Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 50 (9179 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,208 Year: 5,465/9,624 Month: 490/323 Week: 130/204 Day: 0/4 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 33 of 367 (30451)
01-28-2003 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by peter borger
01-27-2003 6:28 PM


quote:
The GUToB is new, my friend. Did you check all 235 google hits?
A demonstration of a lack of comprehension.
The bulk of the returns are for an Indian language dialect.
Several are for a bay.
The only ones having to do with a megalomaniacal creationist point to discussion board posts made by or in response to Borger.
Of ocurse, this is a guy that insists that I think DNA is only about length because I downloaded a locus of mtDNA of approximately the same length as the one he has referred to.
What a loon.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by peter borger, posted 01-27-2003 6:28 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 42 of 367 (30579)
01-29-2003 2:35 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by DanskerMan
01-28-2003 11:38 AM


quote:
Son:
The problem is not WHETHER dr. Borger can educate you fine people, but rather if you are WILLING to clear your minds of your pre-conceived views, and learn something new.
Oh, the irony!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by DanskerMan, posted 01-28-2003 11:38 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 43 of 367 (30581)
01-29-2003 3:00 PM


quote:
judge:
Can you explain how he was trounced in his analysis of mtDNA?
Borger's supposed analysis, based on a locus in a paper by Adcock et al., was flawed in several respects, as I indicated in this post http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA
For example, the locus in question is quite small - ~350 base pairs form the mitochondrial genome if ~16,000 base pairs. As I pointed out, and Borger later claimed ot have been "saying all along", individual loci can mutate at different rates. Indeed, when I checked Borger's claims, I downloaded a similarly sized locus (~350 bp) from the hypervariable region (HV) in mtDNA and showed (implicitly) that the numbers varied substantiually - the differences, for example, between human and chimp were nearly double in this locus. And between individual modern humans, varied by as much as 8 bp.
The flaw pertinent ot this is that Borger extrapolates his 'findings' from this one small locus to the entire genome - indeed, to the entire organism.
I pointed out that this is an erroneous extrapolation, especially in the mtDNA. Borger then started his mantra about me thinking DNA is just about length. A red herring, not to mention an utter distortion and misrepresentation. That, of course, did not stop him from repeating his new mantra over and over. The HV region in question had also been sequenced for Neanderthal. My analysis of this locus came to different conclusions than did Borger's locus.
He later claims that not even a million observations would undo his one.
But I went on. I downloaded and analyzed the ENTIRE mitochondrial genomes for several species, including human, chimp, and mouse. First, Borger implied that I was lying about this, because I gather he did not know that the human mt genome had been sequenced.
He then went on about how I think DNA=length and that my analysis has nothing to do with his, that the analysis based on the Adcock paper dealt with ancient humans and such, and that I was trying to compare apples and oranges.
But the sequence for chimp in the Adcock paper was not ancient.
Apparently, comparing apples and oranges is OK when is stands to prop up a creationist position.
Nonetheless, I did an anlysis on the entire mt genome. It contradicted Borger's claims and pointed out some of the absurd fallout of adopting Borger's claim. I also cited one of my own papers dealing with some 13,000 bps from the nuclear genome that contradicts Borger's fringe "interpretation." This was essentially ignored - blown off by the "millions will not undo my one observation" bit.
In summary, Borger's 'analysis' of mtDNA was flawed on at least the following grounds:
-It is contradicted by analyses of both the entire mtDNA genome and analyses of orders of magnitude more sequence form the nuclear genome.
That is, even if we grant Borger's analysis credibility fo rthe sake of discussion, it would be an anomoly, and a small one at that, and anomolies do not supercede the preponderance of evidence. Basically, 96% of the mt genome supports the standard evolutonary position, 4% does not (again, allowing for legitimacy in Borger's analysis), not including any of the nuclear genome.
- By Borger's own "apples and oranges" criterion, his analysis was flawed because it compared "ancient" human samples to modern chimps ones.
There are some other reasons, but I am pressed for time right now, and those should be sufficient.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 01-29-2003]

