Video debates and Interviews

[betsy]

Let's start with this video.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

The question was so simple. It's right up his alley.

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

[GostHacked]

Science does not have all the answers yet. And we've only begun to understand genomes.

But like my reply in the other thread. .. this to you means God did it. Yet again, we've seen you create another thread when you've been beat in another, just to try and get some sense of victory.

It is to laugh.

[ToadBrother]

Let's start with this video.

http://www.tccsa.tc/articles/dawkins_pause.html

The question was so simple. It's right up his alley.

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

It's a nonsense question.

If we have the sentence "Dogs like onions." and then I change it to "Toads like onions.", have I added more information? What if I change the sentence to "Toads like onionns.", is there more information then?

There's this whole field of study called information theory. Some day, if you ever decide not to wallow in self-imposed ignorance, you might want to look it up.

Edited April 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

[betsy]

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

He got stumped.

Yes, it is the kind of question that only a creationist would ask. Evolutionists will try very hard to avoid asking it and would rather speak in glowing generalities. But does that mean that it is not important? On the contrary, it proves that it is a question that must be answered by evolutionists. And Dawkins agrees.

He later wrote a treatise explaining that mutations actually decrease information while natural selection increases it. Since this is not an intuitively obvious concept, it may have been that he did not think the company assembled for the interview were capable of following such esoteric cerebration (or perhaps he was not sure he could keep a straight face while saying it on camera.)

The way it works is this. Information can be defined as whatever decreases choices. For example, you hear that a friend has had a baby, but do not know the gender. When you hear, "It's a girl," you no longer have two choices to consider and thus have received information. Mutations, by offering more choices, decrease information. There is the old gene and the new gene, two choices. But when the one is selected, we are back down to one choice -- therefore information has been added.

Aside from the fact that, in this example, we only get back to the same amount of "information" we started with (one gene), there seems to be something wrong with the definition. It is not capable of producing the kind of information needed to go from no genes in the pre-biotic soup, through the supposedly few genes of the simplest living thing, to the billions of genes in the present biosphere.

It also seems that something devious has been done to the definition of information. It is similar to the statement that ABCABCABCABCABC has less information than CAABABCCBABCBAC, because it takes more information to describe it. In the former, it can be stated as "ABC x5" but in the latter, each position must be described. This is true, but not helpful for evolution, because that rather random sequence of letters, unless it is code, is not useful information. In other words, you don't write the Encyclopedia Britannica that way.

After viewing the video and reading interactions about the controversy, I wrote Dr. Dawkins and was astounded to get a rapid reply. But because the reply did not answer the most important question, I wrote again, after which there has been a more than two year pause. Thus it appears that there will be no more responses.

Perhaps the long interval between the events and Dr. Dawkins' attempted recollection of them has something to do with the discrepancies. Regardless, the original question still remains unanswered, for nowhere does he give a sensible answer to the question, "Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

He cannot answer. He has no answer!

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

"Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"

He got stumped.

He cannot answer. He has no answer!

There is no appropriate answer because it's a BS question.

Tell me, Betsy, is gene duplication adding information? That's observed plenty in nature.

Once again you, or rather, the morons you're using as sources, are utterly ignorant of reality.

[betsy]

In 2006, Dawkins explains why he doesn't want to debate creationists.

[betsy]

Yet in Feb 2010, he went after Creationist Wendy Wright. Oh yeah, he called it an "interview," the liar.

He must've thought she's just a blonde bimbo. Well guess who got flustered first!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

Yet in Feb 2010, he went after Creationist Wendy Wright. Oh yeah, he called it an "interview," the liar.

He must've thought she's just a blonde bimbo. Well guess who got flustered first!

http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=dawkins+VS+wendy+wright&aq=f

You're not answering my question Betsy. Is gene duplication adding information? What exactly do you constitute as information in reference to a genome? Do you even know what information means in that sort of context?

[ToadBrother]

And to give Betsy something to ponder:

It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)

* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)

* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)

* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)

If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

In other words, Betsy's cribbed information claim has been debunked.

[betsy]

It's a nonsense question.

If we have the sentence "Dogs like onions." and then I change it to "Toads like onions.", have I added more information? What if I change the sentence to "Toads like onionns.", is there more information then?

Are those the choices????

Why couldn't you just simplify your example by saying:

"If I talked about directions and say "right", then the choices had decreased to "left", "forward" and "backward."

You no longer have 4 choices to consider. It's been reduced to 3...thus have received information.

Anyway, here's their simplified explanation.

The way it works is this. Information can be defined as whatever decreases choices. For example, you hear that a friend has had a baby, but do not know the gender. When you hear, "It's a girl," you no longer have two choices to consider and thus have received information. Mutations, by offering more choices, decrease information. There is the old gene and the new gene, two choices. But when the one is selected, we are back down to one choice -- therefore information has been added.

