Richard Dawkins: Could Someone Explain..

[O'nus]

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'? ~

[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?

[O'nus]

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. ~

[Merlock]

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.

[O'nus]

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. ~

[Merlock]

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*

[O'nus]

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* Good point, I think the word can me misleading. However, it only takes a little bit of reading to cure that naivity. Evolution explains in the process in greater detail and further than simply humans. Anyway, they are often expressed synonymously a lot. ~

[Howie]

Creationists had phrased a question that would take pondering over. In all probability, had he came right out with any answer, they would have rebutted that in some way as well. ~ As I see it The point being, whether it be a politician slinging mud, a civil rights activist, or any one out to make 'their' point, they will ask the same question in a like manner as many different ways as it takes. Then do so until they can extract anything that will discredit their adversary in any way shape or form, to what ever degree. It is in itself an aspect of survival, how ironic. The good point that you bring up, Natural selection does not revolve just around us. As we humans usually do, we see everything to do with me, I, myself, you, etc. In context to all the other species, maybe evolution could be seen in a more clean perspective. Not putting our ego in place of the missing link. Damn it Lucy.

[Moonbeam]

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* Natural selection is Darwin's and the currently accepted theory of the mechanism of evolution, which is change over time. There are, or should I saw were, pther theories. As it is obvious that plants and animals in many cases form a continuum or can be arranged in related groups, there were different ways of explaining this. One example is the Lamarckian theory; a man named Lamarck (forgot his first name) theorized that animals passed on acquired characteristiscs; the usual example is that giraffes stretched their necks to reach the tops of trees, and passed on longer necks to their offspring. Actually, the Soviet Union went with the Lamarckian theory, and tried to and failed to breed superior kinds of wheat using it, resulting in famines. Remember when Darwin proposed evolution by natural selection, genetics was not understood, so the Lamarckian theory is not as ridiculous as it seems to us now. I don't think Darwin knew about the work of Mendel (the pea-plant monk), so he didn't have a mechanism other than it was obvious that offspring resembled their parents, and so were passing down traits. I guess they expect Richard Dawkins to be instantly responsive to every inane question without taking a moment to think. Stumped, my ass.

[Xei]

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.

[Moonbeam]

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.

[O'nus]

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..? ~

[Moonbeam]

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?

[Stupified]

I saw a show on epigenetics(maybe NOVA). They studied identical twins and found the inviorment changed some of thier traits by turning genes on or off. They also showed that enviormental and behavioral factors can be passed through two or more generations even after the stimulus or behavior is long gone!

[Xei]

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. Okay, thank you. I haven't started to learn about the technicalities of DNA mutations yet; that seems to answer it just fine. 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..? 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. You'd be misinterpreting evolution if you think that information isn't added to the genome. Of course the DNA molecule has become more complex over time, just think of prokaryotes.

[O'nus]

Okay, thank you. I haven't started to learn about the technicalities of DNA mutations yet; that seems to answer it just fine. 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. You'd be misinterpreting evolution if you think that information isn't added to the genome. Of course the DNA molecule has become more complex over time, just think of prokaryotes. I would say that the word "adding" is misleading as it naturally changes over time. However, I am not a genetics expert, so I could be wrong and have no specific source I am using for this.. ~

[O'nus]

Did you not consider what I said to be an example of adding information? Yeah, I agree. However, I may not label it "addition" more or less replication or simply changing over time. What do you think..? ~

[Moonbeam]

Well, that was the only example I could think of. It is kind of like adding, because the original gene is maintained and the copies are free to evolve. Maybe there are other examples; I'll have to try to find some. Oh, I thought of one--viruses. Viruses, when they infect a cell, insert their genome into the host's. I think there are theories about viruses and their effects on evolution; it's been a while since I read about that and I can't remember the details. I think there are remnants of viral material in higher organisms' DNA. There is a theory that transposons, which move genetic material around the genome, may be the ancestors of viruses. They had to have evolved after more complex organisms did, since they cannot live without them. If you limit it to bacteria, they are capable of picking up free genetic material in the environment. That's how they can sometimes pick up genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, and other things. So that is pretty obviously adding information. I'm sure with a little reading we could find more (and probably better) examples. I'll look. I don't know if epigenetics is a good example, because that is really just different expression or repression of genes that are there, and just used or not used, at different times, depending on environment, etc.

[O'nus]

Well, that was the only example I could think of. It is kind of like adding, because the original gene is maintained and the copies are free to evolve. Maybe there are other examples; I'll have to try to find some. Oh, I thought of one--viruses. Viruses, when they infect a cell, insert their genome into the host's. I think there are theories about viruses and their effects on evolution; it's been a while since I read about that and I can't remember the details. I think there are remnants of viral material in higher organisms' DNA. There is a theory that transposons, which move genetic material around the genome, may be the ancestors of viruses. They had to have evolved after more complex organisms did, since they cannot live without them. If you limit it to bacteria, they are capable of picking up free genetic material in the environment. That's how they can sometimes pick up genes for resistance to certain antibiotics, and other things. So that is pretty obviously adding information. I'm sure with a little reading we could find more (and probably better) examples. I'll look. I don't know if epigenetics is a good example, because that is really just different expression or repression of genes that are there, and just used or not used, at different times, depending on environment, etc. Yeah, I think you have good grounds for investigation. I am really not well versed in genetics enough to make concrete claims. So, I'll ask my professor the same question that was asked in this video and let you know what comes out. Still, I do not think this video is detrimental to Dawkins' credibility which it apparently is according to creationists..? Here's another video: Dawkins is asked "What if you're wrong?": http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mmskXXetcg - Theists claim that he does not answer the question but I would say he did. I think theists just want to hear him say, "Well then I am screwed" whereas he, like myself, have next-to-no confidence in the existance of the Christian God. It's worrying about it just as much as the flying spaghetti monster. What do you think..? ~

[Moonbeam]

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html I found that, re adding information; they make a good point about the definition of "information". I was assuming that they weren't counting random mutation, but why not? And that last video....how can anybody say he didn't answer the question? He gave the best possible answer. That's why it's pointless debating with creationists--their brains are incapable of logic; that's their whole problem in the first place, so why would we think that anything logical that is told to them would change their minds? Except for the rare one who just hadn't really thought about it before, and it starts to actually make sense.

[♥Mark]

What do you think..? ~ I'd say old Dick Dawk' handled it just fine with a completely valid response. It was just rhetoric anyway.

[O'nus]

I'd say old Dick Dawk' .... LOL - I love it. ~

[Xei]

Yeah, I agree. However, I may not label it "addition" more or less replication or simply changing over time. What do you think..? 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.

[Adrenaline Junkie]

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.

[O'nus]

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. It becomes longer by replicating, not adding. ~