Richard Dawkins: Could Someone Explain..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Oh yeah, i saw this video a few days ago and i wanted to let you all know if its not been mentioned already, all the videos are fakes, there was a video lecture with Richard Dawkins and part way through he talked about how these videos were faked as well as the similar videos out there.

Just clarifying that.

---

How are they fake? Or, I should ask, what is falsified..?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

That's wrong. There is more DNA, more genetic code. You had less, now you have more, so by definition the code has been added to. It's longer.

---

I just wanted to aslo note that this is a mis-use of the terminology. Unless what I have been told is completely false, then all extensions of protein and DNA codes is done via replication.

Otherwise, I am inclined to ask; what produces this addition?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

How are they fake? Or, I should ask, what is falsified..?
~

---

Certain clips were edited out and put together to make it appear that he was stuck for an answer. I can't remember the specific details without watching the lecture that Dawkins did. But here is part 1 of 2. Just watch it, i can't remember which part it is but just watch it and you'll receive the evidence.

Hope that helps :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker

Certain clips were edited out and put together to make it appear that he was stuck for an answer. I can't remember the specific details without watching the lecture that Dawkins did. But here is part 1 of 2. Just watch it, i can't remember which part it is but just watch it and you'll receive the evidence.

Hope that helps :)

---

Maybe I'm jumping the gun here on you but... you made it seem like you were going to provide a link..?
~

I truly feel like an idiot, forgot to hit Ctrl + V lol. Here it is http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=huEMVJb4Js8

My bad :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

It becomes longer by replicating, not adding.

---

...so? That's a trivial detail, it's just how the mechanism of how the genome is added to. Whether there is even a difference between 'adding' and 'replicating and changing' in the first place, that is. By your definition of 'adding to the code', a group of new bases would have to appear out of nowhere and physically wedge themselves into the DNA... and that's never going to happen. Basically, regardless of the mechanism, the code is definitely being added to. It codes for a greater number of amino acids so it has therefore been added to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

...so? That's a trivial detail, it's just how the mutation happens to work. The code is still getting more complicated.

---

The point is, there is no "information added" to the genome. It is merely replicating.

Edit: Followed by the process of natural selection, the genome will change in relation to this.
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

So, I'll ask my professor the same question that was asked in this video and let you know what comes out.

---

Did you ask?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Did you ask?

---

Just like any question, I probably won't get a response for a while..
~

Quote:

---

The point is, there is no "information added" to the genome. It is merely replicating.

---

Well I've tried the best I can to show you why that's wrong... what more can I say?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Well I've tried the best I can to show you why that's wrong... what more can I say?

---

Obviously you have not if you say this. I would like to think I am receptive enough to take in any reasonable objections but what you have said, to my understanding, is this:
- Replication causes a larger 'protein'
- Therefore, because it is larger, information has been added

What I am saying:
- Replication is simply the replication of DNA and its information.
- The protein gets larger, but the information is the exact same
- In natural selection, replication simply stops or is more fit in certain cases. Thus, there is not truly a case of "adding" but the eventual significant difference from one cohort generation than the other.

What do you think..?
~

I have a feeling this is pointless, but:

What are you talking about, the "protein getting larger"? What do you mean, the "replication simply stops"?

This conversation doesn't make any sense anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I have a feeling this is pointless, but:

What are you talking about, the "protein getting larger"? What do you mean, the "replication simply stops"?

This conversation doesn't make any sense anymore.

---

From what I understand, protein chains hold the material of the genome.

I do not see how the genome could then invariably get larger or have anything added to it. And if it is "added" - then what "adds" it?
~

Go take biology, then take genetics, then get back to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

Go take biology, then take genetics, then get back to me.

---

Yeah, see, this type of response does not show that you know anything about the relevant content or that you have any substantial contribution. If you will pretentiously accuse me of ignorance, at least support your comments with reasoning why.

I have taken biology (beyond the amount I want) and fundamental genetics.

I am asking how information is added to the genome. Technically, it is not.

Can you at least provide a response with substance that says something relevant to the question at hand? Please do not try and appeal to my ignorance by ostensibly holding that you harbor knowledge about it.
~

OK, O'nus. I gave you a couple examples off the top of my head of how information could be added to the genome. I really haven't looked into this any further; if I find other examples, I'll let you know.

