Has Dawkins lost credibility?

[Ron_Tomkins]

I was looking for different videos of Richard Dawkins and I stumbled upon this one. If you haven't seen it, you really should:

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


And then I read this:

http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3867




What are your opinions on this? How does this affect Dawkins' credibility?

[JoeEllison]

This stupid thing again?

[Dr. Imago]

But, I loved this post in the comments under the video...

Even kids understand that their Christmas/birthday gifts did not materialise out of thin air, but were PLACED THERE BY SOMEONE, though they did not see them.

We all know that the existence of every Tangible Product can be traced to a Responsible Maker/Agent. (Eg, buildings, cars, ships, roads, computers, crime, whatever).

The hypocrisy of atheists is the belief in the above principle, but the blatant denial of the same principle where earth/humans are concerned.

WOW! What insight! What a revelation! How can anyone argue against such watertight reasoning?

-Dr. Imago

[Ron_Tomkins]

Oooook?

Maybe we could try dealing with the question raised in the topic so that you guys don't start loosing credibility also? :D

[ravdin]

So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?

[cafink]

http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file007.html

[Ron_Tomkins]

So let me see if I have this right:

1. Dawkins is asked a "simple" question pertaining to evolutionary biology.
2. He takes a minute to consider his answer.
3. Because he paused before giving an answer, Dawkins has no credibility.
4. Since Dawkins no longer has any credibility, neither does the theory of evolution through natural selection.

Do I have that more or less right?



I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

[ravdin]

I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.

[Ron_Tomkins]

I invite you to review the links above your last post and decide for yourself if his rebuttal is sufficient.



I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."

[Puppycow]

I'm no expert, but I'm given the impression that he never did answer the question.

Did he?

Yes. cafink linked to the answer:
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm

[cyborg]

Dawkins was dumbfounded by the stupid canard of "information adding".

It's a stupid question that doesn't even understand what it asks.

Loss of credibility? Not from Dawkins' end that's for damn sure.

[sol invictus]

The question he was asked didn't make much sense. How do you define "the information in the genome"?

I can think of a few (not necessarily very good) ways, and with those definitions some mutations will increase the information, and some will decrease it.

So?

[dsmith]

This stupid thing again?

Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

[Dr. Imago]

t would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

In the words of Dale Carnegie, "No one kicks a dead dog."

-Dr. Imago

[articulett]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?

[fuelair]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty. Dawkins addresses this and other canards at his AA speech available at his sight for download. Eugenie Scott is great too. When the fact aren't on your side, what have you got except misinformation, spin, obfuscation, and sycophants lying for Jesus?

Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:

[articulett]

Just out of curious - aside from the sad incompetents who actually believe their spews - when did the IDers ever have any credibility?:confused:

Although it does exist primarily in their minds... like their intelligent designer... I think that the uninformed masses may assume credibility or controversy where none exists.

That whole "adding info." canard is such an idiocy. Humans have much smaller genomes than amphibians and even rice. What the hell does "add info." mean? genes? regulation? function? DNA? Do they think "more" is better??... the question itself shows such cluelessness while inferring something dishonest-- which is the whole technique of this smarmy group. And once they think they have a good question... a million of them repeat it as though they came up with it themselves-- and a biologists thinks-- "crap, one of these bozos again"--

Creationists are always so incurious as to new developments in science and so impervious to the answers to the questions they ask-- much less why the question is wrong and gives their intent away.

[m_huber]

Oh, look at the truth! They must be right! They have their own video gallery!

answersingenesis .com / video / ondemand

[EatatJoes]

OK, I do believe that Dawkins addressed this issue on Penn Radio at least a year ago. He knew that the question was loaded and was taken completely off guard by it. He paused because he wasn't sure how to proceed. I do believe he stated that when the question was asked he was no longer interested in the discussion because the whole basis of the interview was a deception. He knew that he was dealing w/ fundies and no longer wanted to engage them. I think this link (http://www.pennfans.net/view/Audio_Archive/PennRadio/Penn.Jillette.Radio.Show.2006.10.25/) will direct you to an mp3 of that show.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Unfortunately, yes. There's a lot of views for this video.
Ron, Read the God Delusion. It would take more than this to trip Mr. Dawkins up.

The God Delusion is about atheism. The "stumped Dawkins" myth is from the area of Creationism and evolution. A better suggestion would be Ancestors Tale, River out of Eden or any of his other books dealing with biology.

[Complexity]

No.

[Acleron]

Dawkins explained this episode in The Devil's Chaplain. He had been asked to give an interview on Evolution. At this point in the interview he realised that the film crew were creationist/IDs. The reason for the pause was that he was considering terminating the interview. They eventually persuaded him to continue when he answered the very complex question on development of information.

The Creationist/ID's case is so weak they have to resort to these cheap tricks.

Because of this and other situations, Dawkins decided to avoid debating with these people and constructed a memorandum with Stephen Gould explaining why, unfortunately Gould died before he could sign it.

[T'ai Chi]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

[Hawk one]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.
Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?

[Acleron]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

One of the reasons for not publicly debating them is that a cool considered reply to a difficult question scores less than a quick sound bite. The general public is more likely to respond to a charismatic speaker than the cold facts.

I see that Dawkins is quite prepared to take on religious figures such as John Lennox. The concepts are easier to put across. The interview with Lennox also shows the difficulties that can be found from the format of these events.

Hawk One's comment is also true, why give them the publicity.

Stephen Novella is one of the most articulate skeptics I'm aware of but even he says such discussion often comes down to who has the better rhetoric.

[fls]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I suspect that the world-renowned Darwinist would relish debate.

I think the point is that 'debate' is not a reasonable descriptor for the aforementioned activities.

Linda

[UnrepentantSinner]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

[Acleron]

Why in front of a live audience? How about a written debate? As Acleron noted, it's too easy for C/IDers to spout soundbites that require lengthy scientific explanations in a live venue. A written exchange would require them to substantiate their claims, not just parrot them.

There are plenty of examples of this, see ERV (http://endogenousretrovirus.blogspot.com/).

The debate always seems to follow this scenario.

ID/Creationist makes silly scientific style comment.
Scientist corrects it.
ID/Creationist makes silly gratuitous insults, calls the scientist unscientific and close minded.

BTW, the ID/Creationist always responds on his own website so the deconstruction of his idiocy is not seen by his own followers.

Any debate can only succeed when both sides are constrained to follow rules of logic and truth, when this happened in the Dover trial, the ID/Creationists lost.

The Skepticality podcast labelled 'Flock of Dodos' has a good discussion with Randy Olsen on this topic.

[Mashuna]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

I thought you were an advocate for 'proper scientific methods', T'ai. I mean, isn't that usually your criticism of the $1m challenge, that it doesn't follow proper scientific channels? Why would you expect a debate in front of a live audience to be a more useful method?

[This Guy]

I've revised the links and I have to say I agree

This part makes it especially clearer:

"…Then the documentary shows a question put to the highly fluent evolutionist Dawkins, which is really the crucial question: can he point to any example today in which a mutation has actually added information? (If there is such an example, surely an Oxford zoology professor, promoting neoDarwinism around the world, would know of it!) This is actually the dramatic high point of the whole presentation."

Problem is that your side (I assume you back the views of these charlatans) have to cheat and distort the facts. You should try to look at the issue from multiple angles.

Of course, if your comfortable without considering all the facts, that's cool too, just don't expect us to join you there :)

[T'ai Chi]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

[Acleron]

One of the problems is the breadth of knowledge required. In a live debate id/creationist could easily ambush you on some obscure piece of biology e.g. a particular sequence in DNA and leaving you look foolish when you have to admit your ignorance. Whereas scientists spend most of their time trying to get the science right, id/creationists spend their time practising debating points like this.

