Increases in Genetic Information

A full reply to this would be off-topic but I think that a high degree of skepticism of the claims in your post is certainly warranted as many give little context, none are referenced and some are certainly false.Really it deserves a thread of its own. That is, if you can actually muster a real case which would require rather more support than you manage here. (And if you can't the that would speak for itself).

No actually not. And I'm sure most have long since been quietly removed from circulation. But there is the life time works of Arthur Keith. Perhaps you've heard of one of his more famous books that centered on Piltdown Man. "The Antiquity of Man"

I don't believe it is off topic since a primary question posed in the topic is evidence for "macro-evolution." To which coyote commented that the evidence for human evolution would be a primary example of that evidence. I was merely pointing out that this evidence (so called) is really more of a stumble in the dark at best and riddled with more questions than answers. Well my normal MO is to speak, and then defend when asked. The reason being is because I used to waste a lot of time in these debates running down reference that nobody cared about. Since I do actually have a real life then time constraints make this counter productive. So if there is something specific I said you would like me to reference... by all means let me know.

So, you can't even refer to ten doctoral dissertations on Piltdown Man? Can you refer to even one?I think you told untruths to us about it.A book is not a doctoral dissertation.

And if your argument hadn't been based on made-up stuff, you'd have a point.

Nope. All you did was to copy-and-paste untruths about the subject, repeated time after time, by creationists. That's about it.I only pointed out one untruth in your Gish Gallop; the example of "500 doctoral dissertations" on Piltdown Man. An outright porkie.Virtually every sentence you wrote in that post yields similar results. Creationist untruths. That's all you have. Edited by Pressie, : Changed last sentence

Look I understand there has been a lot of attacks on creationists who have made the 500 thesis claim. And I will address that in a second. But first I want to know why this is so significant to the original point? Are you trying to say that no one was really all that deceived by the Piltdown man? And lets for the sake of argument let that one particular case fall to the side. The point I made is still substantiated by a significant number of others. So I really don’t see the relevance of this?Moving on, I am sure you think that none exist, so let me ask you a question. Why does a site that is famous for knocking creationists and intelligent design proponents (Wikipedia) also even admit that there were at least 250?And finally, here is a list of some publishing’s from the time period that seem to make the 500 claim more likely than dishonest as you imply.
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_recolections.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...p_report_finds/pilt_re-examine.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_man_discover.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/revival_pilt_cont.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/Keith_reconstruct.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...rt_finds/significance_discover.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...p_report_finds/pilt_skull_oct2.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...report_finds/pilt_skull_abbott.html
http://www.clarku.edu/..._report_finds/earliest_english.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...map_report_finds/note_pilt_man.html
http://www.clarku.edu/..._report_finds/discov_paleolith.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...ap_report_finds/supp_note_pilt.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...down/map_report_finds/bone_imp.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...own/map_report_finds/4th_night.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...wn/map_report_finds/Pilt_skull.html
http://www.clarku.edu/...n/map_report_finds/second_pilt.htmlEdited by Just being real, : No reason given.Edited by Just being real, : No reason given.

It doesn't. So you couldn't even find one? Not one?

Well, we can estimate the number to be small, on the following grounds: we know that creationists would love to catch real scientists making a mistake. And we know how intelligent creationists are, how much scientific research they do, how intimately familiar they are with the scientific literature. And there are, of course, a heck of a lot of creationists, more, indeed, than would actually seem necessary. And yet there is not one single verified instance of it happening.This suggests that the errors made by scientists are exceedingly rare --- or, of course, that the second of my premises was false and that creationists are actually lazy ignorant halfwits. But how likely is that?Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

quote:

---

And finally, here is a list of some publishing’s from the time period that seem to make the 500 claim more likely than dishonest as you imply.

---

Perhaps you would like to support that claim with referenced quotes. Because it looks to me as if you are just trying to bury the evidence under a pile of links.

quote:

---

Moving on, I am sure you think that none exist, so let me ask you a question. Why does a site that is famous for knocking creationists and intelligent design proponents (Wikipedia) also even admit that there were at least 250?

---

It doesn't- which may be why you didn't provide the quote. Here's what it says: Papers need not be - and usually aren't - doctoral dissertations. as should be perfectly obvious to anyone who spends a moment's thought on the matter. Note also that it does not estimate how many of those papers were against Piltdown, although the very presence of a debate suggests some controversy. In fact by my reading Piltdown was considered irrelevant by many even before it was exposed, and certainly some of the papers must have been arguing that.Wikipedia again:

Could you refer me to exactly where the doctoral dissertations are listed? I can't find one. If you can't, you told untruths about it in your post. A porkie. Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

That doesn't contradict what I said, does it? And mutations are known to cause new variants. Unless you can find a mechanism that stops species changing over time, you have to agree that common descent is "possible". Information enters population groups from the environment. The environments aren't intelligent, yet they are a source of information. Duplications of genetic material give the environments more material to work on. That's one way to get increases in genetic information.Here's an example: NeofunctionalizationHere's a ten year old review of what was known about duplication at the time (it predates much of the research on it, like the fish paper above). Evolution by gene duplication: an updateIf you understand these papers and others like them, you can see that there's excellent evidence for past increases in genetic information by mutation, selection and drift. Are you disagreeing with the observation that "specified information", by your own definition, is a prerequisite for all known intelligent designers? If you can't find an exception, why are you theorizing that intelligent design is the origin of all specified information? The production of new unique individual sexually reproducing eukaryotes with unique genomes carrying their own batch of new mutations isn't pre-programmed. No-one designed your unique genome, which combines old information in a unique way to make new information, as well as having its novel set of new mutations. You are specified by that unique genome in combination with the unique particular environment in which you developed. You and I are novelties requiring specific information. Again, do you mean the genetic code, or new added coding genes? If the latter, duplications of coding genes have been observed on the genomes of all organisms studied so far. And paralogs with different functions are readily observed as well, as you can see from the papers I've linked to.Edited by bluegenes, : Added last sentence

Really? Where does Wikipedia "admit that there were at least 250 doctoral dissertations on Pitdown Man.?" Reference, please.I think that you are telling porkies again. Reference to where Wiki states that? "250 doctoral dissertations on Piltdown Man"? You only tell porkies to cover for porkies to cover for porkies. That's all you have.You told untruths about it, Just being real. That's it.Just being real, anything you write should be taken with a pinch of salt....we all know that it all should be checked because you tend to tell porkies.Any Doctoral dissertation on Piltdown Man yet?Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Lol! Okay, so I guess you guys really showed me huh? The fact that I said "doctoral dissertations" when I probably should have just said "PAPERS" totally destroys my whole point... how is that again exactly? Obviously as I already admitted, I don't know the thesis personally. And as I'm sure you already know, I followed someone else's error in poor choice of wording. But does this error in wording mean that no scientists were ever deceived by Piltdown man? And if that is true how exactly does that also undermine the fact that the public was deceived by Piltdown man along also with Pithecanthropus, Sinanthropus, Homo Habilis, Australopithecus, Ramapithecu, and Neanderthalensis?Cause I'm not seeing the relevance, with the exception of a sad attempt at making me look bad as opposed to having anything really substantial to speak to the point I was making.

Yes it is. And the entire history of prejudice and discrimination informs us that the human mind has no difficulty whatsoever making up reasons for what it doesn't like.I know someone said something about paleontology that you disagreed with, but now that you've indicted paleontology in particular and science in general maybe you could address the topic.--Percy