Saturday, September 15, 2007
Casey Luskin Lies about Dawkins
I know, I know, so what else is new?
But this lie is so outrageous that it just has to be exposed. Over on the Discovery Institute website, Casey Luskin gloats over the famous video where Richard Dawkins pauses for 11 seconds when asked to give an example of an evolutionary process that increases information in the genome [Richard Dawkins on the Origin of Genetic Information].
The explanation for this pause is well-known. Dawkins had just realized that he had been duped into giving an interview in his house by creationists from Australia. The pause was to collect his thoughts after realizing the dishonesty of the interviewers. He then asked that the cameras be turned off and he asked them to leave. You can see the video and read the essay Dawkins wrote on dozens of websites [see Creationist Delusions about Transitional Fossils and Information].
Casey must know about this. He can't be that stupid. Therefore, he is lying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
37 comments :
who cares. stupid topic
I care. This is certainly not a "stupid topic."
Thanks Larry. I appreciate that you inform your readers of topics that appeal to you. I am a far more knowledgeable person because I read your blog
First, whatever creationists may want to read in some seconds of silence, is stupid. Frivolity of the worst. "dawkins hesitated!! creationsim is true!!!"
For retards; which is also true for the "no he didn't!! Creationsim is false!!" logic.
Second, I don't know if dawkins recollections can be treated as a photographic description of what went on there. Dawkins clarifies "what actualy happened" ? He should know that he is relying on mere good faith. Anyone can make an a posteriori story like that one.
Larry hits on some hot topics but this one is, I assure, is completely, completely irrelevant. Shows us a bit of his more frivolous side.
He can't be that stupid.
Unsupported hypothesis.
Really people, when it comes down to is that the fight for evolution is not about science, it's about humankind refusing to submit to authority of a higher power. Acknowledging that all life and the universe appears "on its own" and evolves "on its own" is so unfounded. Life is not made from the big bang or fish growing legs and crawling out of the sea to become through millions of years into humankind is akin to a sausage growing legs and hoping into a frying pan. Darwin's theory is purely a rebellion again creation, Christianity and an Almighty God. He was a Christian first, so he did support the idea of Creation first, then kicked his belief aside when isolated in the Galopogos islands. Typical of a suspected bi polar person flipping like a fish (ha) from one side to the other. His theory of evolution will contiue to forever stay that way - a theory. The law of created life can never be obliterated by any attempts to mak evolution a law. It will never happen. Creation is more than believe, it is above science, it a pround but beautiful mystery made by the loving hands of an Almight God. Larry continue to strive in your hypothesis, searching, testing, predictions, publication. Take time to appreciate life and smell the roses. Answer this: who made life? Did molecules suddenly grow brains and made cognitive descions to become basic cells? So then, where did the molecules come from? Some force put them in place, gave them the breath of life. Larry and all his fellow evolutionists, continue your research. You can't take it with you when you die, and I refuse to believe my maternal great anscestor a million years in the past was a hairy, heavy jowled ape with protruding brows and moving on knuckled arms. First, my family is much better looking than that, and second, I hate bananas and picking through someone else's hair for bugs as means of socialization.
How interesting. Dawkins declares an excuse, and of course he is telling the truth. Others disbelieve his excuse, and of course they are lying. I disbelieve Dawkins' excuse as well. Honestly.
As far as Dawkins' careful answer to the question of increase in information, well, it has one problem from an ID perspective. Though he showed examples of organisms which had structures which were made from modified copies of genes, it would be reasonable to consider that the copying and modifying was done by an intelligent agent, rather than by chance. If the ID "no increased information" position is to be seriously challenged, scientists must demonstrate an increase in information without active intelligent intervention within the confines of a laboratory. This is not really too much to ask, is it?
Ultimately, ID does not rise or fall on the "no increase in information" position in any case. ReMine's restatement of Haldane's dilemma is a much more potent argument. ReMine shows that there is vastly insufficient time between the human/chimp common ancestor and now to have incorporated 2% difference between these two species. Yet the latest estimates of the difference between chimp and man are more like 6%. Even if it can be demonstrated that random variation plus natural selection can produce the odd increase in real information, there is a lot of proving required to demonstrate that the process is adequate to account for the serous quantities of information that are necessary to produce the kind of variety that exists.