When debating specific points, they will always lose if the TofE is correct. ERV regularly excoriates Behe whenever he ventures on to her turf.

[hgc]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.


Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats. Makes you wonder if there isn't something fishy about this whole Darwinism enterprise afterall.

:crazy:

[Lonewulf]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

[CFLarsen]

A world-reknown Darwinist avoiding debating? Is that really the answer?

Why not just debate and blow them away with your science? Perferably in front of a live audience.

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

[This Guy]

Science is done by public spectacle?

I thought you didn't think science was done this way?



Yet, you have no problems with how the Creationists behaved.

Obviously it's OK for creationist/ID'ers to mislead, lie and tell half truths. We should still respect them, and welcome them to the debate table.

After all, debating them wouldn't add any credibility to their stance would it?

And just because they have to mislead and take things out of context to be convincing, that doesn't mean their arguments can't stand on their own merit!
:rolleyes:

I know if I ran across a sales person that used the same tactics these folks use I'd not buy anything they were selling.

I guess some people have different standards for honesty and truthfulness.:con2:

[T'ai Chi]

Yeah. Dawkins doesn't like being ambushed by asshats.

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').

[sol invictus]

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

[hgc]

Well he's so brilliant, I'm sure he could put them in their place, even the ones he invited into his house (ie. what you call 'ambushed').


Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be? Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is. If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism," then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.

As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home. Then they sprang their trap in the form of woo gibberish about information gained from mutations.

[T'ai Chi]

Are you, in your faux folksy sarcastic manner, trying to imply that Dawkins is not as "brilliant" as he's purported to be?


I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.


Personally, I couldn't care less how brilliant you think Dawkins is.


Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.


If you are trying to say something about the plain facts of Biological science, what you refer to as "Darwinism,"


Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.


then there are probably better avenues of discussion than whom Dawkins chooses to spend his time jabbering with.


That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?


As for ambush, I trust you have at least a scant aquaintance with metaphor. This film crew pretended to be something they weren't, thus gaining entrance to Dawkins' home.


But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

[This Guy]

I don't 'get' your ultra-glib tone. If I literally say Dawkins is brilliant you have some strong need bordering on the paranormal to believe I am saying the opposite, for some reason.



Luckily "impressing hgc" is not high on my 'to do' list.



Well, actually Dawkins himself uses that word on occasion.



That may be, but he could use his genious to discuss it with holders of opposite viewpoints in a public venue. What better why to spread it to the confused public?



But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

The question was what alerted Dawkins to the fact that he had been deceived by those recording the discussion. The pause wasn't because he didn't have an answer to the question, it was because it was at that point that he became aware of how dishonest the crew were. He wasn't thinking about answering the question, he was trying to decide how to deal with the situation he was in. The fact that the people involved have tried to use this clip to imply that Dawkins could not answer the question just shows more evidence of how dishonest they are.

[Alice Shortcake]

Of course, what Dawkins SHOULD have done was to embark on a Gish Gallop, spouting a load of irrelevant crap to confuse his opponent. Instead he realized that he had been misled by the film crew, paused to work out what the hell the question actually meant, and thereby "lost credibility" with the type of people who never had any credibility to lose. :rolleyes:

[Lonewulf]

Yet more "genius" from the anti-dawkins fools. :rolleyes:

[Acleron]

But a question is a question, right? Did them having another motive suddenly make it so Dawkins could not answer the question?

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.

The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them. Read Murray Gellmann's The Quark and the Jaguar, he spent a whole book trying to explain what complexity actually is.
It reminds me of Feynmann's comment when asked to explain QED in a single sentence. "If I could explain it that simply it wouldn't be worth a Nobel prize'

[UnrepentantSinner]

You'd think the Darwinist could do well enough in a public debate though, with all that evidence and many of them are good speakers too.

Thanks for ignoring the gist of my reply T'roll Chi, I'd expected nothing less of you and you didn't disappoint me.

As I pointed out, and as Acleron repeated, it's easy to spew out BS soundbites in a verbal debate, but in scientists are more interested in advocating science and educating their audiences than winning the claps and hoots of intellectual fellow travellers, they will have to take time to explain the details of evidences like ERVs, human Chromosome 2, embryology, extant and fossil biogeography, fossil morphology, genetically based phylogenies... what phylogenies are, etc. And that's on top of explaining how the BS claims of Creationists like moon regression, sea salt, Lucy's knee joint, and Turkana boys cranial capacity vs. his height are the utter crap they are.

I personally think I could smoke any preacher turned "EVILution refuter" out there, but the majority of C/ID public faces are so trained in turning on the fire hose of BS that the temptation to correct every one of their lies, distortions and straw men would burn up my entire speaking time and I'd only be able to address one or two since they're more complex.

You're also avoided my question. If Creationists are so sure of their postitions, why won't they accept an invitation to a formal written debate?

If their positions are so solid, why won't they commit them to a permanent record that can be evaluated by both the judges and the audience? Why must they rely on soundbites and the cheers of fellow travellers if their positions can withstand scruitiny?

[T'ai Chi]

Just once more, he wasn't even considering the question, he was thinking about chucking out some people from his house who had lied to get in.


But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.


The question wasn't actually answerable in the way put. ID/creationists like to mix up concepts of complexity and information theory and as usual don't understand either of them.

Then he could have answered them in a different manner.

[cyborg]

The real question is: why to you talk as if T'ai Chi hadn't already made up his mind?

[Hawk one]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

What makes you think that would have made a difference to them? These are professional liars we're talking about.

Why do you keep defending the liars? Why aren't you attacking them for their dishonesty?

[Dr. Imago]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

Imagine you're selling your house and you invite a couple of potential buyers, after they called you demonstrating interest, inside to see the place. They stroll around, like what they see, and you decide to sit down and discuss an offer. Things start off as planned, and you talk about the neighborhood, neighbors, school district, local shops... etc. Then, the person sitting immediately across from you suddenly pulls out gun and says, "Give me all your money."

What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? I know you're going to claim "straw man", so forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're selling your house ...


Well, let's just stick to what actually occured instead of hypothetical scenarios.


What would you do, T'ai Chi? I'm curious. Would you start babbling nonsense? Jump up and run away? Would you immediately try to negotiate? Would you maybe take a minute and collect yourself and think about how the situation had changed? Would you pause to consider the fact that you had just been ambushed?

What's the correct way to act in this situation? Forget Dawkins for a second. Just tell me what you'd do in this situation. Very interested in your thoughts.


If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

[cyborg]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

[Dr. Imago]

If I were Dawkins and posessed his knowledge, I would have blinded them by my command of science and took my time to answer the question, but would have actually answered it.

Just answer my question above: Does the scenario I present constitute ambush in your mind?

ambush
Function:
noun
Date:
15th century

1: a trap in which concealed persons lie in wait to attack by surprise2: the persons stationed in ambush; also : their concealed position3: an attack especially from an ambush

And, would that mean that the original premise under which you'd invited those people into your house had changed? Would you still owe any courtesy to them at that point?

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

I understand my personal response is super important to you, but let's stick to the topic, to an expert in Darwinian evolution, Dawkins, and his response to the question he was asked.

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question? The question certaintly wasn't new to him before he was asked it.

[cyborg]

You'd think that, by now, he'd have a standard answer to that question?

The standard answer is: "Your question is stupid."

[sol invictus]

"Mr Mathematician, what is fish plus spoon?"

"... (WTF?) ..."

"You can't answer my question! Your maths is stupid! Fish plus spoon is delicious you stupid man!"

