Joined: Jan. 2006
Looking over your blog, it appears that you think Mike Egnor has some good ideas. Now, mostly he seems to be on the Darwin => eugenics train, which is obviously just meant to be bad PR for evolutionary theory. But he has made a couple of scientific claims. For one, he challenges PZ Myers,
|How much new specified information can random variation and natural selection generate? Please note that my question starts with 'how much'- it's quantitative, and it's quantitative about information, not literature citations.|
But alas, he goes on to admit that it was a trick question, as he can't identify a way to meaningfully measure biological information:
|My question about the information-generating capacity of RM+NS was rhetorical. I know you can't answer it. Now you know, too. The scientific debate about Darwin/ID turns on the issue of biological complexity. We are still struggling with the issue of how to quantify it. Information content seems the most promising, but, as my question demonstrates, it's deeply problematic. Empirical verification of your claim that RM+NS is sufficient to explain biological complexity is necessary for you your theory to be a 'fact'. As you have so clearly demonstrated, it's not a fact, so far.|
Until Egnor can ask a meaningful question, his objections are (tautologically) spurious. Now, I can name new biological functions that can be generated by mutation and selection, and it would seem that this is all that is necessary for evolution to work, regardless of whether or not mathematics can be used to quantify the changes. Do you have any objections to mutation and selection as a viable mechanism for the generation of new biological structures and functions? Our former resident creationist does, but I think you'd be embarrassed to have him as an ally.
"Why waste time learning, when ignorance is instantaneous?" -Calvin