quote:
quote:
I have found that, by and large, most creationists do not fully understand the very arguments that they confidently make on these fora and in letters to he editor and the like. I have found that by asking them to 'explain' what they mean,rather than just attempting to argue points with them, is very instructive.
If one cannot "explain" what they mean when they write something like "all the information was already present", then there is a good chance that they are just parrotting an argument that they had seen or read about somewhere, it sounded good to them, so they are running with it.
I don't know the stats but I would be quite certain that most people on these types of discussion boards are not experts in some scientific area. What you state above is true to a point, but it doesn't mean that the assertion is necessarily wrong.
That is true. However, if the one making the assertion does not understand what the assertion entails, how is it that the one making the assertion can know that it is right?
That is, for example, how is it that a lawyer can
know that what he and his pals claim regarding evolutionary biology is correct when this lawyer admits that he has litle knowledge of the topic?
The answer is, of course, he cannot.
The claims
might be correct, but he has no way of knowing, but insists that they ARE correct nonetheless.
See what I mean?
So, I ask for an actual explanation from the one making the assertions. If they cannot explain it themselves, chances are they are just arguing form authroity, and more often than not, it is actually from pseudoauthority.
quote:
If I tried to "explain" my statement, it would be reliant upon research and documentation carried out by experts in the field, and not out of my own mouth, since it is not my area of expertise.
Does that invalidate the point? I should think not.
It would if you were relying upon 'experts' that have been shown to be not only NOT experts, but in fact wrong about the things they have said. Of course, that still would not address the question of whether or not YOU understand the argument.
quote:
If you, dr. Page, have a car problem, you take it to the mechanic. When he/she tells you what the problem is, you either get a 2nd opinion (or 3rd or 4th, etc) or you "run with it" because you know that even though this isn't your area (I'm assuming here of course) of expertise, you know that it is the mechanic's.
That is correct. I would not, however, go to the accountant down the street who believes that the internal combustion engine is the work of the devil, and so condemns and has a vested interest in condemning all things having to do with internal combustion engines, for advice on what to do.
Nor would I, after going to see this chap (were I to do so) insist that what HE says is correct while what the mechanic's say ios all wrong because it is based on the flawed doctrine of the utility of the internal combustion engine.
quote:
So, we are faced with two situations, one that says information in the DNA sequence of an organism can easily increase naturally by random mutations, and one that says "‘There is no known natural law through which matter can give rise to information, neither is any physical process or material phenomenon known that can do this.’(Dr Werner Gitt, leading information scientist)
And therein lies the rub. This is an example of arguing via pseudoauthority. Gitt is in fact
not a "leading information scientist." He is a creationist information technologist. A glorified computer programmer, basically. Gitt simply ignores/refuses to accept that anything but a "conscious mind" can generate new information. He is mistaken. Motoo Kimura, an actual scientist, demonstrated mathematically in 1961 that, in fact, mutation and natural selection can add new information to the gene pool ("Natural Selection as the process of accumulation of genetic information in adaptive evolution." Genetical Research 2, 127-140. 1961. Kimura, M.)
. Naturally. In addition, many
creationists accept that there are natural means by which new information can be added (they just argue that it doesn't happen much..).
quote:
His challenge to scientifically falsify this statement has remained unanswered since first published.
And where was this "challenge" published?
Was it, perhaps, his vanity press creationism book "In the beginning ..."?
If so, I doubt that many - if any - actual information scientists or geneticists are even aware of it.
quote:
Even those mutations which give a survival benefit are seen to be losses of information, not creating the sorely needed new material upon which natural selection can then go to work."
Missing Link
| Answers in Genesis
Perhaps then you can explain the flow of information described here:
******************************************
Duplication of the Hoxd11 gene causes alterations in the axial and appendicular skeleton of the mouse.
: Boulet AM, Capecchi MR.
: Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Department of Human Genetics, University of Utah, School of Medicine, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5331, USA.
: The Hox genes encode a group of transcription factors essential for proper development of the mouse. Targeted mutation of the Hoxd11 gene causes reduced male fertility, vertebral transformation, carpal bone fusions, and reductions in digit length. A duplication of the Hoxd11 gene was created with the expectation that the consequences of restricted overexpression in the appropriate cells would provide further insight into the function of the Hoxd11 gene product. Genetic assays demonstrated that two tandem copies of Hoxd11 were functionally indistinguishable from the normal two copies of the gene on separate chromosomes with respect to formation of the axial and appendicular skeleton. Extra copies
of Hoxd11 caused an increase in the lengths of some bones of the forelimb
autopod and a decrease in the number of lumbar vertebrae...
or here:
A Single P450 Allele Associated with Insecticide Resistance in Drosophila
Science 297:2253-56. 2002
From the abstract:
Here, via microarray analysis of all P450s in Drosophila melanogaster, we show that DDT-R, a gene conferring resistance to DDT, is associated with overtranscription of a single cytochrome P450 gene, Cyp6g1. Transgenic analysis of Cyp6g1 shows that overtranscription of this gene alone is both necessary and sufficient for resistance.
quote:
When faced with two diametrically opposed answers, what does one do?
A choice must be made based on the information presented. When the observed evidence is that most mutations are either neutral or losses of information, coupled with the documentation from one of the world's leading information scientists stating that new information does not naturally arise, the choice becomes increasingly clear.
The embellishment of credentials is commonplace in creationism.
As I mentioned, Gitt is not what you claim he is. For example, I went to the "American Society for Information Science and Technology" and did a search for Gitt and it came up empty. Doing a search for Shannon, as in Claude Shannon, I got 17 returns. Stands to reason that a "leading information scientist" would at least garner mention at such a site, no?
On another board, a desperate fellow tried to claim that Gitt was indeed recognized as one of the world's leading information scientists by virtue of his attendance at a limited seating conference. Limited to the first 350 people that signed up.
I mentioned that the previous year that I had attended an invitation only meeting sponsored by the AAAS, and asked if that meant that I am a 'world's leading expert' on primate systematics. I got no response ( I am not, by any means).
In addition, as I mentioned, Gitt is a young earth creationist. Frankly, no other information scientists have reached the same conclusions that this committd YEC has.
Do you not find that interesting?
Is everyone else wrong and Gitt the information technologist right?
How could that be?
Argument from pseudoauthority. They do sound impressive, but it is mostly smoke in mirrors.
quote:
Therefore when I say that the information must have been present, it is not based on my expertise (if I have any) but on the assertations of the people whose expertise this area is.
And, again, if you do not possess the wherewithal to evaluate the claims, how is it that you conclude that Gitt is right and everyone else wrong?
See what I mean?
------------------
"The analysis presented in this study unambiguously shows that chimpanzees are our closest relatives to the exclusion of other primates. This is an important point that cannot be discounted. Further, the functional genetic differences that are represented by nonsynonymous sites also show this relationship. The notion that the great apes form a functional and evolutionary grade is not supported by our analysis. Rather, humans and chimpanzees are a functional evolutionary clade."
Page Not Found | University of Chicago
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-11-2003]
™ Version 4.2