Nice! :p

[Dr. Imago]

Nevermind, I'll answer for you:

"A trap (showing up under false pretenses and rolling videotape) in which concealed persons (concealed, a.k.a. lied about, who they really were to gain access) lie in wait (let the camera roll and ask a series of questions that had Dawkins lead to believe was the topic of discussion so he would be relaxed and off-guard) to attack by surprise (springing this question on him, in non-sequitir fashion, catching him off-guard changing the whole tenor of the interview)."

This is, in no other terms, an example of the worst form of yellow journalism out there. When "60 minutes" tried to pull this crap, they found themselves in a multi-million dollar lawsuit and eventually had to publicly apologize.

I'm not expecting that much.

-Dr. Imago

[T'ai Chi]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

[cyborg]

the information increase question made sense

No, it doesn't. The question is loaded. The meaning of "information" is such that it is impossible for evolution to "add" to it because the questioner has already decided that this is the case.

Of course I am talking to someone who will probably gag at the fact that 'randomness' maximises information (as used in information theory where it is defined precisely).

[CFLarsen]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

Note that T'ai Chi says nothing about the methods of the film crew.

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

[cyborg]

Well duh.

What I want to know is who is T'ai Chi's audience that he thinks he is getting this crap by exactly?

[Smiledriver]

This is a truly remarkable post. It's gonna actually make me come to Dr. Dawkins defense. Amazing!

Here's the thing...

Think about anything in which you are well educated. Art, auto mechanics, fantasy literature, anything. Now consider the simplest question you can be asked about that subject. Now consider pausing for 11 seconds before dodging the question. Would you do that, if so why?

I am well educated in Philosophy, if someone asked me if Socrates retracted all of his idea's because Xenophon and Plato wrote an Apology of Socrates. Why the hell would I be stumped, or even hesitate to answer that question? Further, why would I not point out how the question itself is ridiculous. Apology in the sense used in Plato and Xenophon's dialogues means "reasoned defense speach" not a admission of guilt. On the contrary both dialogues are historical accounts of Socrates defending his ideas to the Athenians however ironically.

The only way you could ask me, or a first year philosophy student for that matter, that question on film and make me look confused is with trickery.

Shame on these people.

[CFLarsen]

Well duh.

What I want to know is who is T'ai Chi's audience that he thinks he is getting this crap by exactly?

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

[cyborg]

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

I'm sure he does. That just makes it all the more funny/sad.

[Lonewulf]

To answer the OP: Yes, Dawkins lost his credibility... but only to those that felt that he had none in the first place.

I.E., the same ignoramuses as have always criticized Dawkins blindly.

[wahrheit]

Note that T'ai Chi says nothing about the methods of the film crew.

It's all about criticizing Dawkins and skeptics.

T'ai Chi doesn't need any other audience than himself.

He clearly believes he is outwitting us all.

Couldn't agree more. You can sum this up to a one word term that has been mentioned before.

[Smiledriver]

Y'know part of me wants to agree with the whole "Dawkin's should have corrected them answered the interviewer if truth was on his side" argument. I support a thriving free marketplace of ideas. However, the point of the marketplace is to eventually weed out falsehood. You engage in debate only to the point were the idea is repeatedly shown to have no merit and then you don't need to listen to it anymore.

The good doctor has debated, written and spoke on the matter repeatly. His responses are widely available to anyone with a internet connected or failing that a library card. That is to say nothing about countless others who have done the same.

It's telling the lengths these people will go to make it appear that there is a lively debate raging in science on the matter. It's the only way to keep these ideas rattling around the marketplace.

[sol invictus]

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

Aha! So maybe you're actually interested in this, rather than just in trolling? Probably not, but I'll try to explain anyway.

There are ways to define the "information in the genome". One way is to use a version of entropy - determine (there are several ways to do that) the probability p_i that a given codon will appear in a given position i in the genome, then compute S = -Sum_i (p_i log(p_i)) over the genome sequence. The larger S is, the more information there is in the genome.

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it. It's actually an interesting question to ask which a random mutation is likely to do. But the question they asked is nonsensical, because there are an enormous number of boring answers which don't teach you anything.

It's like asking for an example of a stock price which when you multiply it by the square-root of 3 has a 7 in the 16 digit of its decimal expansion. If I'm an expert on the stock market, does my pausing after you ask me that mean that the stock market is a myth?

[articulett]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

[Biscuit]

I love the word "darwinist". Just like anyone who believes in gravity is a "Newtonist". *Nods*

I love this point but want to express a pet peeve of mine regarding the word belief.

I feel strongly that rational thinkers need to stop saying they believe in gravity or believe in the TOE. While I, and most people understand what you mean when you say that, there needs to be a distinction between belief and comprehension. We should get in the habit of saying that one does not have belief in scientific theories but rather one either understands a theory or does not.

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.

Got that off my chest, sorry for the derail.

[articulett]

I agree... when people ask if I believe in evolution-- I say I accept evolution... just like I accept that the earth is spherical.... just as all scientists accept evolution. We accept facts we understand and use them to understand more.

Faith refers to believing something without or despite evidence-- often because there are rewards promised for that belief.

That's another dishonest inference proffered by the ID crowd (and all they've got is dishonest inferences)-- it's the idea that science is a "belief". The earth is spherical whether one believes in it or not. And humans are subject to gravity even if they have no clue as to what it is and they think it's demons that keep things stuck to the earth.

[wahrheit]

To me, the question would be akin to asking:

"So if the earth is round, how come all the oceans don't spill out, huh? huh?" "And don't give me that spinning planet stuff because I get motion sickness very easily, and I would know if the earth was spinning!" "What's the matter science-man-- cat got your tonuge???" "Ha! even the science man has no explanation for this claim the earth is round!" "Did you ever measure it personally, Mr. Science man--huh? huh?"

Creationists endlessly abuse the patience of those who would gladly teach them some of the coolest things human beings have come to know-- if only the creationists weren't so damn sure they knew everything already and had an inkling to their huge gaps in knowledge.

Look at T'ai-- he's posted over 10,000 posts and been on this forum forever. Has he learned a single thing? Made a valuable point? Furthered anyone's knowledge in any way? And like the proverbial incompetent in my sig-- he's sure that he's the one proffering bits of wisdom to those silly old skeptics that don't have the magical access to "higher truth" that he has somehow stumbled upon. The most incompetent cannot learn from others because they don't know they are the incompetent ones.

This is what faith does to thinking. Scary. Keep the kiddies away from creationists or they could end up like T'ai.

Just wanted to take the opportunity and say that I liked the posts made by articulett I recently read very much. I have no idea who articulett is, but I enjoyed reading the posts a lot.

[T'ai Chi]

With that definition, many mutations will increase the information, and many will decrease it.


Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

[T'ai Chi]

Religion requires a belief system, and leap of faith. Science requires understanding.


Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

[Biscuit]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.

How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme? Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has? I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.

Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?

I know I am getting way off topic here but it appears we all agree Dawkins' pause has not lost him credibility.

[Acleron]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

[T'ai Chi]

The phrase scientism has as much wieght in my world as truthiness and makes me laugh just as hard.


At least it is a real word. :)


How can learning the mechanism of the natural world be thought of as negative? How can stating, "we don't know the answer yet but we are going to work at it till we do!" be thought of as extreme?


That is not negative, never suggested it was. I suggested carrying the belief in science to the extreme, at the expense of everything else, is.


Sure there are plenty of problems that science has yet to fix but name one problem religion has?


Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:


October 24, 2007 - White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives Convenes Roundtable to Discuss Human Trafficking

WASHINGTON, DC — The White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives hosted “Faith-Based and Community Solutions to Combat Human Trafficking” as part of their Compassion in Action Roundtable series.