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 8:26 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 48 of 367 (30721)
01-30-2003 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by peter borger
01-29-2003 8:26 PM


quote:
Borger:
And here I refuted all your claims and I demonstrated beyond any reasonable doubt that the assumptions are false:
http://EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA -->EvC Forum: Nucleotide sequence variation in ancient human mtDNA
You know that and that is why you completely went mad.
However, I decided to not accept any more of your insults. And if you are under the impression that your analysis was okay, well I think I'll leave you dreaming.
You, of course, did nothing of the sort. You simply repeated your demonstrably false claims and continued spewing your self-aggrandizing mantra.
It is commonplace for the creationist to be unable to recognize their own limitations. I understand that, and do not blame you for this.
A fight against "atheistic nihilism" is an all-out one, and the ends justify the means, no?
Of interst, of course, is that the only people that seems to agree with your take is... well, you. And Jester, but he seems to be little more thanb a dim-witted cheerleader.
It has been shown that you are misrepresenting Dr.Caporale's book - her own words seem to justify that conclusion. You employ double standards, make wild, unwarranted extrapolations, and attempt to use your own definitions and rules to 'disproof' evolution.
it hasn't been working very well for you.
Has it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by peter borger, posted 01-29-2003 8:26 PM peter borger has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by peter borger, posted 01-30-2003 7:40 PM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 52 of 367 (31061)
02-02-2003 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
02-01-2003 7:11 PM


quote:
I'm still curious about why you think Dr. Caporale's book supports your view. She said her book demonstrates that NRM fits into a Darwinian framework, the opposite of what you believe.
--Percy
You're just not listening...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 02-01-2003 7:11 PM Percy has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 69 of 367 (31341)
02-04-2003 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 4:38 PM


Son:
"To answer your question, the information that allowed this variation was programmed in the genome from the beginning. Nothing new was added."
Please explain this for us.
Please start with:
Evidence that the information for the speciation of the salmon in question was present from the beginning.
WHAT, exactly, this information is. You must know, for otherwise you would not have claimed that it was already there.
Explain why "no new information" can arise naturalistically.
To answer this, start by providing a biologically relevant definiton of "information."
Support the above responses with verifiable scientific sources.
Thanks.
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-04-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 4:38 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM derwood has replied
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 1:22 AM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 126 of 367 (31860)
02-10-2003 9:45 AM
Reply to: Message 71 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 5:01 PM


Sonnike, in reference to questions I had asked about several "information" related assertions that sonnnike had made:
"SLPx, would any answer actually satisfy you and possibly convince you?"
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.
First and formeost, one must be familiar with and understand the terminology. This is almost alwways a sticking point. Creationists seem to have a preference for their own personal defintions for terms, or to use definitions supplied by their creationist sources. These definitions often differ from the definitions used by those actually in the field in question. For example, on another board, I got into a lengthy exchange over the defintion of the terms "polyploidy" and "gene duplication."
The creationists' source was hydraulic engineer creationist Henry Morris, who had written in one of his books that polyploidy was the duplication of genes. I provided quotes from two molecular biology textbooks as well as links to several online university sites indicating that this definiton was incorrect. But this creationist simply would not have it - his creationist source said something, and he was going with it.
\So you can see how defining terms can have an impact on an argument.
First, then, one should supply the defintiuons of the terms in question so that all parties can assess whether or not all are on the same sheet of music.
If the definitions are askew, chances are the argument is as well.
To answer your question, you CAN convince me that you undestand the issues. But I doubt you can convince me of the 'correctness' of your argument.
Because I am elitist?
No.
Because I am committed to Darwinism?
Not at all.
Because I have seen the "information" arguments for some time. I have read the criticisms of them. I have read background material on the subject. I have found many published sientific articles that provide empirical evidence that the "information" arguments are at the same time irrelevant and largely false.
But lets see what you've got.
------------------
"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, 02-10-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 71 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 5:01 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 127 of 367 (31862)
02-10-2003 9:49 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by DanskerMan
02-05-2003 1:22 AM


Others have addressed the 'responses' quite well.
I am sorry, sonnike, but your selective quotes do not demonstrate your own understanding of the issues, nor do quotes 'prove' your points. Creationists, afterall, have a vested interest in siding with other creationists on any anti-evolution argument.
Please, anser the questions YOURSELF. Links supplying supporting documentation are fine, but all you did was provide some choice 'quotes' of dubious quality. You offered no explanations at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 1:22 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 128 of 367 (31864)
02-10-2003 9:53 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by DanskerMan
02-05-2003 9:59 AM


