"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"

Okay. I may have misread it.In that case I am more skeptical.

"Modern Cell Biology doesn't support Darwinism"
There's a fair bit of modern Evolutionary Theory that doesn't support straight Darwinian theory.That's why it's called "The Modern Synthesis" these days, since it includes the rather major evolutionary fields in Genetics.And Elderidge and Gould introduced Punctuated Equilibrium what, a couple of decades ago? PE isn't Darwinian, either.So what's your point, again?

I can't speak to what the original point may have been, but it strikes me as a bit hypocritical that evolutionists mock creationists for their dogma, when evolutionists follow their views just as dogmatically even though they change on a whim as evidenced by the many shifts in evolutionary thought. I do understand science is learning and that it takes trial and error at times to achieve this learning, but I don't understand how evolutionists can maintain that this is all fact when they themselves will shift their theories from year to year.

To me, the discussion of mutations seems a little pointless. The problem with Darwinism is that it requires mutations that result in information gains. Almost all observed mutations, whether they are "beneficial" or otherwise, result in a loss of information. In other words, they are going in the opposite direction of what would be required by macroevolution.Even Richard Dawkins, when pressed with this issue, had no viable response:
Skeptics Choke on Frog | Answers in Genesis

Your example from AIG is an example dishonesty and not what you think it is.If you wish to discuss information they it would be useful for you to define it first so that it becomes possible to determine the amount before and after then it is possible to calculate the increase or decrease.The source for your assertion about "almost all observed mutations" needs to be supplied. It is almost certainly wrong. I would expect from just thinking about it that almost all observed mutations are about "information neutral" making a guess at what you mean by information.

This is just about the funniest thing I have read in awhile. Someone should get Kent Hovind on the bandwagon.That being said, Dawkins also specifically says, and is even quoted in our article as saying, that he addresses the equivalent of information gain in one of his publishings.Oh yea and this has also been observed. See nylon digesting bacteria.

---

No smoking signs by gas stations. No religion in the public square. The government should keep us from being engulfed in flames on earth, and that is pretty much it. -- Jon Stewart, The Daily Show

Actually, that's false. He did have a very viable response; that segment of the footage was edited out by the producers of the video tape in order to make Dawkins appear foolish.

quote:

---

According to Dawkins, he paused because the question revealed that the interviewers were creationists, that he had been duped about their motives. He paused to think about how to handle them, and the change of subject occurred due to the several minutes when he confronted them being omitted from the video (Dawkins 2003).

​

The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve, which Dawkins has covered in at least four books (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and A Devil's Chaplain). He has answered the question at great length.

---

CB102.1: Dawkins interviewed about evolution increasing informationThis message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-13-2006 10:56 AM

In that case this isn't the thread for you.If you feel you have a productive point then please feel free to take it to a thread where it is on topic or put forward a PNT on this issue.But if you have nothing to the point to contribute please do not post on this thread.This applies to everyone, please don't derail this thread arguing with Garrett.Perhaps a thread on the concept of dogmatism might be productive.TTFN,AW

See nylon digesting bacteria indeed.It is likely that once the actual process is better understood, we'll see this as the product of a designed mechanism rather than that of a chance mutation. Not unlike the way vertebrates create antibodies with hypermutation in B-cell maturation.I side with those who suggest this is the work of an irreducibly complex molecular system. It's certainly not an area of science that is settled and without controversy...is that the best evidence of mutations in the right-direction?

Are mutations not a part of modern cell biology?I'm missing how this isn't related to the topic at hand. My point in stating that I can't speak to the original intent, was to not speak for the person to which the comment I was replying to was intended.

Is there an example of a known natural process that will increase the information content?

We are all still waiting with greedy anticipation for that evidence. And no I am not being sarcastic. That is fine and I appreciate that. Just don't expect anyone else to be able to accept your belief system without evidence. No it is just the one stands out the most in my mind. Others have been brought up on this forum many times. Hemoglobin type C is one, gentic resistance to cardio pulminary disease in certain individuals of particular italian decent is another good one. I would find the links to the threads for you if you like if I am still able to locate them. TO be honest you are the first one in a long time to drag up the whole, "No new information" argument. Maybe someone else can help me with the links if they still have easy access to them.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

He is talking about the Dawkins discussion. If you want to talk about Dawkins you should start a new thread. Just a heads up.

---

Of course, biblical creationists are committed to belief in God's written Word, the Bible, which forbids bearing false witness; --AIG (lest they forget)

If you wish to discuss information then YOU have to define what you mean by it.This would be a good first proposed new topic for you. You can start with a definition of information in the genome which allows a quantification of information content before and after any one of a number of different types of mutations.

I agree Jazzns...the proof is still out on this one. I won't assert that I know what the outcome will be.I'd make the point though that I wouldn't expect anyone to accept your belief system without evidence either.Since macro-evolution requires mutations that increase organized complexity at every step of the process, I find it supportive of my theory that only 2 or 3 obscure, and debated, examples can be cited.