Is the vestigial organ argument a vestige of poor science

[whirlingmerc]

I don't think there was such a "documentary". If you mean a dishonest creationist hit piece, I do remember him being asked an extremely stupid question and the sheer idiocy of it making him pause.

In case you want to know almost every mutation results in "new information". By definition if the genome is changed then the information is changed and it is "new". Perhaps you would like to try to rephrase your question. Don't worry, it can be answered.

Antibiotic resistance bacteria are so often because the antibiotic attacks an enzyme and they favor missing it... can't shoot me in the foot if I don't have a foot anymore

but that's less information

as would be a blink cave fish

 

[whirlingmerc]

I don't think there was such a "documentary". If you mean a dishonest creationist hit piece, I do remember him being asked an extremely stupid question and the sheer idiocy of it making him pause.

In case you want to know almost every mutation results in "new information". By definition if the genome is changed then the information is changed and it is "new". Perhaps you would like to try to rephrase your question. Don't worry, it can be answered.

And information scientist Werner Gitt who was dept head at a secular German information science department disagrees

https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/beginning-was-information/

 

[SomeRandom]

bad evolutionary science dies slowly...

But you just claimed that there are still links suggesting that vestal organs were useless. And the link you showed me claimed the opposite from the very first line.

Hackle's embryo claims and conclusions were in all sorts of science texts through the last century even 150 years after it was a known fraud

Umm actually if I recall my high school text book correctly, Hackle's claims came with the repeated (and practically underlined) caveat that they were mere reconstructions, unscientific and merely used to help laymen understand the process.

Then there's piltdown man

Geez, if I sputtered such nonsense in my biology class, I'd have detention for like a month. Your teacher must have been way more patient than mine.
Anyway, everyone and their mother already knows how Science came to reject the hoax. Besides that was like 1912, how dare they not have the sophisticated technology we have now. Pretty sure it's much harder to pull a stunt like that after far more sophisticated methods have been born from you know, science.

 

[Jose Fly]

There are some creationists who actually try and then there are ones like @whirlingmerc who just waste everyone's time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Antibiotic resistance bacteria are so often because the antibiotic attacks an enzyme and they favor missing it... can't shoot me in the foot if I don't have a foot anymore

but that's less information

as would be a blink cave fish

That is only one poor example. Most mutations are not deletions. Most mutations are point mutations. And then to go with deletions we can observe the opposite. Gene duplication is when a long sequence, occasionally an entire gene or more is copied. That is a very important mutation. Though the copy itself may not be "new information" it allows the evolution of a critical gene. Creationists often ask how a gene that is needed to survive can evolve, and the answer is usually through gene duplication. One of the genes continues doing the same old job while the other is free to mutate without harming the host.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And information scientist Werner Gitt who was dept head at a secular German information science department disagrees

https://answersingenesis.org/media/video/science/beginning-was-information/

Sorry, Answer in Genesis is a worthless site. To work there one must swear not to use the scientific method. But since you not seem to understand the scientific method I am betting that you will not understand that what they do is wrong.

EDIT: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

"Gitt wrote the book In the Beginning was Information (1997), in which he proposes that no information can exist without a code, and that information has to have a mental origin - which he claims comes from God. Scientists have explained in detail where he goes wrong in his arguments (also see information theory)."

The poor boob is working outside of his area of expertise. He is an engineer and not an information scientist. He is as much of an authority as I am, and I don't claim to be one. I can find those that are authorities on the sciences.

Second Edit: He really is a loon. According to Wikipedia he is a young Earth creationist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

That means he has to reject all of the sciences. If this is the best that you can do why even try?

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sorry, Answer in Genesis is a worthless site. To work there one must swear not to use the scientific method. But since you not seem to understand the scientific method I am betting that you will not understand that what they do is wrong.

EDIT: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

"Gitt wrote the book In the Beginning was Information (1997), in which he proposes that no information can exist without a code, and that information has to have a mental origin - which he claims comes from God. Scientists have explained in detail where he goes wrong in his arguments (also see information theory)."