“Faith-Based and Community Organizations are freeing innocent victims and restoring the lives of those forced into modern-day slavery,” said Jay Hein, Director of the White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives. “These organizations are fighting for those coerced into bonded labor, bought and sold in prostitution, exploited in domestic servitude, enslaved in factories and captured to serve unlawfully as child soldiers. By partnering U.S. Government resources with the efforts of the faith-based and community organizations, we are determined to end human trafficking.”


and


Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative

Each year more than 650,000 men and women return from prison. Department of Justice studies of this population indicate that almost two-thirds of those individuals will return to prison within three years of release, many within the first few months. In 2004, President Bush announced his Prisoner Re-Entry Initiative (PRI) designed to assist ex-prisoners and the communities to which they return. Through this program, returning offenders are linked to faith-based and community institutions that help ex-prisoners find work and avoid a relapse into a life of criminal activity. Currently there are 30 PRI grantees across the country that are providing mentoring, employment and other transitional services to more than 5,789 participants. Initial results are promising with high levels of employment and significantly reduced recidivism rates.


These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.


I am going to but my money on science finding the answer before religion does.


Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.


Has anyone ever gone to war over the theory of gravity? Has a geologist ever burned a chemist at the stake?


Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

[T'ai Chi]

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.


I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.


Use of the word Scientism.

Yeah....


Scientism is a scientific worldview that encompasses natural explanations for all phenomena, eschews supernatural and paranormal speculations, and embraces empiricism and reason as the twin pillars of a philosophy of life appropriate for an Age of Science (Shermer 2002).


..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

[Acleron]

I guess the only thing that has been exposed is someone like you with no actual substance in this debate.

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way. Where is the substance in your accusation?

..apparenly Shemer (and probably millions of others using that word) is a creationist to you?

All cows eat grass, John eats grass, John is a cow? I learned that logical fallacy 50 years ago.

However if John has four legs, a stomach divided into four parts and eats grass, he is very probably an id/creationist like yourself descended by uncommon descent from a primate ancestor.

And while I'm typing let me say that Dawkins has not lost any credibility by being ambushed by people who have to resort to the tactics of lying and fraud.

Unfortunately there is a new film being produced to be called Expelled. Various scientists, including Dawkins, were interviewed by a group claiming to be making a film about evolution called Crossroads. These interviews, no doubt highly edited with 'pauses', are to be used to claim that id/creationists are being denied access to mainstream science university departments. (Is this familiar to you?) I presume they will not feature Dembski's totally fraudulent letter purporting to come from the Dean of such a university in support of another of his ilk who tried to gain credence by registering in that university.

If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect, scientists would love it, but if your only premise is to attack a leading proponent of the theory with a bogus argument you have already lost because even if, (and he could), Professor Dawkins couldn't answer the question, it would have no relevance to theory of evolution.

[Foster Zygote]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

[Alareth]

The real question is: why to you talk as if T'ai Chi hadn't already made up his mind?


No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

[Acleron]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

[T'ai Chi]

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way.


I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.


If you really have some facts, please show us how the theory of evolution is incorrect,


No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

[T'ai Chi]

No the real question is, why does anyone reply to T'ai Chi at all?

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious. :)

[Biscuit]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm

Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?

Of course faith based movements can do lots of good but often times their religion holds them back. Look at aids relief in Africa where they only teach abstinence. Look how religious groups use their ability to help the less fortunate as a a recruting tactic. "If you had faith in god this wouldn't have happened to you." Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people. Religion always has an alterier motive, to expand. Groups like Peace Corp are not hindered by this.

I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones. Just because a group isn't faith based does not mean it is an athiest organization.

Science is never trying to compete with religion. Religion is terrified of science because it makes religion obsolete.

Atom bomb - Had to be created in order to stop WWII which was started by a religous madman.

Tuskeegee - A group of seriously misguided scientist. No one ever claimed just because you are a scientist you are morally untouchable.

The shooters in finland and columbine - Neither group represented science as whole just as Dawkins does not represent TOE. Insane people who happen to support TOE is no evidence at all.

Entire religions have acted as a whole to supress and kill people of other religions. This has happened time and time again. No section of science has ever acted as a group to supress or even injur another group of people. Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

[orpheus]

But why not answer their question fully and shut them up that way? He could take as much time as he likes to formulate and give his scientific response.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

[UnrepentantSinner]

That is funny.

What is even funnier, is that the information increase question made sense and a handful of people think it didn't. :)

No it doesn't since it's a BS question. IDers don't have any real definition of "genetic information" just some nebulous concept. Does a change in a HOX gene making legs on a snake not develop constitute an increase in information? One could argue it does since it takes a lizard and makes it into a new type of being. Does bacteria evolving to consume nylon constitute an increase in information? Of course it does but lying creationist weasels will claim that bacteria already had the information to eat and it just started eating something new.

Until C/IDers come up with an honest definition for "genetic information" as they want to use it, it's a BS questin and a BS issue.

Go ahead and keep defending those liars though... it does wonders for your credibility around here.

[UnrepentantSinner]

You are probably right, but he'll go back and say 'Nobody refuted me, I'm right'.

But who will care and if enough of us start ignoring him, maybe he'll finally stop trolling here. (I say right after replying to him :))

[CFLarsen]

Well, except when it is taken to the extreme, like anything else. For example, like saying 'science can explain everything', 'the orgin can only be explained in terms of naturalism', 'no matter the problem, science can fix it', etc., because it drifts into Scientism.

No scientist worth his salt will ever claim that "science can explain everything".

The only ones who uses this argument are Creationists - like yourself - who want to set up a strawman.

id/creationist alert. T'ai Chi finally exposed.

All the signs are finally there.

Inability to respond to reasoned debate.

Ignoring of stated facts.

Blind repeating of argument without reference to facts which make it irrelevant.

Use of the the phrase 'can only be explained by'.

Use of the word Scientism.

Oh, no. T'ai Chi has exposed himself as a Creationist a long time ago. He just enforced that with his response above.

At least it is a real word. :)

If you don't think truthiness is a real word, please tell us the definition of a "real word".

Religious certainly helped in the civil rights movement. I saw videos of MLK and fellow church members out there, for example. I also look at some food drives and disaster relief and see tons of religious groups doing these. I know of people who are sick or dying getting comfort provided by religion. And there are religious hospitals.

You have the gov's Faith Based and Comminuty Initiatives stuff. This is recent news:

and

These are just some examples that come to mind. I can search the internet and literally find hundreds. But can you name any corresponding promoting-atheism counterparts and their accomplishments? I'm sure some exist.

You didn't answer the question.

The question was what problems were fixed by religion. Not what problems were helped.

It's the same ruse that Sylvia Browne and her fans use, when they are pressed to answer which murder cases Sylvia Browne has solved. They say she helped, and bank on people not detecting the swindle.

Well, I personally don't think they are competing. This is proven time and time again by people who are scientists yet who are also religious.

What you deliberately leave out is that they don't base the science on their beliefs.

Like all Creationists, you don't tell the full story. You leave out the pertinent parts, because you know those will destroy your argument.

It's fraud, pure and simple.

Some examples that come to mind; we have atom bombs produced by a science program, various dehumanizing eugenics movements, Tuskeegee syphillis experiment, and numerous examples of scientific fraud. There was recently a tragic shooting in Finland, and there was a tragic shooting at Columbine some years ago. In each, the shooters were reportedly infatuated with natural selection (http://www.uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwin-at-columbine/). And of course there are cases of invididuals who happen to be scientists who have committed various crimes of all sorts. So I'm really not sure what you're trying to ask here.

Ah, yes. Yet, another Creationist argument. Everything that is bad in society is due to science. Only a return to Creationism will save us. (http://www.inquiringminds.org/newsletter/0504/images/treeofevil.jpg)

I'm sure I'm not the only person who is astonished by the hypocrisy of this statement coming from someone who has actually bragged about the number of people on his ignore list.

No.