Sonnike:
What about the other quote?, see below:
"Another scientist, Dr. Ian Macreadie..."
This is THIS guy, right:
Missing Link | Answers in Genesis
Creationist molecular biologist
and microbiologist:
Dr Ian Macreadie
------------------
"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 is a reply to:
 Message 82 by DanskerMan, posted 02-05-2003 9:59 AM DanskerMan has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 135 of 367 (31949)
02-11-2003 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by DanskerMan
02-10-2003 11:52 PM


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]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by DanskerMan, posted 02-10-2003 11:52 PM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by DanskerMan, posted 02-12-2003 12:35 PM derwood has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 141 of 367 (32029)
02-12-2003 8:30 AM


An individual writes:
quote:
Letter #64 is utter speculation. Is is theoretical biology. I could have made that up.
Moving past the hilarious irony...
quote:
Although individual members can be knocked out in animal models they cannot be explained by gene duplication since point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes. A nice piece of created redundancy.
"Point mutations give rise to lethal phenotypes."
Sometimes. Not all the time. The problem with making absolutist claims is that they are extremely easy to refute.
The individual in question is thus refuted, for it all to obvious that point mutations do in fact NOT "give rise to lethal phgenotypes" all the time, as implied.

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 142 of 367 (32030)
02-12-2003 8:33 AM


Of interest:
J Mol Evol 2003 Jan;56(1):1-10
The alpha-Actinin Gene Family: A Revised Classification.
Dixson JD, Forstner MJ, Garcia DM.
Southwest Texas State University, 78666, San Marcos, TX, USA, jamie.dixson@excite.com
The sequencing of a genome is the first stage of its complete characterization. Subsequent work seeks to utilize available sequence data to gain a better understanding of the genes which are found within a genome. Gene families comprise large portions of the genomes of higher vertebrates, and the available genomic data allow for a reappraisal of gene family evolution. This reappraisal will clarify relatedness within and between gene families. One such family, the alpha-actinin gene family, is part of the spectrin superfamily. There are four known loci, which encode alpha-actinins 1, 2, 3, and 4. Of the eight domains in alpha-actinin, the actin-binding domain is the most highly conserved. Here we present evidence gained through phylogenetic analyses of the highly conserved actin-binding domain that alpha-actinin 2 was the first of the four alpha-actinins to arise by gene duplication, followed by the divergence of alpha-actinin 3 and then alpha-actinins 1 and 4. Resolution of the gene tree for this gene family has allowed us to reclassify several alpha-actinins which were previously given names inconsistent with the most widely accepted nomenclature for this gene family. This reclassification clarifies previous discrepancies in the public databases as well as in the literature, thus eliminating confusion caused by continued misclassification of members of the alpha-actinin gene family. In addition, the topology found for this gene family undermines the 2R hypothesis theory of two rounds of genome duplication early in vertebrate evolution.
Emphases mine.
Who to believe?
Sonnike, what say you?
[This message has been edited by SLPx, 02-12-2003]

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 144 of 367 (32047)
02-12-2003 2:34 PM