The poor boob is working outside of his area of expertise. He is an engineer and not an information scientist. He is as much of an authority as I am, and I don't claim to be one. I can find those that are authorities on the sciences.

Second Edit: He really is a loon. According to Wikipedia he is a young Earth creationist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

That means he has to reject all of the sciences. If this is the best that you can do why even try?

He's working outside his area of expertise... like Darwin, Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye the Science guy?

And of course when Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' it was outside his expertise and soundly refuted by "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alistair McGrath... a better trained philosopher and better book

 

[whirlingmerc]

Sorry, Answer in Genesis is a worthless site. To work there one must swear not to use the scientific method. But since you not seem to understand the scientific method I am betting that you will not understand that what they do is wrong.

EDIT: https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

"Gitt wrote the book In the Beginning was Information (1997), in which he proposes that no information can exist without a code, and that information has to have a mental origin - which he claims comes from God. Scientists have explained in detail where he goes wrong in his arguments (also see information theory)."

The poor boob is working outside of his area of expertise. He is an engineer and not an information scientist. He is as much of an authority as I am, and I don't claim to be one. I can find those that are authorities on the sciences.

Second Edit: He really is a loon. According to Wikipedia he is a young Earth creationist:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Werner_Gitt

That means he has to reject all of the sciences. If this is the best that you can do why even try?

He's working outside his area of expertise... like Darwin, Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye the Science guy?

 

[Subduction Zone]

He's working outside his area of expertise... like Darwin, Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye the Science guy?

And of course when Dawkins wrote 'The God Delusion' it was outside his expertise and soundly refuted by "The Dawkins Delusion" by Alistair McGrath... a better trained philosopher and better book

Darwin was not working outside his area of expertise. Neither Sagan nor Nye were science deniers. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. Witt's ignorant claims were refuted by scientists in the field. Of course Witt is a science denier on a grand scale. Since you failed on all of your other claims you probably failed in your attack on Dawkins, . . . again.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Darwin was not working outside his area of expertise. Neither Sagan nor Nye were science deniers. You do not seem to understand the burden of proof. Witt's ignorant claims were refuted by scientists in the field. Of course Witt is a science denier on a grand scale. Since you failed on all of your other claims you probably failed in your attack on Dawkins, . . . again.

Happily, and creationists are not science deniers!!!

 

[Astrophile]

Hackle's embryo claims and conclusions were in all sorts of science texts through the last century even 150 years after it was a known fraud

150 years before the end of the 20th century, Haeckel (1834-1919) was only sixteen years old.

 

[Subduction Zone]

He's working outside his area of expertise... like Darwin, Carl Sagan, and Bill Nye the Science guy?

Nope, none of the latter are science deniers.

You do realize that using sources known for being ridiculously wrong and quite often beyond stupid can make you look the same, don't you?

Tell me, what would you think of a scientist that no matter what the evidence tells us would claim that the Earth is flat. And then to make matters worse he hires others and forces them to agree to statement that says that If the evidence tells us that the Earth is spherical that evidence is wrong. What would you think of such a person?

Happily, and creationists are not science deniers!!!

Please, even you have to know that is false.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Happily, and creationists are not science deniers!!!

and according to the inventor of the gene gun, past professor of Cornel University John Saford generic information rusts a bit generation after generation... winding down..not up

"Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford.Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005." style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; -webkit-text-decoration-skip: objects; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">18 Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more."
https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

 

[whirlingmerc]

150 years before the end of the 20th century, Haeckel (1834-1919) was only sixteen years old.

roughly correct The point that Haekel had diagrams that were deliberate fraud and they lasted
125 years in science books is still telling

and of course there is "Muller's Rachet"
many slight negative mutations that cannot be selected against
generation after generation which tends to drive fitness down not up
quote
Muller's ratchet
If the mutational effects are only slightly deleterious or there are too many mutations that simultaneously segregate in a population, deterministic purifying selection can be overwhelmed by random effects, leading to a ‘slow regime’ of mutation accumulation, where fixations of slightly deleterious mutations occasionally happen by bad luck. If such events are repeated over long periods of time, they can have substantial consequences on fitness and may degrade the corresponding genetic system.
unquote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/