I guess consider no reply me not acknowleding your reasons as having validity, considering Dawkins is a genius that should have a reply for an old questions.

....what??

No clue what you're talking about. How is me saying Dawkins should have an answer the same as me supposedly claiming the theory of evolution is incorrect. You're simply not making any sense here.

If that was the only time you had voiced criticizm against Evolution, you could defend yourself that way. But when you constantly try to attack Evolution, not just by making Creationist arguments, but also resort to the fraudulous methods of Creationists, it is justified to call you a Creationist.

If it walks like a duck....

Because I make good points, Alareth. That much is obvious. :)

You really believe that you are successfully attacking Evolution here? Especially when you deliberately ignore the many posts that show how wrong you are?

You are seriously deluded.

From what I can tell, he did just what you suggest. I've bolded your words because during the time he took, he became angry at having been deceived, and in his anger decided to cancel the interview. However, when they pleaded with him, he relented and finished the interview. Presumably he answered the question. If so, his "taking as much time as he likes" simply included some sorting out in his own mind whether or not to throw them out of his house. Net result is that he followed your suggestion exactly.

So why do we not see his answer? By his own account (my bold):
"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out. They cut it so that all we saw was him taking (as you suggested) "as much time as he likes". It was never the interviewers' intention to let us see/hear his answer. He might have answered brilliantly. There's no way they were going to let us see that. Remember, they controlled the film. They edited it. Do you really believe you're seeing the whole story?

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

[T'ai Chi]

"I found that it had been edited to give the false impression that I was incapable of answering the question about information content."

That's why. It was edited out.


Well we don't know that. We only have his account.


He might have answered brilliantly.


That is all the more reason he should do some public debates.

[T'ai Chi]

Truthiness isnt a word?
http://www.merriam-webster.com/info/06words.htm


No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny. Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?


Please give me an example of how science was carried to the extreme at the expense of everything else?


This was already provided to you.


Face it when religious groups get involved their faith can and does cloud their ability to just help people.


No one has claimed that there aren't good and bad religous and atheistic groups. But if you're paying attention, the original query was for examples of religion doing good.


I do not know of any athiest support groups but I can name hundreds of secular ones.


Well that's nice. But I'm asking for the exact counterpart to a religious group, which would be a group that is actively promoting atheism.

Your responses to my examples were nice. You basically admitted they occured.


Because some random scientists have done bad things is a reflection of people and not the scientific community.

I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the same argument applies to religion.

[CFLarsen]

T'ai Chi will not address the fact that they edited it to make Dawkins look bad.

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.

Ah, but of course. It wasn't edited at all!

T'ai Chi won't even entertain the notion that the Creationists could be cheating.

It is only those Evil-utionists that can be bad.

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage

Yes, there is.

, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny.

Huh? Words used for purposes of being funny aren't words?

Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?

Truthiness was named Word of the Year for 2005 by the American Dialect Society and for 2006 by Merriam-Webster. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness)

There are plenty of real life uses. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truthiness#Use_in_political_and_social_commentary)

[Dick Atkinson]

Is this really the best argument creationists can find against evolution - that Richard Dawkins paused before answering a nonsensical question?

How pathetic.

I'm just picking up this debate, and I have a number of points to make: there are a lot of worms in this can! In case anyone wants to address any of them, I'll call them (a), (b), etc, but they're not in any particular logical order. I'll limit myself to 3 issues here rather than rewrite "War and Peace". By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist.

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example). The issue is that (according to orthodox Neo-Darwinism) starting from some simple replicator maybe 3 billion years ago genomes containing huge amounts of information have evolved. The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

b) Dawkins is not apparently up to the task of tackling the mathematics even in a simple way. Read his "Methinks it is like a weasel" argument if you are in any doubt about this. There's no particular reason why he should be - "It doesn't make you a bad person" - but if he makes a strong claim about the adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution, he either needs to have his own answer to the problem, or be able to rely on somebody else's.

c) Dawkins and his allies regularly sidestep this issue in at least three dubious ways. Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism. (Check it out: Dawkins simply indexes "'Intelligent Design theorist' see 'Creationist'.) Secondly, they pretend that any disagreement with the Neo-Darwinian position is a denial of evolution itself. Thirdly, they pretend that any challenge from a credible scientific source - take "Life Itself" again - is actually whimsical, tongue-in-cheek mental doodling. In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue from Creationism vs Evolution. (Of course, you may point out that the likes of Behe and Dembski are strongly motivated by religious commitment - true but irrelevant here. Answer the argument, not the person.)

[Lonewulf]

Can you please define the "orthodox Neo-Darwinian" position, please?

[cyborg]

This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example).

Yes. The word "information" is used. However when used by a creationist is sure is "nonsensical" since they have a "nonsensical" view of what that constitutes - designed in such a way as to produce a question that cannot be answered as to gain any insight whatsoever.

When someone asks you the question: "So when has there ever been example of evolution adding information?" You know that any sensible meaning for "information" and "adding" have been thrown out the window.

The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

It sure is.

Now: define information in a mathematical way.

(Note: randomness maximises information mathematically).

Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism.

Anyone who denies the roots of the ID movement is either a fool, delusional or naive.

The ID "challenge" is nothing more than a false dichotomy - with not a moments thought even pondered about what "intelligence" or "design" is: just that we "know" without question what those things are.

In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism.

If there is I sure haven't seen it.

[T'ai Chi]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

[Niobe]

Well we don't know that. We only have his account.


The video circulating has a womans voice pasted in in the start, where in actuality a man was asking him a question later on, and Dawkins is attentively listening to his question. By cutting out the man and pasting in the woman, it looks like he's dumbfounded where in actuality he's still listening to a talking person:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4

[JoeEllison]

I think it's the ID crowd that has lost all credibility across the board to resort to this dishonesty.


They had credibility? Really?

The ID thing is a fraud and a con game, ans has been from the start. Since it is based on completely dishonest intent, created by a pack of professional liars, and founded with the sole purpose of misleading people, I suggest that it has never contained even the slightest bit of credibility.

The fact that they tell a single lie is almost irrelevant; the entire thing is a lie from top to bottom.

[Alice Shortcake]

T'ai seems to be completely indifferent to the method by which the film crew gained access to Dawkins' home in the first place. Not that there's anything surprising about that.

[JoeEllison]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.


Imagine you have the Internet.

There is a deception that keeps getting repeated and debunked over and over again. You are provided links and explanations time and again. Failure to examine and understand the evidence results in everyone seeing that you aren't interested in reality or honesty.

Wouldn't you, T'ai Chi, actually pay attention to the evidence, and stop pretending that lies are the truth? Seems the intelligent thing to do.

[sol invictus]

Well I believe that's true, and they were asking for just one example. Surely there is one example in the literature that Dawkins would know of or could point them in the right direction.

Examples of actual mutations which increased the entropy of the genome? I very much doubt there are any specific examples of that in the literature.

First of all, there are several different definitions of information and they will disagree, especially when you ask about individual mutations.

Second, information isn't (at least so far) a particularly useful concept when applied to the genome, so it's not discussed much in the literature.

Third, the change in information due to a single mutation is really quite meaningless. It's a useful concept only when applied to a large set, or to changes over a long time.

It was a meaningless question.

[Hawk one]

I and others (Dr Imago, Cyborg and Hawk One...) have given you reasons why Dawkins paused, you have not responded to those reasons in any way. Where is the substance in your accusation?

Well, I can only assume that Justin (T'ai chi's real name) has put me on ignore because I've been keeping on asking questions he's incapable of answering. In Justin's world, asking him difficult questions and calling out his lies and general dishonesty amounts to trolling, see.

[Dr. Imago]

Examples of actual mutations which increased the entropy of the genome? I very much doubt there are any specific examples of that in the literature.

