Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 52 (9178 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: Anig
Upcoming Birthdays: Theodoric
Post Volume: Total: 918,101 Year: 5,358/9,624 Month: 383/323 Week: 23/204 Day: 23/21 Hour: 4/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Where is the evidence for evolution?
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 70 of 367 (31345)
02-04-2003 4:57 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by DanskerMan
02-04-2003 4:38 PM


Sonnikke: I'm not the one who attributed intelligent characteristics to the mystical "evo-force"...
You're the only one to suggest it. But anyone who actually understands the "information argument" knows that it is just a bogus piece of obfuscation.
And by the way you're evading discussion it looks like you know that as well as anyone.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by DanskerMan, posted 02-04-2003 4:38 PM DanskerMan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 111 of 367 (31666)
02-07-2003 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 110 by Quetzal
02-07-2003 6:16 AM


"So, on blanko’s list, we have two evolutionists (Darwin, whose quote has proven spurious, and Austin, whose quote is unverifiable), one anti-darwinian with his own theory of complexity (Rubin),and four creationists. Hardly conclusive proof that, according to blanko,
quote:
Today everyone of these respected evolutionists (that is still living) continues to cling to what they admit is a battle against the evidence.
"
Well if you allow for the fact that none of the evolutionists is still alive blanco's statement is technically true.... But a total count of zero is hardly evidence of anything other than desperation on blanco's part.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 110 by Quetzal, posted 02-07-2003 6:16 AM Quetzal has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 147 of 367 (32087)
02-13-2003 2:49 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by DanskerMan
02-13-2003 1:21 AM


If you rely on Gitt's authority then discussion of his claim to authority is entirely relevant. If such discussion were illegtimiate as you argue I could claim to be the worlds leading expert on any subject I liked and you would have to accept it as true.
Did it ever cross your mind that the scientific community dislike what Gitt has to say because what Gitt has to say is no good ?
Here's a question for oyu. Since DNA is read solely by "mechanical" means, involving no intelligence, can it be shown to be "information" in Gitt's sense ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by DanskerMan, posted 02-13-2003 1:21 AM DanskerMan has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2003 8:01 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 151 of 367 (32106)
02-13-2003 8:01 AM
Reply to: Message 147 by PaulK
02-13-2003 2:49 AM


Here is what the Information Technology Department at PTB actually does:
Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt
Not exactly a position one would expect to find occupied by an expert in Information Theory

This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by PaulK, posted 02-13-2003 2:49 AM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 186 of 367 (32331)
02-15-2003 12:55 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by Percy
02-15-2003 8:17 AM


If he's relying on Gitt's "theory" that would explain things. However he hasn't answered the question of whether the genome contains Gitt's idea of information (which - unlike Shannon's DOES include meaning).
Unless the genome can be shown to contain information in Gitt's sense (and it seems that it doesn't) then Gitts ideas are irrelevant to evolution

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by Percy, posted 02-15-2003 8:17 AM Percy has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 213 of 367 (33233)
02-26-2003 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by Percy
02-26-2003 8:28 AM


Not me, Guv!
I haven't been discussing the analogy, just commenting on Gitt and his "information theory". For some reason nobody wants to explain why Gitt's ideas are relevant to DNA - could it be that everyone already knows that they are not ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by Percy, posted 02-26-2003 8:28 AM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 215 by derwood, posted 02-26-2003 12:52 PM PaulK has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 227 of 367 (33407)
02-28-2003 2:34 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by DanskerMan
02-28-2003 1:01 AM


Speaking personally I would say that an honest and rational creationist - indeed any honest and rational human being - would have to admit that there was insufficient information to come to any reliable conclusion.
Any pro-creation response would have to be a "God of the Gaps" type argument with no better foundation than personal incredulity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by DanskerMan, posted 02-28-2003 1:01 AM DanskerMan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 301 of 367 (34283)
03-13-2003 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 300 by Zephan
03-13-2003 10:37 AM


On rereading your post 296 it contains no suggestion that Margulis and Sagan failed to offer any evidence to support their conclusions (and your last post implies that they did). So the questions concerning whatever evidence they did offer are clearly appropriate.
If they did indeed offer no evidence, instead of directing people back to a post which does not address the issue it would have been best to say so and explain which evidence you were referring to in your post 300.
[This message has been edited by PaulK, 03-13-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 300 by Zephan, posted 03-13-2003 10:37 AM Zephan has not replied

PaulK
Member
Posts: 17849
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 3.6


Message 325 of 367 (34544)
03-17-2003 2:41 AM
Reply to: Message 323 by peter borger
03-17-2003 12:34 AM


You have had replies on your claim about Darwin's "extrapolation", and you know it. Please do not tell blatant lies on this forum.
I on the other hand am still waiting for any evidnece that this "extrapolation" is anything more than a figment of your imagination.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 323 by peter borger, posted 03-17-2003 12:34 AM peter borger has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024