Thread: Richard Dawkins: Could Someone Explain..

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.

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?
~

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.

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.

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.

...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.

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.

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.

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.

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...?
~