The concept of "entropy", and what that actually means, in the genome is baffling to me... a tendency to move towards a state of disorder? I am a medical doctor, not a geneticist, and I just don't know what that means. But, I'm not sure geneticists widely agree on this "theory" (offered primarily by a retired geneticist and self-proclaimed born-again Christian). There are known mechanisms that add to and change the genome, and part of the human genome project now elucidates that a large portion of our genetic material may be viral in origin. But, I don't think anyone is convinced that they have this all figured out, and even perhaps large sections of the genome previously thought inactive may actually serve some function other than structural.

Fragile X syndrome is a good example, if I even remotely understand what that question is asking, where there is a decrease in "entropy" and genetic material is actually added to the human genome in a heritable pattern, with some deleterious consequences. We can observe this and understand the basics of why this happens through successive generations.

At first I'd been concentrating more on the deception of the interviewer's tactics, which dismissed any further considertaion of the actual question surrounding the incident. But, the more I think about it, you guys are convincing me that this really, REALLY was a stupid and confusing question in the first place as it demonstrates a complete basic lack of understanding of genetics, a science that is arguably still in its relative infancy in the first place (in that we seem to understand what the forest looks like, have been able to define a few trees, but certainly don't have a very solid and complete description of the bark on those trees).

-Dr. Imago

[Biscuit]

No, not in any real sense. There is no history of its usage, and it is only put in for purposes of being funny. Can you give some examples of its use in real life, outside a comedy show?



This was already provided to you.



No one has claimed that there aren't good and bad religous and atheistic groups. But if you're paying attention, the original query was for examples of religion doing good.



Well that's nice. But I'm asking for the exact counterpart to a religious group, which would be a group that is actively promoting atheism.

Your responses to my examples were nice. You basically admitted they occured.



I think you hit the nail on the head. Of course, the same argument applies to religion.

Because a word is used in jest it is not a word? You are just amazing.

You have not provided me with anything other than dodging and non answers like that one.

No, the original query was for examples of religion solving a problem. As someone else pointed out you gave examples of religion helping people in need, not religion itself solving a problem. Like say, vaccinations or a cure for polio. You need to pay attention and stop rephrasing the discussion.

What would really be the differeence between an aetheist charity and a secular one? Both would be based on doing good for the sake of doing good and not for the sake of spreading their faith. Regardless I found one so shove it.
http://earthward.org/index.shtml
And no I am not a member or have any affiliation with this group. You asked for one I gave it to you.

I did more than admitt they occured, I showed how they were useless as evidence for your argument.

No the same argument does not apply to religion in all cases. When a nutty loan gunman with a love of christ guns down 10 people it applies. When the catholic church went on crusades or torture binges it does not apply. Science has never organized itself for the purpose of death and destruction. Something religions do on a regular basis. This is because science is not afraid of being wrong, science loves new ideas provided you can back them up.

This is my first interaction with and I fear my last as you have no ability to actually answer questions and quite frankly are so dogmatic as to be about as interesting as watching paint dry.

[sol invictus]

The concept of "entropy", and what that actually means, in the genome is baffling to me... a tendency to move towards a state of disorder? I am a medical doctor, not a geneticist, and I just don't know what that means. But, I'm not sure geneticists widely agree on this "theory" (offered primarily by a retired geneticist and self-proclaimed born-again Christian).

Sorry - I should have used the word "information" rather than "entropy". I'm not sure which "theory" you're referring to... there's a very profound connection between entropy and information, which was first elucidated by Claude Shannon in the 40's and has since given rise to an entire academic discipline (information theory), which is central to computer science, cryptography, coding, etc. The fundamental point is that there is really one unique way to define both entropy and information, and both are maximized when the signal is maximally disordered. That sounds counterintuitive at first, but I can explain further if you're interested.

In any case I agree with your basic point, which is that how to apply this to the genome is very unclear. The science of bioinformatics is still in its infancy, and it's not clear this is a useful way to think about thinks. Furthermore, even though the fundamental definition of information is essentially unique, you can't calculate it exactly - and therefore you must choose a functional definition, and those choices will differ (which is why I said different definitions will sometimes disagree).

I suspect the interviewers didn't have a clue about any of this - they probably meant "information" in some very naive and imprecise sense, perhaps based on a misunderstanding of the second law of thermodynamics. But there actually are a set of interesting questions on this topic - it's just that asking about a specific mutation that increases information isn't among them.

[cyborg]

In any case I agree with your basic point, which is that how to apply this to the genome is very unclear.

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

[Dr. Imago]

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

Well, it has to be not quite so simplistic, though. Those are the basic building block (amino acids) structures of DNA, but these are further organized into 3-base groups to provide the genetic recipe, if you will, for cells to build proteins and other molecules that trigger different cellular functions.

It's just not so simply, I feel, to surmise that this "information" is static. I think the key to the anti-evolutionists/pro-ID proponents argument is that such changes, in order to be heritable, would have to occur within gametes. And, since gametogenesis (at least female) is formed before birth, then it would be unlikely that such meaningful and additive changes could be passed to offspring at the time of conception.

But, we know this is the case. Fragile X syndrome is an example of a deleterious addition to oocytes that occurs during gamete formation in female fetuses. Secondly, spermatogenesis occurs regularly by Sertoli cells within the testes, and there is ample room for genetic variation at that level. Therefore, I don't know what it is unreasonable to suspect that this could not occur. Lastly, there is clearly evidence that genes jump and move, as well as rearrange themselves, early developmentally. We don't always directly observe these changes because these changes are either deleterious and result in fetal loss, they occur in what are currently believed to be "unimportant" regions of DNA, or they are so subtle that it is currently hard to observe them without actually mapping individual genome and comparing it to a reference set.

I'm not sure how "informatics" would apply to genomics, but this may just be that I don't know enough about informatics. Some theories, though, look enticing and may be helpful in letting us to begin to understand how processes interact. My analogy, however, is that the human genome is probably more like one big Sudoku puzzle: as we think we've figured out the specific regional effects of one area, some new information will come back and cause us to rethink what we had already solved. The knowledge with the genome, and genetics as a field, is exciting because of this fact, namely that the knowledge is turing over rapidly. But, the fundamental knowledge (the forest) is already well established, born out by rigorous scientific study, and unlikely to change. So, a lot of this discourse with the current state of knowledge is like arguing how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.

That's why I think the question posed to Dawkins is a no-win trap that doesn't really have a meaningful answer in the first place. If he'd answered it definitively, there's a high likelihood that later down the road someone could say, "See, here now is proof that he didn't know what he was talking about back then." No-win situation.

-copro

[CFLarsen]

Well, I can only assume that Justin (T'ai chi's real name) has put me on ignore because I've been keeping on asking questions he's incapable of answering. In Justin's world, asking him difficult questions and calling out his lies and general dishonesty amounts to trolling, see.

No, no.

Merely asking Justin a question will land you on his ignore list.

Sure, he can't answer most questions put to him, but it isn't a requirement.

[articulett]

No, no.

Merely asking Justin a question will land you on his ignore list.

Sure, he can't answer most questions put to him, but it isn't a requirement.

Ignorance is necessary to keep his delusions of grandeur and god alive.