Aside from the fact that, in this example, we only get back to the same amount of "information" we started with (one gene), there seems to be something wrong with the definition. It is not capable of producing the kind of information needed to go from no genes in the pre-biotic soup, through the supposedly few genes of the simplest living thing, to the billions of genes in the present biosphere.

It also seems that something devious has been done to the definition of information. It is similar to the statement that ABCABCABCABCABC has less information than CAABABCCBABCBAC, because it takes more information to describe it. In the former, it can be stated as "ABC x5" but in the latter, each position must be described. This is true, but not helpful for evolution, because that rather random sequence of letters, unless it is code, is not useful information. In other words, you don't write the Encyclopedia Britannica that way.

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[betsy]

You're not answering my question Betsy. Is gene duplication adding information? What exactly do you constitute as information in reference to a genome? Do you even know what information means in that sort of context?

Why ask me? I'm not a scientist. Ask your man Dawkins! He's the one who got stumped.

He should've ran to TalkOrigins - like you did - to get his evolution-apologetic answer!

See, you're smarter than him.

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[M.Dancer]

I have to say I entered this thread thinking it was something to do with politics, not the vain pursuit of trying to prove a myth.

I will say though, if the God of the bible exists, he should have his divine ass hauled in front of a judge on charges of murder, extortion and crimes against humanity; and once convicted, executed to atone for his ineffable sins.

[betsy]

And to give Betsy something to ponder:

From http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

In other words, Betsy's cribbed information claim has been debunked.

My point is not whether the claim is accurate or not. It's your man Dawkins, getting stumped. That's the point.

Obviously it's not a "BS" question at all - as you claimed in your knee-jerk attempt to save your man - after all, there is a ready defense from TalkOrigin, right? They offered an answer. As to whether what they say is a "BS" answer is another question.

If Dawkins couldn't explain it in words....he could've written it in his letter.

He should've done a cut-and-paste from TalkOrigin.

Anyway, that question was asked because of what he asserted.

In his statement (G, J) Dawkins candidly admitted that evolution had to explain the information in living things and he claimed that mutations, aided by natural selection, created all the information. These very pro-evolution statements are on the video, just as Dawkins had wanted. After these confident assertions, Gillian Brown, from her position behind the camera, slipped in the question asking for an actual example of an evolutionary process that can be observed to increase the information in the genome (K). It would have been churlish of Dawkins not to try to answer this, in the light of the confident spiel he had just given.http://creation.com/was-dawkins-stumped-frog-to-a-prince-critics-refuted-again#timeline

In other words, he was full of air and he got caught with his pants down.

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[GostHacked]

My point is not whether the claim is accurate or not. It's your man Dawkins, getting stumped. That's the point.

Where Dawkins can't fill in the blanks. Plenty of other scientists in plenty of other fields can.

You fail again.

[betsy]

I have to say I entered this thread thinking it was something to do with politics, not the vain pursuit of trying to prove a myth.

Of course this touches the politics! Very much so!

What do you think these debates and interviews are for? Just to hear and see themselves talk? It's campaigning!

Doesn't Dawkins and the New Atheism have an agenda - or platform" - to push?

This "political scene" even have its own version of flip-floppers, distortioners and liars - like Dawkins, fitting all that's mentioned characteristics of a sleazy politician!

All sides even have their own "war rooms!"

We're pundits - the featherweights - in this scenario.

But yes I understand your annoyance and what you mean by "not the vain pursuit of trying to prove a myth."

I agree, this is not the thread to get into the nitty-gritty of the myth of the Frog Prince.

I will say though, if the God of the bible exists, he should have his divine ass hauled in front of a judge on charges of murder, extortion and crimes against humanity; and once convicted, executed to atone for his ineffable sins.

And this part doesn't belong here too.

Edited April 6, 2011 by betsy

[ToadBrother]

My point is not whether the claim is accurate or not. It's your man Dawkins, getting stumped. That's the point.

He's not "my man", and I'm sure Dawkins was quite well aware of these studies and mutation events like gene duplication. He's a bloody zoologist, after all.

Obviously it's ]not a "BS" question at all - as you claimed in your knee-jerk attempt to save your man - after all, there is a ready defense from TalkOrigin, right? They offered an answer. As to whether what they say is a "BS" answer is another question.

I have no idea what Dawkins is doing or not doing on any of these points. Since I don't accept your notion that Dawkins is my man (whatever that means), everything you've written is rubbish. The information claim is bullcrap, and you're still just as ignorant today as you were yesterday.

If Dawkins couldn't explain it in words....he could've written it in his letter.

He should've done a cut-and-paste from TalkOrigin.

Anyway, that question was asked because of what he asserted.

