Where is the evidence for evolution?

So sonnikke stoops to using the fraudulent Dawkins video to try and support his position. I will give him the benefit of the doubt this time because he may simply have blindly copied from his creationist source.The real story behind this creatioist fraud can be found here. Dawkins' silence has nothing to do with a supposed inability to answer a dubbed-in question but the realisation that the interview had been gained on dishonest and mischievious grounds.So perhaps sonnikke could actually answer the question which was asked of him rather than throwing around red herrings.

Perhaps the quote by Macreadie which appears to be at variance with the views of the vast majority of the scientific community can be explained when one considers the descriptor which aig usually uses when referring to him: "creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist" Dr Ian Macreadie. Nice to have an unbiased view from an independent source! And I just know that the quote isn't from a peer reviewed scientific journal, so it appears to be a view which he is not prepared to have subjected to the scrutiny of his peers.But, more importantly, are you going to retract the Dawkins "quote" or do you intend to perpetuate that fraud? And answer the specific questions asked of you by SLPx in message #69?

Well, sonnikke, since the stories from the two parties appear to differ in significant details, it becomes a matter of credibility. We have Brown making a creationist video and who somehow gains access to Dawkins. But Dawkins claims that he does not give interviews to creationists. The assertion is that Brown misrepresented herself and her intentions. Unless you can provide evidence that Dawkins has given a significant number of interviews to creationists then I think it is safe to conclude that Dawkins is telling the truth and Brown is another liar for god.Nevertheless, if you really wanted an answer to your original question about evolution producing increases in "information", why didn't you refer to Dawkins' Unweaving the Rainbow? Or does it not contain material which you could twist and distort to serve your purposes?Better still, here's Dawkins' answer to the question which supposedly left him speechless.
But you have made the assertion that the "information" is already in the genome. Where is your evidence? Where is your answer to the question which SLPx asked you back at message #69?[This message has been edited by wj, 02-06-2003]

quote:

---

from blanko

​

First of all, let me apologize to everyone involved in this debate. I admit, I got a little lazy with my research and should have been more careful with my quote selection. I appreciate you guys keeping me honest, but understand I would in no way intentionally made false statements to support my argument.

---

Glad to hear it. I suppose it is just unfortunate that you happen to be posting on the same thread where others have been quote mining and misrepresenting the words of scientists to support their own positions. So I'm sure you would be happy to have any of your errors pointed out.

quote:

---

You may enjoy the article, but you would also have to admit, there is no way this guy would ever consider any evidence in favor of creation as valid regardless of the facts.

---

Hmmm. A bit of hyperbole in a book review. Pretty daming evidence that he would discard evidence!! Does Lewontin actually support such action? I can't see it mentioned anywhere. And I note that he was not required to sign a declaration of his religious beliefs as is practice for workers and contributors in aig and icr.

quote:

---

Couldn’t find any evolutionist rebuttals, so you tell me, are these just false allegations or were they stretching the evidence to support their theory?

---

I assume this remark is intended to refer to the Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man and Lucy.Many contemporary scientists were suspicious of Piltdown Man because it did not fit well with the patterns displayed by other primate fossils. It was finally proven as a fraud after WW2. And who proved that it was fraudulent? Creationists? No.Nebraska Man was a case of misidentification. Can you cite either Piltdown Man or Nebraska Man being used in a scientific paper or textbook after 1945 as valid examples of human ancestors? They don't represent effective fraudent evidence from evolutionists if the evolutionists have discarded it long ago.Now, should be compare the very few frauds or misidentifications wihc you mention above with the number of sightings of Noah's Ark? Have any of them proven reliable?

quote:

---

There was Java Man (pithecanthropus erectus), based on a 19th century smattering of bone fragments, which was later discounted as a pre-human in a 342-page investigative report by a team of evolutionists.

---

Bold assertions. Any references to back them up?

quote:

---

(The knee bones were actually discovered about a year earlier than the rest of Lucy). Dr. Johanson answered (reluctantly) about 200 feet lower (!) and two to three kilometers away (about 1.5 miles!). Continuing, Holt asked, "Then why are you sure it belonged to Lucy?" Dr. Johanson: "Anatomical similarity." (Bears and dogs have anatomical similarities).

---

This is a misrepresentation of the facts. The facts are explained here. Basically, a creationist misunderstood the discoverer's answer to a question and confused the discovery of a knee with the discovery of Lucy. About 40% of the Lucy skeleton was found.Now I'm sure you would wish to draw this to the attention of your source and ensure that such inaccuracies are not further spread.And, back to the original question asked of you by compmage, do you have any evidence of scientists discarding evidence?

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.

---

Well perhaps you could cite your experts and the papers which they have submitted for peer review which argue and support their assertions. Perhaps you could start by describing what "information" is. Or are you simply taking it on faith sans evidence?

Equivocation alert!How about we look at the nylon bug example. One additional nucleotide converts a glucose metabolising gene into a nylon metabolising gene. Is this the same amount of information, a loss of information (creationists typically bleat that any mutation is a loss of information) or an increase in information?So, give us your definition of genetic information and apply it to the above case.

Sonnikke, your efforts to "learn" on this thread appear to me to have been disingenuous. You seem to have made a concerted effort to draw in red herrings. And your plead that you are a lay person and therefore cannot understand Dr M's post #276 regarding honesty and personal honour is laughable. You initiated this distraction by slighting any scientist who isn't religious and commending creationists because they uphold religious tenets above any opposition, even empirical evidence.I can only suggest that SLPx and others might invest some more time in explaining gene duplication etc for the benefit of interested lurkers.

Misunderstanding noted.