[SomeGuy]

I'm just picking up this debate, and I have a number of points to make: there are a lot of worms in this can! In case anyone wants to address any of them, I'll call them (a), (b), etc, but they're not in any particular logical order. I'll limit myself to 3 issues here rather than rewrite "War and Peace". By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist.

a) This discussion is self reinforcing: the "information question" is now perceived as "nonsensical" and "pathetic", but is actually not so. Dawkins writes at great length about "information" (check out the index of "The Ancestor's Tale" for example). The issue is that (according to orthodox Neo-Darwinism) starting from some simple replicator maybe 3 billion years ago genomes containing huge amounts of information have evolved. The mechanism (the sieving of random mutation by Natural Selection) has been reagrded as inadequate by many (e.g. Crick and Orgel - see "Life Itself") - obviously a mathematical justification is necessary.

b) Dawkins is not apparently up to the task of tackling the mathematics even in a simple way. Read his "Methinks it is like a weasel" argument if you are in any doubt about this. There's no particular reason why he should be - "It doesn't make you a bad person" - but if he makes a strong claim about the adequacy of the Neo-Darwinian account of evolution, he either needs to have his own answer to the problem, or be able to rely on somebody else's.

c) Dawkins and his allies regularly sidestep this issue in at least three dubious ways. Firstly, they refuse to acknowledge that there may be some validity in the ID challenge (but see Crick/Orgel, Hoyle). They do this by refusing to accept that ID as an hypothesis is different from religious fundamentalist Creationism. (Check it out: Dawkins simply indexes "'Intelligent Design theorist' see 'Creationist'.) Secondly, they pretend that any disagreement with the Neo-Darwinian position is a denial of evolution itself. Thirdly, they pretend that any challenge from a credible scientific source - take "Life Itself" again - is actually whimsical, tongue-in-cheek mental doodling. In summary: there is a valid Design/Information challenge to Neo-Darwinism. That is an entirely different issue from Creationism vs Evolution. (Of course, you may point out that the likes of Behe and Dembski are strongly motivated by religious commitment - true but irrelevant here. Answer the argument, not the person.)

Any creationist coming onto this board who then uses the strophe: "By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"

Should be insta-banned for being the lying, trolling scum that they are.

[SomeGuy]

Imagine you're a world class scientist in topic E.

There is a stumper question Q, that your academic 'enemies' always trot out at you about E, as if it is the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete utter debunking of E.

Wouldn't you always have an answer on hand to counter Q with? Seems the intelligent thing to be prepared for.

Okay, I'm imaging I'm a world class scientist in Zoology.

There is a stumper question "what is the square root of two sheep and a horse" that my academic 'enemies' always trot out at me about zooology, as if it's the most difficult question out there and failure to answer it results in a complete and utter debunking of Zoology.

I wouldn't prepare an answer to counter "what is the square root of two sheep and a horse". Something so inane would not really seem all that intelligent to prepare for.

Of course I would be dumbfounded for a few seconds hearing that question when I was under the impression (prior to the question) that I was speaking to people genuinely knowledgable of Zoology.

[articulett]

Any creationist coming onto this board who then uses the strophe: "By the way, I am a lifelong atheist/evolutionist"

Should be insta-banned for being the lying, trolling scum that they are.

The clue is in the screen name... "dick"...

Lying in the name of Jesus...what else is new?

I wonder if atheists go to theist boards pretending to be believers?

The problem with the question is that it shows a huge amount of ignorance and a bias in it's asking. It's truly like asking "how far to the end of the earth"? Such a question presupposes a flat earth... or at least ignorance that needs a lot of explanation to remedy. I guess he could just have said, "non-disjunction"-- that adds info. to the genome-- in the form of an extra chromosome... or "methylation"-- that adds triple codon repeats. But the question is on par with "how does information get added to cookbooks". It's a bizarre question that infers ignorance on the part of those who can't answer, while also asking a question that nobody really wants an answer to. This is what creationists do. They ask ridiculous questions and ignore all answers because they have the answer they want and that answer is "scientists can't answer this, therefore my god is true".

No matter how facile they are with language and semantics-- it all boils down to the exact same nothingness. Inferences are used in place of facts. They offer no facts for their own "hypothesis"- just oblique inferences about the other side that are dishonest and ignorant. And they have no actual interest in correcting their mis perceptions. They are impervious to admitting that they HAVE a lack of understanding on the topic-- they imagine themselves experts, but have no curiosity on new knowledge in this field they are supposedly so expert in.

To answer the question would be like trying explain calculus to a first grader. And it's not like they actually have any interest or ability to appreciate the answer anyhow. They are like T'ai. They are sure they have the answers... so why waste time on the impervious and dishonest. They are just drawing you in to prop up whatever delusion they are nursing. There's this sense that they are playing an imaginary game in their heads where they are always winning while all the rational people are having a conversation about something completely different.

[Dick Atkinson]

Cyborg: Who cares about "the roots of the ID movement"? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Francis Crick misunderstood molecular genetics, and that Fred Hoyle misunderstood the concept of information (and entropy)? They are/were FOOLS, DELUSIONAL or NAIVE? Forget where the name ID came from - it postdates Crick and Hoyle in any case.

Cyborg: You wish me to define information in a mathematical sense - but you insist on a particular sense of the word. Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples. I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other - but that if a player is dealt all 13 spades (especially on his birthday) purposeful intervention is all but certain. The information question for evolution is not answered by pointing out that a random jumble of DNA - a dead gloop of chemicals - requires as much information to define it as a human being does. The question is HOW the viable organisms are sorted from the dead junk. This could be called a "design specification", and the issue is whether that is more than a metaphor.

d) To specify a crucial protein - Hoyle takes one of the histones as an example - around a hundred aminoacids must be coded for, from a choice of twenty, in the correct order. The amount of information involved is, in these terms, of the order of 20 raised to the power 100, which I roughly calculate is 2 to the power 400 (the actual number is irrelevant - it's BIG). Suppose (as is the case) that this universal protein - vital for cell division - must be specific, barring a handful of acceptable aminoacid variations. (Almost) any change is lethal. BUT THIS HISTONE MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME. That means that there must have been a complete sequence of dozens of ancestral proteins, successfully involved in (well adapted) cell division... But this molecule is so specific that it is virtually identical in ALL living organisms (all eukaryotes, anyway). So we have empirical evidence that significant difference would destroy the essential information (design information if you like), and a theoretical requirement that a whole spate of differences would be fine. When the facts contradict the theory, there is a problem with the theory. The "awkward question" the Australian Creationists put to Dawkins was ill-defined, but the theoretical problem was clear enough - when almost any random change is deleterious, empirical evidence for adaptive change is needed. (There is a prima facie Evo-Devo answer, but that has its own problems. Dawkins did not take that line.)

Lonewulf: You asked me to define Neo-Darwinian orthodoxy. To be honest, I don't know how anyone can be involved in this discussion unless they already know this. However, it is very relevant to Dawkins and the "awkward question", so I guess I will have to write "War and Peace" after all.

e) Darwinism as now defined is the theory that evolution can be accounted for by Natural Selection (ultimately, differential fertility) acting on random variation. Darwin had no notion of the genetic mechanism, but when Darwin is coupled with Mendel we have Neo-Darwinism - and during the 20th century the molecular basis for Mendel's heritable factors was elucidated, completing the basic Neo-Darwinian theory. A Neo-Darwinian account of evolution must describe it in terms of DNA mutations effecting protein changes. Richard Dawkins's "The Selfish Gene" was outstanding because it brought something of that kind of thinking into the non-academic forum; but he seems to have abandoned genes before he got round to the molecular reality (see (d) for the protein end of the business). Dawkins writes about eyes, for example, as if an eye-spot evolved into a light-sensitive pit, and so on; but the spot and the pit were parts of different organisms. A spot can't turn into a pit. A gene - or a number of genes - undergo point mutations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which are deleterious. Many may be relatively neutral, and a vanishingly small number will be "adaptive". (Again, Evo-Devo offers a different account, but that's another argument.) There is no way to gauge the likelihood or plausibility of the chance from spot to pit except in molecular terms. When Dawkins tried to explicate the molecular/information account with his "Methinks" argument he fell flat on his face. Since then he doesn't go there in his popular publications. The "awkward question" put him back in that hot seat. It appears that he squirmed, but that is not really relevant. Whether Dawkins had a good answer is unimportant in the scheme of things. The real issue is whether ANYONE has a good answer. This problem worried Crick and Orgel enough to spend a year or two working on it. Fred Hoyle was sure there was no Darwinian, or Neo-Darwinian, answer. All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.