DNA isn't protein; it's DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). Replication is the process by which DNA copies itself. Transcription is the process by which the code of DNA is transmitted to RNA. Translation is the process by which a protein is made from the code thru the RNA. Central Dogma: DNA makes RNA makes protein. Does that sound familiar?

Mutations occur, changing the information in the DNA. There are many possible errors in transcription. There are enzymes which fix the errors, but aren't alway successful. Genes may be duplicated; they may be moved around the genome; and viruses may be inserted into the genome. Whole chromosomes are sometimes added or lost or broken and put back together wrong. Bacteria pick up free DNA in the environment and add it to their own. There most likely are other processes which may contribute to changing or adding to the information, which don't happen to occur to me at the moment. All of these things from mutation onward have the potential to change the resulting proteins made from the original DNA.

I'm not sure what you are asking anymore. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

No offense intended.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

I think I've given one answer to this question before in a discussion here. Sometimes genes are duplicated; there are genes called transposons which move things around the genome; sometimes genes are transcribed wrong and more than one copy is made. If a gene is duplicated, it is free to be acted on by mutation without detriment to the organism, because the original copy is still available to fulfill its functions. This effectively adds more information.

There are families of genes; for example, the genes that code for the proteins that make up hemoglobin. There are different sevarl kinds of proteins that are used to make up hemoglobin, and differen ones are used at different times of life, such as when the organism is a fetus (and needs to hold on to oxygen more tightly, because it is less available in that environment). There are pseudogenes that are so similar to these genes that make the proteins that make hemoglobin that they are obviously copies that didn't make as a useful addition, and are not actually transcribed as proteins. There are many examples of groups of proteins that are similar and serve similar, tho slightly different functions, and which have obviously evolved thru this process of duplication.

That is one explanation.

I think that video was a hoax by the creationists. They have a suitable name; they don't discover facts, they create lies.

---

After re-reading this, I can see where you were going. I did not fully consider your content and thoughts here.

You make good points here and I think you have it bang-on. Not exactly "adding" but residual change.

Sorry for causing the confusion and obviously ignoring these comments, Moonbeam.

I fully admit and accept my humility.
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Moonbeam

OK, O'nus. I gave you a couple examples off the top of my head of how information could be added to the genome. I really haven't looked into this any further; if I find other examples, I'll let you know.

---

Right, you did. After re-reading it, I realized that I unintentionally ignored them. I thought I read them but I obviously did not. My apologies.

Quote:

---

DNA isn't protein; it's DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid).

---

I am not saying that it is, but that is the only conceivable medium I can think of that could be relevant to the question.

Quote:

---

Replication is the process by which DNA copies itself. Transcription is the process by which the code of DNA is transmitted to RNA. Translation is the process by which a protein is made from the code thru the RNA. Central Dogma: DNA makes RNA makes protein. Does that sound familiar?

Mutations occur, changing the information in the DNA. There are many possible errors in transcription. There are enzymes which fix the errors, but aren't alway successful. Genes may be duplicated; they may be moved around the genome; and viruses may be inserted into the genome. Whole chromosomes are sometimes added or lost or broken and put back together wrong. Bacteria pick up free DNA in the environment and add it to their own. There most likely are other processes which may contribute to changing or adding to the information, which don't happen to occur to me at the moment. All of these things from mutation onward have the potential to change the resulting proteins made from the original DNA.

I'm not sure what you are asking anymore. You don't seem to know what you are talking about.

No offense intended.

---

I understand your frustration. You had well explained posts. I did not want to seem that completely ignorant to genetics but I simultaneously was ignorant to what you said.

Thanks for the enlightenment.
~

It is a fascinating subject. I was hoping your professor would have something to say about it. Let me know if you ever get an answer.

Yeah, basically as Moonbeam says, you don't seem to understand much about DNA, which would explain why you don't understand anything I'm saying to you.

Go read about it before telling me I'm wrong. Your latest response to me just made no sense at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, basically as Moonbeam says, you don't seem to understand much about DNA, which would explain why you don't understand anything I'm saying to you.

Go read about it before telling me I'm wrong. Your latest response to me just made no sense at all.

---

Instead of making pretentious statements to try and beat my humility as far as possible, consider what I was saying and read it. You obviously lack the ability to decipher my intentional questioning and wreak in pretentiousness. I have been in several genetic classes.