How interesting. Dawkins declares an excuse, and of course he is telling the truth. Others disbelieve his excuse, and of course they are lying. I disbelieve Dawkins' excuse as well. Honestly.
If you must know (get ready for your moment of duh) it’s because Dawkins has written entire books explaining how evolution increases information in the genome that we believe he is telling the truth. Duh.
Every time I read something by Casey, I just shake my head. I believe he really is stupid, as well as a frequent liar for Jeebus.
In fairness to Luskin (I never thought that is something I would write!), there are people who are supposedly pro-evolution who have made similar claims about that video.
A few years ago Glenn Morton and Ed Brayton claimed that the reason Dawkins did not answer immediately was because he did not know the answer. Brayton later seemed to go back on his original claim, although his apparent retraction was hidden away near the end of a discussion board thread.
As far as I am aware that was the very first time Brayton ever lied about Dawkins.
ReMine shows that there is vastly insufficient time between the human/chimp common ancestor and now to have incorporated 2% difference between these two species.
What does he use as a value for this "insufficient time" - 4-8 million years, or 6000 years?
"Though he showed examples of organisms which had structures which were made from modified copies of genes, it would be reasonable to consider that the copying and modifying was done by an intelligent agent, rather than by chance."
To employ a Moranism: And they wonder why we call them IDiots?
Anonymous, I am still waiting for Dawkins or anyone to present laboratory derived evidence of increase in information in a biological system with environment being the only human-manipulated factor, ie no genetic engineering.
Tegumai Bopsulai, FCD: "What does he use as a value for this "insufficient time" - 4-8 million years, or 6000 years?"
Hmmm, ReMine was expounding on Haldane's dilemma. Haldane is a well established young earther. Right?
Tyler, "To employ a Moranism: And they wonder why we call them IDiots?"
Let me see, we have evidence that something happened in the past. The fact that we know that it happened in the past proves that it was caused by one particular causal agent (RV+NS) and not another (ID?). Show evidence that proves that the genetic variation we are seeing are not caused by space aliens manipulating the genes, and you have a case, otherwise the space alien explanation is as valid as any other.
Sanders "who cares. stupid topic"
I care. If somebody is ready to lie (accidentally sayed false information is one thing, lying is another. First is not "so bad". But second...)
If their leaders are ready to lie in things like that,(and actually repeat it), it tells to me a lot. It tells to me how honest they are when they talk about issues. I can not trust then, they are not just accidentally spreading false information. They are liars. Cheaters. Conmans.
I'm not sure that Dawkins said the truth. Am I "lying about Dawkins"? You are acting like religious idiots. Dawkins is not "the light and the truth", ya know. C'mon. Only if you think stuoidly about will you care to defb his "infalibility" on this petty issue.
I think Dawkins is awful silly in general and I can tell you right away that as an evolutionary biologist, he suxs. Bigtime.
"I'm not sure that Dawkins said the truth"
Got any evidence to support that claim ?
... that Dawkins, like the rest of us is human, and when in a corner, like the rest of us, he may be tempted to ... eerr.. be a bit creative with the truth???
(That's merely evidence, not proof I hasten to add and therefore doesn't add up to conviction)
A single person's account is not "evidence" on my list
"A single person's account is not "evidence" on my list""
I ask you again. You think Dawkins lied. Do you have evidence to support that claim ? Only if you cannot or will not produce evidence that Dawkins did indeed lie it is you who must assumed to be lying.
"Show evidence that proves that the genetic variation we are seeing are not caused by space aliens manipulating the genes, and you have a case, otherwise the space alien explanation is as valid as any other."
Show me evidence that you weren't planted before your computer 5 minutes ago by aliens who constructed your memories so as to create the illusion that you walked there from wherever you came from.
Your rhetorical demand is nothing but a bargain basement appeal to solipsism. There are always ad hoc, auxiliary conjectures that you can toss onto some phenomena. We use Occam's razor for that reason.
