Thread: Richard Dawkins: Could Someone Explain..

Could someone explain why this is apparently the fabulous 'stumping of Richard Dawkins'?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

He responds by pointing out the mis-interpretation of evolution and the question including this misinterpretation. Why do people just focus on his hesitation and then not listen to the rest..? Is there someone out there that can point to something that I am missing?

I am not asking to debate the content within, but merely how/why this is interpreted as a 'stumping'?
~

Well, I don't have much knowledge on evolution or creationism, and don't really care about this topic but after watching the clip I just thought...he didn't answer the originally asked question, did he?

Originally Posted by Merlock

Well, I don't have much knowledge on evolution or creationism, and don't really care about this topic but after watching the clip I just thought...he didn't answer the originally asked question, did he?

As I understood - he thoroughly answered it. He was explaining how the question used a misinterpretation of evolution as a question. There is no way to answer the question because it is just as good as me asking, "Can you give me an example of how or when a stamp can do the cha cha?" or, as a more appropriate question, "If God can do anything, can he create a rock he cannot lift?" - it's a poorly formed question, sophomoric, and does not contain the right understanding of the subject.

What he followed to say is that there is no case of "adding information" to the genome. Thus, the question cannot be answered. He then tried to explain why we think this; by looking at current animals and thinking we magically added information to 'evolve'. That, right there, is the severe misunderstanding of evolution. The genome never 'adds' information to evolve.
~

So the answer implies that we don't know how evolution works scientifically?

But aside from all that, the hesitation is hardly something to take into account at all.
It's the same as for presidents and other publically renowned political figures, for example. They have to think every word they say over carefully because saying something wrong could cause a ripple effect that would send the masses wild thanks to mass media's efficiency nowadays. Same here, I guess. I imagine the man in the interview is some evolution expert or such? So if he were to say something wrong, the effect would be likewise, thus the need to thoroughly think before answering, not necessarily thinking of an example for the original question or any such.

Originally Posted by Merlock

So the answer implies that we don't know how evolution works scientifically?

No, we know - he is trying to explain what it actually is as compared to the misinterpretation. He is essentially explaining natural selection as compared to the magical evolution that people tend to think. (ie. an ape goes, "oh, time to have a child that can walk and pick up things")

But aside from all that, the hesitation is hardly something to take into account at all.
It's the same as for presidents and other publically renowned political figures, for example. They have to think every word they say over carefully because saying something wrong could cause a ripple effect that would send the masses wild thanks to mass media's efficiency nowadays. Same here, I guess. I imagine the man in the interview is some evolution expert or such? So if he were to say something wrong, the effect would be likewise, thus the need to thoroughly think before answering, not necessarily thinking of an example for the original question or any such.

Yes, Richard Dawkins is a renown evolutionist/atheist and makes an effort to show how Christianity is a detriment to human life. He does not say things like, "They suck" but shows how evangelism, for example, is remarkably similar to the Nuremburg presentations.
~

Ah, right, right, of course. Natural selection is the theory of evolution.
I wonder how much the name actually attributes to the misunderstanding. Why not just use "natural selection" instead of "evolution" all together. *shrug*

Originally Posted by O'nus

As I understood - he thoroughly answered it. He was explaining how the question used a misinterpretation of evolution as a question.

Actually I don't think he answered it at all.

The question is, if I understand correctly, 'by what process is information added to the genetic code'?

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.

Originally Posted by Xei

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.

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.

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.
~

Originally Posted by Xei

Actually I don't think he answered it at all.

The question is, if I understand correctly, 'by what process is information added to the genetic code'?

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.

I was under the impression that he answered it thoroughly - there is no instance of adding information to the genome and to ask such a thing is a misinterpretation of evolution. He then tries to explain why someone would think such a thing. Consider this and listen to his response again - let me know what you think..?
~

Originally Posted by O'nus

I was under the impression that he answered it thoroughly - there is no instance of adding information to the genome and to ask such a thing is a misinterpretation of evolution. He then tries to explain why someone would think such a thing. Consider this and listen to his response again - let me know what you think..?
~

Did you not consider what I said to be an example of adding information?