As I said before, comments like this hold no substance at all. Trying to exploit my ignorance while pretentiously holding that you harbor more knowledge than all of us yet harboring it only makes you appear judgmental.

From what you said, even if replication occurs, it somehow means "it became larger". I said that just because it replicates does not mean that the genome is larger. Then you try to exploit my ignorance.

Why don't you go study up the information and give me substantial response instead of trying a straw-man technique?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

We are obviously descended from single-celled organisms, for example, and these organisms obviously have much simpler code.

The process of mutating the bases in the genetic code only changes what proteins are created, it does not create any more. The code is no more complex.

So how is more information added? I believe in evolution but I have no idea what the answer to the question is, and Dawkins certainly didn't answer it, unless they cut a different answer onto the end of the video.

---

Note; you do not actually explain anything here. You're just implying.

Quote:

---

No... his response had nothing to do with the question, although as I said it could well have been edited like that. I looked into this further and he answered this very question extensively years ago in one of his books, so it's not as if he doesn't know the answer

---

Right, it was edited. However, I was trying to also point out that many people have shown how this question is folly and cannot even be answered properly.

Quote:

---

That's wrong. There is more DNA, more genetic code. You had less, now you have more, so by definition the code has been added to. It's longer.

---

Note; you again say nothing of substance. No support or explanation.

Quote:

---

...so? That's a trivial detail, it's just how the mechanism of how the genome is added to. Whether there is even a difference between 'adding' and 'replicating and changing' in the first place, that is. By your definition of 'adding to the code', a group of new bases would have to appear out of nowhere and physically wedge themselves into the DNA... and that's never going to happen.

---

This made me think we are both arguing the samething and just misunderstanding something considering I am saying that it obviously comes from somewhere.

Quote:

---

Basically, regardless of the mechanism, the code is definitely being added to. It codes for a greater number of amino acids so it has therefore been added to.

---

This comes close to trying to explain something. The action it takes and what it does does not explain how or why it "has information added". Thus, you have yet again deviated and said nothing relevant. I think you are trying to say that it has changed and has grown bigger, which is what I am saying, but I was asking why and how.

Quote:

---

Well I've tried the best I can to show you why that's wrong... what more can I say?

---

Considering thusfar, you have actually said very little.

Quote:

---

Yeah, basically as Moonbeam says, you don't seem to understand much about DNA, which would explain why you don't understand anything I'm saying to you.
Go read about it before telling me I'm wrong. Your latest response to me just made no sense at all.

---

I think we covered this one.

After re-reading, I think we are basically arguing the samething just miscommunicated. I am saying that the genome obviously gets larger but not by magically "adding" from nowhere. I thought that's what you were implying and now I think that is the case thay you thought vice-versa...?

What do you think..?

(Note; I've never had such a frustrating thread, lol... I bet that, if this conversation were in person, it would not have gotten so discombobulated.)
~

As far as I can tell all of my points have been very consise and relevant to the point I was discussing...

I thought you were arguing that new information cannot be added to the genome as time progresses. This is clearly wrong (considering the origins of life compared to complex organisms around nowadays).

If you actually accept that and were merely saying that the addition of new bases comes about as a random product of the duplication of DNA then I guess you don't disagree with me. Clearly there is a process by which new code is added to the DNA.

I wouldn't say the question is meaningless though, as far as I can tell it's pretty lucid, and I also think that it is not true that nobody has answered the question, as I hear that Dawkins himself responded with some processes by which new information is added in one of his books, as I stated earlier.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xei

As far as I can tell all of my points have been very consise and relevant to the point I was discussing...

I thought you were arguing that new information cannot be added to the genome as time progresses. This is clearly wrong (considering the origins of life compared to complex organisms around nowadays).

If you actually accept that and were merely saying that the addition of new bases comes about as a random product of the duplication of DNA then I guess you don't disagree with me. Clearly there is a process by which new code is added to the DNA.

I wouldn't say the question is meaningless though, as far as I can tell it's pretty lucid, and I also think that it is not true that nobody has answered the question, as I hear that Dawkins himself responded with some processes by which new information is added in one of his books, as I stated earlier.

---

As I said, it did not seem to me like you were making substantial contributions. However, I can see why as it may have seem to not need much elaboration.

On the other hand, I just wanted to note that I meant the question is very difficult to narrow down to evolution and can be an arguement of semantics; ie. replication being addition.

Either way, have you the response he gave...?
~