In other words, he was full of air and he got caught with his pants down.

It's irrelevant. If there is such a thing as information in the genome, then information is added, altered and deleted all the time.

[M.Dancer]

I agree, this is not the thread to get into the nitty-gritty of the myth of the Frog Prince.

Sure it is. All myths are fair game. Even the Jewish Zombie who rises from the dead and storm gods who murder children in their bed...

[ToadBrother]

Sure it is. All myths are fair game. Even the Jewish Zombie who rises from the dead and storm gods who murder children in their bed...

What I find really funny about this thread is that in a few days Betsy will return and declare "There's no evidence for evolution."

[bloodyminded]

What I find really funny about this thread is that in a few days Betsy will return and declare "There's no evidence for evolution."

You Dawkins-worshippers would say that, wouldn't you?

[ToadBrother]

You Dawkins-worshippers would say that, wouldn't you?

I never understand why she throws that at me. In all my time here I've been critical of Dawkins and Hitchens anti-religious statements, which I generally find fairly infantile. Like I said, if Betsy wants to attack anybody she should be attacking guys like Ernst Mayr, the real major theorists on evolutionary biology. But guys like that didn't tend to go in for the whole "debate the Creationists" schtick, being very much more theorists and researchers than populizers.

I don't have a problem with populizars, per se. Guys like Sagan, Hawking and, yes, even Dawkins are quite adept at explaining sometimes difficult concepts in relatively easy language, and at least in the case of Hawking he made some major contributions to cosmology and physics. But it just seems pointless to attack them over debates or their laymen's literature. It's largely understood that these are very simplified retellings of research and theory, and not in and of themselves meant to be proscriptive statements.

As to debates, well, as we know from politics, being a good debater doesn't mean a helluva lot at the end of the day. There are a lot of bright guys out there who just melt in the spotlight, and Dawkins has done that on occasion himself. Hitchens is, to my mind, a much stronger debater, but it's still just an hour or two pissing contest, and debates lend themselves to all kinds of clever ploys that don't really convey the strength of an argument, but marely the strength of the interlocutor's debating skills.

Beyond that, I don't really give a damn whether Dawkins buggered up on the whole Creationist information claim nonsense. The claim itself is patently absurd, in large part because Creationists don't really know what they mean by "information", or at least don't make it very clear. As I've cited and made example of, by any reasonable definition of "information", mutations alter in a number of ways the "information" in a genome.

Edited April 6, 2011 by ToadBrother

[GostHacked]

You Dawkins-worshippers would say that, wouldn't you?

Her fascination with Dawkins is mind boggling. There are many other scientists we can talk about that really get into the nitty gritty of the evolutionary process. But she is stuck on just a few misquoted (and quotes taken out of context) from just ONE man.

But most of us do not worship Dawkins, and most of us don't put him on any kind of religious pedestal. The faith followers want to do that, because that is how they can relate in some way to the scientist(s) they have issue with.

[bloodyminded]

Her fascination with Dawkins is mind boggling. There are many other scientists we can talk about that really get into the nitty gritty of the evolutionary process. But she is stuck on just a few misquoted (and quotes taken out of context) from just ONE man.

But most of us do not worship Dawkins, and most of us don't put him on any kind of religious pedestal. The faith followers want to do that, because that is how they can relate in some way to the scientist(s) they have issue with.

I guess so...the worship theme makes them more relatable, more understandable, maybe.

[ToadBrother]

Her fascination with Dawkins is mind boggling. There are many other scientists we can talk about that really get into the nitty gritty of the evolutionary process. But she is stuck on just a few misquoted (and quotes taken out of context) from just ONE man.

But most of us do not worship Dawkins, and most of us don't put him on any kind of religious pedestal. The faith followers want to do that, because that is how they can relate in some way to the scientist(s) they have issue with.

I think she's under the severe delusion that if somehow Dawkins is taken out or compromised that evolutionary theory falls away.

But then again, Betsy operates under a lot of severe delusions.

[GostHacked]

I think she's under the severe delusion that if somehow Dawkins is taken out or compromised that evolutionary theory falls away.

But then again, Betsy operates under a lot of severe delusions.

The delusion is all hers. But without addressing the many other scientists who have been working in these fields (and some for much longer than I've been alive) who by their findings keep piling on the evidence for evolution has done her a great disservice to her than anything else. It's the typical "GOTCHA" hit and run 'science can't explain it therefore god did it' . This is about as ireducibly complex as it gets!

[betsy]

What I find really funny about this thread is that in a few days Betsy will return and declare "There's no evidence for evolution."

What do you mean "in a few days?" Haven't you noticed? I've been saying it all the time!

All the discussions I'm involved with in Religion - my arguments/rebuttals, not to mention the topics I've started point to the fact that there's no evidence for evolution!