Empirical Evidence for Evolution

Williams:
Yes, evolution is capable of explaining EVERYTHING, that is one reason why it is a bad theory (in fact it doesn’t even deserve theory status, at best it’s a low-grade hypothesis).This is a prime example of the ignorance of science that runs rampant in creationist circles. Worse, it is a fabricated misrepresentation. That evolution explains things that creationism cannot is a testament to its value as a theory. Creationists often complain that the theory of evolution changes, so it cannot be a good theory. Another example of ignorance. One cannot blame them, I suppose - their preferred 'explanation' will not change in light of new evidence. It will never budge one millimeter. It cannot, lest their Faith be shattered, and that is not allowed.quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lbhandli: New genetic information is called a mutation. We observe them all of the time. Perhaps you need to be precise in what you are talking about.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Mutation is NOT new genetic information. If you think this is true, you need to find someone qualified in information science to support you. I assure you you won’t find anyone to come to your aid (if you do, you have done the scientific community a favor by exposing a quack).Mutation as such is not information, new or otherwise I suppose. But mutation certainly plays a role in changing and adding information.
For some inforamtion from an actual degreed scientific researcher on thsi topic, see, for exmaple:
http://www.lecb.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/

​

As far as the claim that evolution cannot produce 'new information', it appears that creationists are a few decades behind the eight ball. Kimura derived equations in 1961 showing that natsel can in fact produce new information all by itself. There is no known example in the history of man of a code originating without an intelligent sender. Not one single example. You must have an intelligent sender to create a code. Period.I see. Then whom 'sent' the code in DNA? Tree rings? And what is the evidence for this?Information science is a dagger in the heart of NeoDarwinism. Fre Hoyle knew it, Francis Crick knows it, but many other evos remain in denial about it because if the implications. It’s 21st century Galileo-ism.Fred Hoyle also knew that Haldane's dilemma was a sham. In his book "The Mathematics of Evolution", he writes:

​

"Haldane's so-called cost principle is an illusion." (p123)

​

And yet, young earth creationist electrical engineer Walter ReMine uses Haldane as ne of his principle arguments against Neo-Darwinism. Therefore, ReMine's argument is an illusion (ReMine didn't like this fact - in his review of Hoyle's book at Amazon.com, ReMine gushes over Hoyle's amazing math abilities, yet claims he was wrong about the 'dilemma'...)

​

[This message has been edited by SLP, 12-30-2001]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Edge, I never said it is bad to have things explained. I said it is bad if the theory explains EVERYTHING. Do you understand the difference?

​

Why is it bad for a theory to accommodate and explain everything? It means it is not *falsifiable*, a classic criterion for the validity of a theory. Very few, if any, tests puts the theory at risk. The most common prediction you get from an evolutionist is that you won’t find a mammal in Cambrian strata. The problem is, 1) vertebrate fossilization is very rare, 2) due to its rarity such a find, if it ever occurred, would be explained away as a local flood within the appropriate geologic time (its quite convenient for the evolutionist that stasis, a creationist expectation which has been borne out by the evidence, comes to their rescue here).

---

If stasis is a creationist expectation that has been borne out by the fossil record, why are there distinct progressions in the fossil record?[b] [QUOTE] Even from a creationist POV it would be extraordinarily lucky to find such a fossil buried with a bunch of cambrian animals. There are plenty of examples already of out-of-place fossils that have been explained away by evolutionists. The test is toothless.[/b][/QUOTE]Explained away or explained? Do you know the difference?Do you care?Is crying 'directed mutation' when pressed on the supra-ReMine number nucleotide disparity between obviously related creatures an explanation, or an act of 'explaining away'?Why?[b] [QUOTE] I also hear that finding evidence of a modern day dino, or evidence of dinos with man, would falsify evolution. However, I also have heard from many evolutionists that this would not falsify the theory because it would be explained as a living fossil.[/b][/QUOTE]I have never heard the first part of this claim. Reference?[b] [QUOTE] Like I said, the theory is set up to explain everything, which means it explains nothing.[/b][/QUOTE]Baseless assertion.[b] [QUOTE] Things that would put creation theory at risk:* Clear cut lineages and clear cut ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record
[/b][/QUOTE]These are false potential falsifications. Why 'clear-cut' lineages? This seems to be a prime example of the creationist tendancy toward post-hoc scenarios. It is observed - indeed, Williams states as much above - that fossilization is a rarity.
For Williams to then claim that 'clear cut lineages' in the fossil record would put creation theory[sic] at risk is a straw man by his own words!I wonder - how does 'discontinuity systematics - the creationist co-option of evolutionary systematics - handle this dilemma? It is their claim that extant diversity is the result of post-Flood hyperspeciation. If so, would they bnot WANT 'clear-cut' lineages to be found i the fossil record to shore up their hypotheses?[b] [QUOTE] * Large-scale transposition[/b][/QUOTE]Genome Res 2001 Dec;11(12):2050-8
Genomic characterization of recent human LINE-1 insertions: evidence supporting random insertion.
Ovchinnikov I, Troxel AB, Swergold GD." A large percentage of the human genome consists of DNA that has been dispersed by the L1 transposition machinery..."Let the obfuscation and handwaving begin!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
Sorry to burst your bubble - I meant large-scale transposition of genetic material between species via lateral gene transfer.

​

---

Ahhh - another terminology problem.You could make things easier to debate here if you would use appropriate and/or non-redefined terminology.Lateral gene transfer is quite a different thing altogether from transposition.This cannot be construed as a problem of the medium, nor is this one of those issues that can be dodged by claiming 'informed evos know this'.This is improper terminology, plain and simple.