you were so confident in your religion of evolution you wouldn’t have to resort to bogus attacks and rely on poor scholarship such as the Parker hack job. I know plenty of PhD biologists working in the real world, many who remain anonymous for fear of losing their jobs, who for many years held the evolutionary religion dear to their heart. There is a leading scientist on the genome project who privately talked of the huge elephant in the room (intelligent design) that he has to pretend isn’t there so the funding won’t dry up or find himself pounding pavement. I also have read many a testimony of biologists who were once evolutionists. But what does this matter? It won’t convince someone as committed to his religion as you are. The final irony is your boast of relying on a careful, meticulous approach to science, yet at the same time relies on the word of an internet hack with an agenda. You go guy!

You may disagree that you "backtracked" but in the very least you wrote something that can easily be misunderstood. How can it be any more clear when you stated "I don't believe either Rei or myself are implying that GAs emulate biological evolution."? You subsequently qualified this by seperating research from commercial GAs. This is either backtracking or clarifying. I will accept you were "clarifying", but this still doesn't change the fact that Rei was clearly implying that she beleives commercial GAs also emulate evolution. Otherwise, why even bother bringing them up?Perhaps Rei will state once and for all that commercial GAs do not emulate evolution?