Gooch's dad

Ah, I think I know who ChaseNelson is...I debate occasionally on Yahoo chat with a guy called 'wormofice' (where does that silly name come from? Who knows...)

He said he is about the only creationist on that discussion board that can defend himself at all. The weird thing is, he claims to be able to completely justify YEC. Including the meteorite gambit. Says it is completely explained by his version of YEC.

I'll have to pop in there and see.

-Kelly

Peter Soderqvist

TO MORPHO

Soderqvist1: To misrepresent science is the hallmark of creationism!
Dawkins (in The Blind Watchmaker) uses a computer to see if he can generate the sentence METHINKS IT IS LIKE A WEASEL not by pure chance, but by a stochastic process, with cumulative selection . This process is the blind watchmaker, and can be found in nature, it is random mutation, and nonrandom natural selection!

Dawkins describe the cumulative selection mechanism here!
<a href="http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/alabama.htm" target="_blank">http://www.world-of-dawkins.com/Dawkins/Work/Articles/alabama/alabama.htm</a>

Quetzal

Peter: You are absolutely correct. Dawkins makes this distinction even more explicit when describing his Biomorph program in "Climbing Mount Improbable". Not only that, but my interlocuteur is misrepresenting the use of "information" by the Nature article's authors. This is the heart and soul of my rejection of the creationist use of any "information" concept in evo/cre arguments. It isn't that I don't strongly concur that information is a useful concept - just that the creationists tend to misuse the terminology. Worse, perhaps, in this case it is painfully obvious my opponent doesn't have the first clue what I'm talking about - as you suggested his knowledge is very superficial.

Please see my most recent contribution to that thread. I tried to lay out my case against his use of information. I'd appreciate any feedback.

If he commits to Shannon information entropy, I've got him nailed. If he tries to wiggle out from underneath, he's merely destroying his own arguments. I'm kind of hoping to get him on to speciation and the origins of biodiversity (my favorite subject), but we'll see.

Thanks again for your help.

Douglas J. Bender

Regarding Dawkins and his "Methinks it is like a weasel" computer program - would his program have "selected" that phrase if that phrase was not already "pre-targeted"? Natural selection has no "pre-targeted" entities it's shooting for.

In Christ,

Douglas

faded_Glory

Oh yes it does. Long enough survival to reproduce.

fG

Quetzal

Douglas:

You are correct that natural selection is not teleological. That, of course, was not what Dawkins's computer program was all about - which you would know if you'd actually read his book. What's your point? Since you utterly deny that speciation can occur and reject natural selection as a valid concept, I find it incomprehensible that you'd care one way or the other what Dawkins was attempting to show.

Shouldn't you be sharing profound intellectual insights with your little sycophants over at ARN? If you want to post here - in a forum you have described as intellectually bankrupt - - perhaps you'd care to go back to at least November last year and respond to some of the many rebuttals and refutations of your baseless assertions inre Flood geology, biology, ecology, paleontology, microbiology, biochemistry, astronomy, physics, etc.

In disgust,

Morpho

Peter Soderqvist

TO DOUGLAS J. BENDER

Soderqvist1: yes after billions of years, or so, and it will make evolution impossible, which I think you like to hear! There are no pre-targeted entities in evolution, and no one has ever alleged that either! If you think you have a case here, what is the difference anyway between pre-selected biomorphs in this computer world, and nonrandom natural selected fittest ones in nature? Is natural selection cumulative?

Richard Dawkins is a Charles Simonyi Professor in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, in England; don't you think he knows what he is doing with his computer?

Where is Douglas's reason?

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Peter Soderqvist ]</p>

pangloss

No need to invoke Dawkins. As creationists are very fond of mathematics, why not use a mathematical model demonstrating that, in fact , natural selection can add information? Indeed - Dembksi has said that he trusts math over biology...


Natural selection as the process of accumulating genetic information in adaptive evolution.
Kimura, M. 1961. Genetical Research 2:127-40.


"...natural selection is a mechanism by which new genetic information can be created."


I cited this on the BB some time ago, and Doiuglas' friend in Christ Helen claimed that the paper did not show how new information was generated. Then I pointed out the rarity of the source, and asked her how she got hold of it and if she had actually read the paper. In typical Helen style, she stopped responding. That is, she hadn't read the paper, but was pontificating on it anyway to prop up her weak faith.


Anyway, I can get you the specifics if you'd like.
I am always tickled in these 'information' arguments to see that not a single cretin that I have run across has ever heard of this paper.

scigirl

Mwa ha ha ha ha ha ha!

For using a lot of big words, he still doesn't understand simple concepts like "gene" or "science experiment."

scigirl

Oolon Colluphid

Hey Morpho, can you give some references for those Douglas quotes, so we can see the context?

Before I suggest Douglas to pick up where he left off last year with so many outstanding queries, by shouting something like GET YOUR GODDAMNED MISBEGOTTEN ARSE IN HERE... I'd like to see these refs, just to be sure he's not being misquoted...

After all, if he didn't say the above, it'd be cruel to retort that when it comes to mental masturbation, just take a look at his stuff about numbers, wouldn't it?

Oolon

[ April 29, 2002: Message edited by: Oolon Colluphid ]</p>