quote:
quote:
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..).
I'm short on time (ie. at work) but that was clearly a good demonstration of a smokescreen ad hominem.
How so?
You have argued via pseudoauthority. That is, you are basing the supposed 'correctness' of the assertions on the supposed fact that Gitt is a "world's leading information scientists". I indicate that he is not. I am simply responding to the crux of your claim - that because Gitt says so, it is true by virtue of him being a "world's leading information scientist."
Please address my concerns - Why can one not find mention of him at university, industry, or association Information scinece web sites?
it stands to reason that somewhere we could find mention of such a "world leading information scientist."
Does it not?
quote:
quote:
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.
Here is a nice axample of a non-sequitur. Of course a brilliant lawyer can know whether what he is saying is correct, he just has to do some research (which I am sure Dr. Johnson does lots of...you were talking about him right?)
Apparently, you have not read any of his books. They ar brimming with half-truths, errors of omission, misrepresentations, etc.
Try here, for example:
http://home.planet.nl/~gkorthof/kortho19.htm
Oh - and embellishment ("brilliant lawyer") noted. Gotta keep up the facade, eh?
So, anyway, tell us all how YOU are able to make such conclusions.
quote:
Finally, your examples (at least the first one) have been dealt with at this forum already in another posting.
Just so we are clear, Werner Gitt's bio:
"The retired Dr Gitt was a director and professor at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology (Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt, Braunschweig), the Head of the Department of Information Technology. Three prerequisites must be fulfilled in order for the German Ministerium to award the title ‘Director and Professor’ at a German research institute, on the recommendation of the Praesidium. The person concerned must be:
A scientist. I.e. it is most definitely an academic title.
One who has published a significant number of original research papers in the technical literature.
Must head a department in his area of expertise, in which several working scientists are employed." Werner Gitt, Information Science | Answers in Genesis
and
"Werner Gitt
Creationist
Information science
Doctorate in engineering summa cum laude from the Technical University of Aachen
Diploma in engineering from the Technical University of Hanover
Borchers Medal from the Technical University of Aachen
Author of numerous research papers dealing with information science, numerical mathematics, and control engineering
Author of In the Beginning Was Information
Director and professor, and Head of the Department of Information Technology, at the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology"
Werner Gitt (biographical information) - Creation SuperLibrary - ChristianAnswers.Net
So, you are basically arguing from authority then, and cannot assess whether or not Gitt's claims regarding biological information have merit.
Again, if Gitt is such a "world's leading information scientists", why then is he not mentioned anywhere but creationist web sites?
As I emphasized in the 'bio' of him you present, he is an information TECHNOLOGIST, not an information scientist. There IS a difference, just as there is a difference between a lab technician and a lab scientist.
Doing a pubmed search for Gitt, wherein one might expect to find publicatyions dealing with biological information, one gets ZERO returns.
Again, odd for one of the "world's leading information scientists", don't you think?
If you are going to argue from authority, thern the legitimacy of that "authority" is fair to be called into question.
It is not an ad hominem, it is an attempt to air the truth.
And sometimes the truth is not what you had hoped for.
And, again, do you not find it odd that Gitt is the only "information technologist" (besides self-proclaimed information scinece expert creationists) that believes that information must come form a conscious mind?
And, yet again, how is it that you believe Gitt to be right and everyone else, including an ACTUAL "world's leading population geneticist" (Kimura, not to mention Tom Schneider), wrong?

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM derwood has replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 156 of 367 (32139)
02-13-2003 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 145 by peter borger
02-12-2003 7:21 PM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by peter borger, posted 02-12-2003 7:21 PM peter borger has not replied

derwood
Member (Idle past 1989 days)
Posts: 1457
Joined: 12-27-2001


Message 157 of 367 (32140)
02-13-2003 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 1:21 AM


quote:
Sonnike:
SLPx, you are avoiding the issue by focusing on the man, ergo ad hominem.
As others have pointed out, and I already explained but will do again, if you are going to argue that Gitt is right solelybecause of his supposed "authority" on the subject, then this supposed "authority" is a legitmate target.
As I demonstrated, there are ZERO publications on biological information available in one of the more popular scientific literature search engines.
Odd, if he is this leading authority, as you continue to insist.
quote:
The problem is not that Dr. Gitt is not a world leading information scientist,
You are right, that is no problem at all, because Gitt is in fact not the authority you need/want him to be.
quote:
but rather that the scientific community (pro-evo) does not like what he has to say.
Please tell us where the "pro-evo" scientific community has access to what he has to say.
His vanity press creationist book?
Creationist web sites?
For those are the ONLY places, it seems, that one can read anything from this "leading expert" on anything having to do with information and biology.
Cough up some refs, please, or stand corrected and refuted.
quote:
Lets look at this another way.
Perhaps you will answer these questions:
Others have addressed this. However, before I do, I will need to know whether or not you will be able to objectively assess the answers given. That is, can you address the issues, or will you rely upon what are quite possibly a pre-selected series of quotes and links from creationist sources to do your 'thinking' for you?
quote:
1. how often do mutations occur?
rarely.
quote:
2. what is the most common result due to mutations?
No result - most are neutral.
quote:
3. how many beneficial mutations can you describe?
Tell me what you consider to be beneficial.
Then tell me how YOU would find them.
------------------
"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 is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM DanskerMan has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 4:30 PM derwood has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024