Where is the evidence for evolution?

Sonnikke: I'm not the one who attributed intelligent characteristics to the mystical "evo-force"...You're the only one to suggest it. But anyone who actually understands the "information argument" knows that it is just a bogus piece of obfuscation.And by the way you're evading discussion it looks like you know that as well as anyone.

"So, on blanko’s list, we have two evolutionists (Darwin, whose quote has proven spurious, and Austin, whose quote is unverifiable), one anti-darwinian with his own theory of complexity (Rubin),and four creationists. Hardly conclusive proof that, according to blanko,quote:Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence.
"Well if you allow for the fact that none of the evolutionists is still alive blanco's statement is technically true.... But a total count of zero is hardly evidence of anything other than desperation on blanco's part.

If you rely on Gitt's authority then discussion of his claim to authority is entirely relevant. If such discussion were illegtimiate as you argue I could claim to be the worlds leading expert on any subject I liked and you would have to accept it as true.Did it ever cross your mind that the scientific community dislike what Gitt has to say because what Gitt has to say is no good ?Here's a question for oyu. Since DNA is read solely by "mechanical" means, involving no intelligence, can it be shown to be "information" in Gitt's sense ?

Here is what the Information Technology Department at PTB actually does:Physikalisch-Technische BundesanstaltNot exactly a position one would expect to find occupied by an expert in Information Theory

If he's relying on Gitt's "theory" that would explain things. However he hasn't answered the question of whether the genome contains Gitt's idea of information (which - unlike Shannon's DOES include meaning).Unless the genome can be shown to contain information in Gitt's sense (and it seems that it doesn't) then Gitts ideas are irrelevant to evolution

I haven't been discussing the analogy, just commenting on Gitt and his "information theory". For some reason nobody wants to explain why Gitt's ideas are relevant to DNA - could it be that everyone already knows that they are not ?

Speaking personally I would say that an honest and rational creationist - indeed any honest and rational human being - would have to admit that there was insufficient information to come to any reliable conclusion.Any pro-creation response would have to be a "God of the Gaps" type argument with no better foundation than personal incredulity.

On rereading your post 296 it contains no suggestion that Margulis and Sagan failed to offer any evidence to support their conclusions (and your last post implies that they did). So the questions concerning whatever evidence they did offer are clearly appropriate.If they did indeed offer no evidence, instead of directing people back to a post which does not address the issue it would have been best to say so and explain which evidence you were referring to in your post 300.[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-13-2003]

You have had replies on your claim about Darwin's "extrapolation", and you know it. Please do not tell blatant lies on this forum.I on the other hand am still waiting for any evidnece that this "extrapolation" is anything more than a figment of your imagination.