You must have overlooked the fact that Dawkins has denied that this
happened at all! As far as I am concerned, from what we have been told,
there is certainly question about which way it ought to go. As I said, with
the muddying of the waters by making the fake video sequence, hard core
creationists will believe Brown and hard core atheists will believe
Dawkins, and the rest of us will be left wondering.
And if our committment to the truth means that we can reconstruct history
where is our committment to the truth. It has been pointed out that up to
the point at which Dawkins supposedly said, 'turn off the camera' they were
free to use it. Dawkins' supposed subsequent request not to use the
footage did not have to be obeyed since he had given permission to be
videoed. Why didn't they show Dawkins asking for the video being turned
off. Talk about a powerful statement.
And finally our committment to truth should not blind us to the fact that
even if Dawkins did mess up, there are many examples of mutation increasing
the information content of daughter generations. Joel Duff showed you
some, I showed you some. So, committment to truth means that we should
accept that even if Dawkins did exactly what was purported, information can
and has been observed to increase.
>> I would also like to suggest that anytime we, as those interested in
>> apologetices, ignore or distort clear observational data, we are doing the
>> very same thing as was done in the video. ...
>
>This is where I was wanting to contribute to the discussion. I would
>suggest that those who have offered an answer to the question posed
>in the video have failed to address the issue properly - and this
>applies to Glenn as well.
I think I am. Dawkins has denied it occurred! Remember there are two
sides to this issue--a he said;she said situation.
We have mechanisms to increase the amount
>of DNA - but no example of new genetic information observed to
>arise by a natural process.
But that was NOT the question Dawkins was asked. This is another issue.
Darwinism infers (but fails to
>demonstrate) that the new DNA can be converted to information via
>further mutations and the action of natural selection. I like to
>think that Dawkins understood what the question was asking for - and
>would suggest that those on this list who have provided an "answer"
>have not yet understood the question.
I think you misunderstand the question. Here is the exact question:
"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or a an
evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the
genome?"
There is nothing about the origin of life or the origin of dna in this
question, there is nothing at all
>
>Glenn asks for honesty - and we all share his concern. But let us
>put our own house in order! A question that asks for observational
>data cannot be answered adequately with unvalidated theory!
No body is doing that David. Polyploidy increases the information content
of a cell and that is not theoretical. If it is theoretical tell me what
is theoretical about polyploidy given its numerous examples THIS CENTURY.
>In the words of Glenn: "I would also like to suggest that anytime we,
>as those interested in apologetics, ignore or distort clear
>observational data, we are doing the very same thing as [some
>think] was done in the video". On this issue, observational data is
>not on the side of neo-darwinism, or of broader versions of
>evolutionary theory.
We aren't talking about neodarwinism, the word has not come up in any of
these discussions. We are talking about a mutation process that increases
information and the reproduction of a event on video which is disputed to
have occurred.
glenn
Adam, Apes and Anthropology
Foundation, Fall and Flood
& lots of creation/evolution information
http://www.isource.net/~grmorton/dmd.htm