 

[Subduction Zone]

and according to the inventor of the gene gun, past professor of Cornel University John Saford generic information rusts a bit generation after generation... winding down..not up

"Within neo-Darwinian theory, natural selection is supposed to be the guardian of our genomes because it weeds out unwanted deleterious mutations and favours beneficial ones. Not so, according to genetics expert Professor John Sanford.Genetic Entropy & The Mystery of the Genome, Elim Publishing, New York, 2005." style="box-sizing: inherit; background-color: transparent; -webkit-text-decoration-skip: objects; color: rgb(34, 139, 246); border-bottom-style: none; margin-bottom: 4px; cursor: pointer;">18 Natural selection can only weed out mutations that have a significant negative effect upon fitness (number of offspring produced). But such ‘fitness’ is affected by a huge variety of factors, and the vast majority of mutations have too small an effect for natural selection to be able to detect and remove them.

Furthermore, if the average mutation rate per person per generation is around 1 or more, then everyone is a mutant and no amount of selection can stop degeneration of the whole population. As it turns out, the mutation rate in the human population is very much greater than 1. Sanford estimates at least 100, probably about 300, and possibly more."
https://creation.com/mutations-are-evolutions-end

Another lying source using another failed scientist. Sanford did some real work early in his career, but all of his anti-evolution claims have been refuted.

His genetic entropy is a bad joke.

 

[Subduction Zone]

roughly correct The point that Haekel had diagrams that were deliberate fraud and they lasted
125 years in science books is still telling

And he was never shown to be a fraud. Sloppy, yes. But in a time when everything needed to be hand drawn some would take shortcuts. His ideas that were correct are usually illustrated with photographs today.

 

[Subduction Zone]

roughly correct The point that Haekel had diagrams that were deliberate fraud and they lasted
125 years in science books is still telling

and of course there is "Muller's effect"
many slight negative mutations that cannot be selected against
generation after generation which tends to drive fitness down not up
quote
Muller's ratchet
If the mutational effects are only slightly deleterious or there are too many mutations that simultaneously segregate in a population, deterministic purifying selection can be overwhelmed by random effects, leading to a ‘slow regime’ of mutation accumulation, where fixations of slightly deleterious mutations occasionally happen by bad luck. If such events are repeated over long periods of time, they can have substantial consequences on fitness and may degrade the corresponding genetic system.
unquote
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2871823/

Nope, bearing false witness against your neighbor. Wrong, yes. Fraudulent? That was never proven.

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nope, none of the latter are science deniers.

You do realize that using sources known for being ridiculously wrong and quite often beyond stupid can make you look the same, don't you?

Tell me, what would you think of a scientist that no matter what the evidence tells us would claim that the Earth is flat. And then to make matters worse he hires others and forces them to agree to statement that says that If the evidence tells us that the Earth is spherical that evidence is wrong. What would you think of such a person?




Please, even you have to know that is false.

Happy they are not science deniers... now ... not willing to go where the evidence leads because we cannot let a divine foot in the door as was famously stated by Harvard Scientist Lewiston well that is problematic

 

[whirlingmerc]

Nope, bearing false witness against your neighbor. Wrong, yes. Fraudulent? That was never proven.

it was
https://www.newscientist.com/articl...d-embryo-illustrations-led-to-drawn-out-lies/

https://evolutionnews.org/2012/10/darwin_lobbyist_1/
embryologist Michael Richardson, who called them “one of the most famous fakes in biology,” or Stephen Jay Gould who said “Haeckel had exaggerated the similarities by idealizations and omissions,” and that “in a procedure that can only be called fraudulent,” Haeckel “simply copied the same figure over and over again.”

 

[Subduction Zone]

Happy they are not science deniers... now ... not willing to go where the evidence leads because we cannot let a divine foot in the door as was famously stated by Harvard Scientist Lewiston well that is problematic

Please. Let's see some links from a valid source. Do you think that you can do that?