10 Jul 10
4 edits
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.
Charles Darwin did not know a thing about mutations within the Genome, because science, had not progressed that far during his time.
In todays evolutionary therory, the hope is that accidental mutations within the genome sometimes results in usefull new developements> the increase of positive genetic information, merely by chance . in a line of generation.
By this process, species evolve into higher forms.
But Richard Dawkins was unable to offer a single proven example, of this happening.
What is observed is, that mutations of the genome, result in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.
10 Jul 10
The famous delta 23 mutation within the CD4 co-receptor CCR5 prevents HIV infection. Quite useful. Dawkin's studied wasp behaviour (ethology) for his doctorate with Tinbergen and then became an evangelical atheist and is largely shunned by the scientific community. I have heard him called a "non-experimentalist" which is damning criticism for a scientist. Ingram's description of the amino acid mutation in haemoglobin preventing malaria infection of red blood cells (erthyrocytes) is another. I could go on but worry it would be lost on you as you seem, how can I put this, set in your ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5
10 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuPlease define "useful" information.
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.
Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.
10 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungto AThousandYoung
Please define "useful" information.
I am not schooled in scientific jargon, but i,ll give it a shot.
Evolution theory suggest, the direction of the evolving species is one of making it more durable for survival, so usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.
I am not going to get into a scientific discussion here, because of my lack of knowing all the jargon nescessary for such a discussion.
vishva
10 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuusefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.
to AThousandYoung
I am not schooled in scientific jargon, but i,ll give it a shot.
Evolution theory suggest, the direction of the evolving species is one of making it more durable for survival, so usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be consid ...[text shortened]... n here, because of my lack of knowing all the jargon nescessary for such a discussion.
vishva
Genetic information like that is created long before the selection process occurs. There is no way to know what is useful when it is created. If you are one of those who assumes that any human interference ruins the value of scientific observations, then you are demanding something which is practically impossible. Not being able to provide such evidence is not unreasonable, nor is it evidence against evolutionary theory.
10 Jul 10
Originally posted by AThousandYoungto AThousandYoung
[b]usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.
Genetic information like that is created long before the selection process occurs. There is no way to know what is useful when it is created. If you are one of those ...[text shortened]... le to provide such evidence is not unreasonable, nor is it evidence against evolutionary theory.[/b]
I will get some convincing material (denouncing evolution) and post it up a bit later.
vishva
11 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuI assume you are referring to the incident described by Dawkins here:
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.
Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
Did you do any research at all on this?
11 Jul 10
Originally posted by LemonJelloTo LemonJello
I assume you are referring to the incident described by Dawkins here:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/
Did you do any research at all on this?
Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.
However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.
Vishva
11 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuHow old do you think the Universe is?
To LemonJello
Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.
However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.
Vishva
11 Jul 10
Originally posted by vishvahetuHigher forms?
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.
Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.
What's a higher form?
11 Jul 10
2 edits
Originally posted by vishvahetuI think, in light of the link I posted, your opening post is disingenuous.
To LemonJello
Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.
However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.
Vishva
Now, you are changing your attention toward another subject. The idea that localized instances of scientific misconduct within some field warrant your wholesale impugnment of that field, is pretty ridiculous. Back a decade or so ago, a committee of his peers demonstrated quite conclusively that Jan Hendrik Schon committed scientific misconduct on his way ostensibly toward any number of prizes and accolades in condensed matter physics, in the form of numerous instances of data substitution and outright data falsification. I guess then we ought to just throw out physics along with evolutionary theory? Please get serious. It is nearly certain that at least some instances of misconduct will exist in nearly every major field of science. Why, then, according to your own line of reasoning, are you only throwing out evolutionary theory?
There is no doubt that such instances of scientific misconduct are serious matters. It is a credit to scientific communities that many of the instances are unearthed and dealt with seriously (for instance, you can easily find online the formal committee report on Hendrik Schon's case issued by Beasley et al, and perhaps it will give you some appreciation for the care given to such matters). The inference from localized instances of misconduct to wholesale rejection of related huge bodies of scientific work is generally unwarranted. It does major injustice to the numerous scientists who do carry out their tasks responsibly. It also plays you for something of a fool, since it demonstrates your readiness to dismiss their work without even making effort to assess their work on its actual merits. (I see that, from your own admission, you are likely too ignorant on the topic to carry out such assessment anyway.)