As for your question about "information".
1. Define clearly which metric you are using (e.g., Shannon, Kolmogorov-Chatin, etc.). No motorized goalposts will be admitted.
2. Define clearly what circumstances under which you will accept the "increase" (i.e., no Cordova-esque insistence that that any conscious configuration in, e.g., experimental protocol invalidates the example.)
Haha is that how it goes for the dawkobots, huh?
We cannot just assume he said the truth. Nor that he lied. This is why I said I'm not sure. OOOHHH AAAAaaah : I'm Lying!!!
Why Dawkobots are also most of the time some kind of moralistic asses?
"We cannot just assume he said the truth. Nor that he lied"
So you did lie, and you have no evidence. Can you say "hypocrit" ? Of course you can!
Ooooh aaaah hypocrite!
You seem to be a little uptight about this whole thing huh?
Sanders,
Glad you realise your failings.
Sanders,
Not uptight, I just dislike lying scumbags like you.
Sanders, since you seem to feel that Dawkins "sux" as an evolutionary biologist, please share with us your credentials, experience, and perhaps a few of your peer-reviewed research and publications which would give your opinion any credibility at all.
As far as I know, Sander's is a graduate student in paleobiology.
bfast said: "scientists must demonstrate an increase in information without active intelligent intervention within the confines of a laboratory"
That's backward reasoning. To use an analogy, is it up to Egyptologists to prove the pyramids weren't built by aliens, or rather isn't it the responsibility of alien believers to prove that they were?
It is the person making the additional assumption that has to prove the assumption is true.
The main problem with ID, is that its proponents have to explain why life would have been designed and yet, it would show all the signs of having evolved through naturalistic processes.
To use a few examples: Why no mammal with 2 heads or 8 legs? Why blind mammals with eyes? Why no freshwater fish on isolated islands except on those islands that used to be connected to the mainland (example Australia)? Why is it the first marine mammals didn't have fins? All of these are EASILY explained through Evolution (in fact, they are predicted by Evolution!)
Scientists have no responsability with regards to people's beliefs.
Marc L.
Scumbag!! OOOOOhhh Aaaaaaah
anyone who will doubt dawkins word must a scumbag. amen
For those who want to know why dawkins evolutionary biology suxs, read Mayr; Gould; Lewontin.
Dr. Moran: In the future, please check with Sanders before posting on your personal blog, to make sure he'll find it interesting.
So if you suspect Dawkins is lying in this case, you're saying that he really doesn't know how to answer the question and was rendered completely mute--on camera--while he vainly searched his empty brain for something to say? Please.
Gould, Mayr, and Lewontin? Three brilliant guys, no doubt (I audited a grad course of Lewontin's), but it's what, 1980? And each was certainly full of it on some particulars (except maybe Ernst Mayr--by the way, his views differ from Dawkins's how, exactly?). Plus both Gould and Lewontin had priorities other than science, specifically celebrity and politics in different proportions.
"Plus both Gould and Lewontin had priorities other than science, specifically celebrity and politics in different proportions"
Yeah, I guess that's all the explanation YOU need, Sven
chauvinism and frivolity: the scourge of the dawkobots
He can't be that stupid. Therefore, he is lying
Larry,
No. Luskin isn't lying. He can be really stupid.
If you can not know that Dawkins lie, you can not say what he say.
In writnig that stuff you simply give "false information", you write it down, so it must be "important", and only reason it is "important" for yur side, is the "no comment" -way.
And in my world person himself is the nro 1. knowing what he think. If person A said that he think X and B says A think Y, it is "best to think that A is right". Unless B proves his claim (lie detection machines and stuff..)
In that situation, you are B.
You have not done that. You just say "I know better than Dawkins what Dawkins think". And suprise i am not convinced.
Actually I think you have done wrong; In our country those who are claimed to be quilty are innocent until proven otherwise.
->Dawkins is innocent untill you have proven that he lies in his statement.
Most of the time,I can't prove George Bush is lying.
Therefore, he speaks the truth.
Post a Comment