Links Missing or non-existing?

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

An engineer is a credible source on evolutionary theory? Interesting.

 

 

When it comes to Information Theory? Yes! Because he is a Technical Engineer. I'm curious do you guys ever step back and wonder....what is Evolution not? Hinduism is everything too ya know? Do you know where Evolution originated from?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

This despite the fact that someone at the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health (i.e. someone who actually uses information theory in biology) thinks he's full of crap?

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/gitt/

 

I'm curious, though. How do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

[toastywombel]

When it comes to Information Theory? Yes! I'm curious do you guys ever step back and wonder....what is Evolution not? Hinduism is everything too ya know? Do you know where Evolution originated from?

 

We'll here is what wikipedia says on the subject:

 

"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable. This began to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution."

 

From that I would arge that the first actual concept of evolution was conceived by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Who was a member of the French Academy of Sciences.

 

Just though I would answer that for you to prevent any future confusion by other readers.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

This despite the fact that someone at the Molecular Information Theory Group at the National Institutes of Health (i.e. someone who actually uses information theory in biology) thinks he's full of crap?

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/paper/ev/gitt/

 

I'm curious, though. How do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

 

 

WAIT A MINUTE, really? You are going to say that its okay to question a source that I give to you and back up with credentials. But "someone" who randomly writes this article is okay to follow this up here?

 

He doesn't even give Gitt a fair analysis. "When I first wrote this page (2005 May 5) I had not read it (his book), but noted that the comments at Amazon indicate that it is full of holes."

 

So we are going to take someone who misrepresents half of Gitt's arguments by the way, doesn't even bother to read his book, and is not even a cited source as more authoritative than Gitt?

 

I don't believe in Evolution. I believe in Creation Science. As do many other Scientists for that matter.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Here's the "someone":

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

 

Plenty of credentials. Now, how do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

We'll here is what wikipedia says on the subject:

 

"Evolutionary thought, the conception that species change over time, has roots in antiquity, in the ideas of the ancient Greeks, Romans, and Chinese as well as in medieval Islamic science. However, until the 18th century, Western biological thinking was dominated by essentialism, the belief that every species has essential characteristics that are unalterable. This began to change when, during the Enlightenment, evolutionary cosmology and the mechanical philosophy spread from the physical sciences to natural history. Naturalists began to focus on the variability of species; the emergence of paleontology with the concept of extinction further undermined the static view of nature. In the early 19th century, Jean-Baptiste Lamarck proposed his theory of the transmutation of species, the first fully formed scientific theory of evolution."

 

From that I would arge that the first actual concept of evolution was conceived by Jean-Baptiste Lamarck. Who was a member of the French Academy of Sciences.

 

Just though I would answer that for you to prevent any future confusion by other readers.

 

Think back further....Anaximander and before then. Its original concepts were derived from Hinduism and Buddhistic thought.

[toastywombel]

Think back further....Anaximander and before then. Its original concepts were derived from Hinduism and Buddhistic thought.

 

I believe I covered that in my answer, you may see "Greek philosophers" is included.

[Fake Dr. Sullivan]

Here's the "someone":

 

http://www.ccrnp.ncifcrf.gov/~toms/

 

Plenty of credentials. Now, how do your beliefs about evolution connect to your research?

 

I thought I told you I was antagonistic towards Evolution. I'm also antagonistic towards people who misrepresent Creation Science unfairly and critique things without reading the book they are critiquing. Tom Schneider's computer simulation and his organization by the way that you are vastly impressed with can not actually simulate a true biological scenario. Schneider uses 64 living and reproducing organisms with a total and unchangeable genome that is 1/4 the size of a typical gene.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

If such an ancestor, with a genome even smaller than the current 256 bases were to duplicate a “gene", it would waste energy and available material producing unnecessary extra protein during its lifetime and while duplicating its genome. Replication time would be longer than for its competitors and would have greater risk of failure. Even presently unnecessary DNA ballast needed for evolutionary trials and error to produce only a novel binding site represents a significant reproductive disadvantage. This worthless material would represent several percent of the 256 bases assumed for the genome, a very considerable handicap.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

With this alone, his information is about as worthless as Richard Dawkins information. Why should we trust him again?

[mooeypoo]

I recently read a paper in a bio publication (I think it was "Molecular Ecology") with a Dr. Sullivan in it, who's from the university of Idaho.

Interestingly enough, he has the same picture as you: http://www.uiweb.uidaho.edu/biology/people.html#Sullivan

 

I am assuming you are one and the same. In which case, Hi Dr. Sullivan, welcome to scienceforums. Would you mind explaining this quote:

I thought I told you I was antagonistic towards Evolution.

In light of a quote from an interview, with you, made earlier this year:

Question: And how do you think we should respond to the creationists?

Fighting court battles require very different tactics than changing public opinion. To affect public opinion, there are two things we can do:

1. Publicly deconstruct the false dichotomy between macroevolution and microevolution.

2. Engage in a strong public outreach campaign over the importance of evolution in day to day life.

(Source: http://treethinkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/dechronization-interviews-jack-sullivan.html )

 

And in light of the following publications:

 

• Evolution of the Mitochondrial Cytochrome Oxidase II Gene in Collembola
  (source: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Fratietal97.pdf)
  

  
  

  Within the genus Isotomurus, although three pairs of populations were consistently identified, these appeared to have arisen in a burst of evolution from an earlier ancestor. Isotomurus italicus always appeared as basal and I. palustris appeared to harbor a cryptic species, corroborating allozyme data.
  
  

  
  

• Evaluating Hypotheses of Deuterostome Phylogeny and Chordate Evolution with New LSU and SSU Ribosomal DNA Data
  (source: http://www.webpages.uidaho.edu/~jacks/Winchelletal.pdf)
  

Among others.

 

I'm just wondering, Dr. Sullivan, how do you research evolutionary trends if you are so admittedly antagonistic towards evolution?

 

~moo

[insane_alien]

caught! lol.

[Sisyphus]

I understand what Evolution is. The rest of your statement is an attempt at circular reasoning. There is no increase in fitness. Thats the point I'm driving at, we don't observe that. Natural Selection is a conservative process that leads to extinction of species, not a more "meaningful information" driven by an increase in information. This doesn't solve your dilemma because you don't get lost information back. Its not a refined species as you'd like to think, its information that needs to be there for the organism to function properly. It leads to deformities and diseases within an organism's structure.

 

Dr. Werner Gitt is a very credible source. He was the director of the German Federal Institute of Physics and Technology and is the head of the Department of Information Technology.

 

It's not circular reasoning at all. You have your string, EFGHIJKL. It is an abstract representation of part of a genome. And, as part of the genome, it has some effect. Or rather, it has the potential for some effect. This effect either increases fitness, decreases fitness, or is neutral, and is thus subject to selection. You are simply saying that it is "meaningless" because it doesn't have the same effect as the original ABCD. That is what is circular reasoning, defining what is meaningful in such a way. It only makes sense with the precondition that what exists is an intentional and unalterable "language" rather than a physical process, i.e. with the precondition of a religious notion of intelligent design and degradation over time.