[cyborg]

Cyborg: Who cares about "the roots of the ID movement"? Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that Francis Crick misunderstood molecular genetics, and that Fred Hoyle misunderstood the concept of information (and entropy)? They are/were FOOLS, DELUSIONAL or NAIVE? Forget where the name ID came from - it postdates Crick and Hoyle in any case.

I don't think "Directed panspermia" is really the same thing as ID do you?

The Wikipedia entry on Francis Crick says:

During the 1960s, Crick became concerned with the origins of the genetic code. In 1966, Crick took the place of Leslie Orgel at a meeting where Orgel was to talk about the origin of life. Crick speculated about possible stages by which an initially simple code with a few amino acid types might have evolved into the more complex code used by existing organisms.[48] At that time, everyone thought of proteins as the only kind of enzymes and ribozymes had not yet been found. Many molecular biologists were puzzled by the problem of the origin of a protein replicating system that is as complex as that which exists in organisms currently inhabiting Earth. In the early 1970s, Crick and Orgel further speculated about the possibility that the production of living systems from molecules may have been a very rare event in the universe, but once it had developed it could be spread by intelligent life forms using space travel technology, a process they called “Directed Panspermia”.[49] In a retrospective article,[50] Crick and Orgel noted that they had been overly pessimistic about the chances of abiogenesis on Earth when they had assumed that some kind of self-replicating protein system was the molecular origin of life. Now it is easier to imagine an RNA world and the origin of life in the form of some self-replicating polymer besides protein.

Nothing on that page suggests that the man would have anything to do with the views of the people pushing ID. What is designed is the propagation of the necessary ingredients for life. What is not designed is the life itself - that still had to arise naturally.

But, as ever, we see old scientific ideas pounced upon and utilised for propaganda with no regard to the updates in knowledge about the theories referenced.

So what is your point here?

Cyborg: You wish me to define information in a mathematical sense - but you insist on a particular sense of the word. Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples.

Uh... that would be mathematical.

I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other - but that if a player is dealt all 13 spades (especially on his birthday) purposeful intervention is all but certain.

Your point here is...?

The information question for evolution is not answered by pointing out that a random jumble of DNA - a dead gloop of chemicals - requires as much information to define it as a human being does.

I don't know what question it is your asking since you haven't really said what you mean by "information".

It sure doesn't bode well for sensible discussion that you're using emotive terms like "dead gloop of chemicals," with the tacit implication that there should be something different about "non-dead gloops of chemicals."

The question is HOW the viable organisms are sorted from the dead junk.

Er... natural selection?

(And I still don't understand what this "dead" business is supposed to mean for chemicals.)

BUT THIS HISTONE MUST HAVE EVOLVED ONE MUTATION AT A TIME.

Nope. Simplistic probabilistic reasoning.

Typical.

when almost any random change is deleterious

Ah, that old canard.

Could we have some proof for that please?

Dawkins writes about eyes, for example, as if an eye-spot evolved into a light-sensitive pit, and so on; but the spot and the pit were parts of different organisms. A spot can't turn into a pit.

Why not?

A gene - or a number of genes - undergo point mutations, the overwhelmingly vast majority of which are deleterious.

Where are you getting this from? This is all very familiar standard rhetoric.

(Why do I get the feeling the justification for deleterious mutations will come from an argument from cancer?)

All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.[/COLOR]

And that input comes from?

And that designer was constructed by?

[articulett]

The question has been answered multiple times... it's just that those asking the question don't have the intelligence or education to understand the answer. Moreover, the question truly is as lame as asking "how far to the end of the earth"-- it reveals ignorance of profound proportions that is not subject to ready amelioration. It also shows the arrogance of the faithful-- this notion that they already know all there is to know on a topic-- and so they cannot hear any new information (see Behe at the Dover trial).

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/dawkins.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/selfish06/selfish06_indexx.html#ridley
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/serpentine07_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/biocomp05/biocomp05_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/serpentine07/serpentine07_index.html
http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/bios/tooby.html

It gets old--the answer to how genomes evolve is becoming increasingly clear every day, but creationists and pedants can't absorb the new information because they are so sure that science can't answer their loaded questions and that that means something or other in favor of some other hypothesis.

Evolution can and does explain increasing complexity and seeming design in all systems. It's just that those who think they know everything already can't understand the science enough to comprehend the information no matter how it is presented.

[cyborg]

BTW Dick you should meet kleinman. I think you two would get on famously.

[articulett]

How much copying do you think is going on at a time, Dick? So what if most are deleterious. Most people don't win the lottery either. That doesn't change the fact that some do.

Lying creationists can always be counted on to argue using the same tangents and nothingness and inferences. They just never ever say anything. It's all inferences and stuff that you can't pin down. They have no evidence... they say things in a meal mouthed way that makes it hard to refute because nothing is said-- but digs at evolution are inferred. There is endless digging at a process that they don't seem to understand as well as they pretend with the inference that this must mean that there is something wrong about evolution-- or a gap that some other theory somewhere might fill. Oddly enough, scientists don't see this gap-- and there is no evidence that anything other than evolution will explain the areas we don't have a full understanding of yet.

[Thabiguy]

Since I am not a Nobel Prize winning scientist, I just count my information in bits, bytes, and their multiples. I am alo a card player, and I know that the amount of information necessary to define any bridge deal is exactly the same as any other ...
Good.
... around a hundred aminoacids must be coded for, from a choice of twenty, in the correct order. The amount of information involved is, in these terms, of the order of 20 raised to the power 100, which I roughly calculate is 2 to the power 400 (the actual number is irrelevant - it's BIG).
Didn't you just say that the amount of information is measured in bits? The amount of information in your example is not on the order of 20 raised to the 100th power, or anything like that. It is about 432 bits. That is on the order of 20 raised to the 2nd power, or 2 raised to the 9th power.

As for the rest of the... hmm... text in your post, I'll let someone else address that.
ETA: ... I see some already did.

[articulett]

BTW Dick you should meet kleinman. I think you two would get on famously.

You'd think so... but all the woo think they are smarter than the other woo. They all are sure they are the ones designated to teach... with nothing to learn. They sound so confident and sure of themselves that I suspect they do make others think that they are saying something valuable that the listener just doesn't have the knowledge to comprehend. But they really aren't saying anything at all. Good communicators make the difficult simple to understand-- blowhards make the simple difficult to understand-- the more they speak... the less you know. And yet such confidence! It's as if sounding like you know what you are talking about has more value than actually knowing what you are talking about.

But I agree. That dick and kleinman are cut from the same smarmy cloth... and now the point mutation canard... how long before he'll be asking about the time it takes to "evolve a gene de novo"?

[jimbob]

Well, should a world-famous geologist publically debate the Flat Earth society?


Which is a reason for "educated laypeople" and famous critical thinkers but not evolutionary biologists to debate them.

I am thinking of people like the late Linda Smith, standup and chair of the humanist association.

Dawkins engaging in such a debate can not win, as by his presence he is giving it creditibility. A stand-up isn't.

[Dunstan]

Whether Dawkins had a good answer is unimportant in the scheme of things. The real issue is whether ANYONE has a good answer. This problem worried Crick and Orgel enough to spend a year or two working on it. Fred Hoyle was sure there was no Darwinian, or Neo-Darwinian, answer. All three came to the conclusion that there was a design input - not the Judeo-Christian God, of course.

Since you are a "lifelong atheist/evolutionist," I presume you have found a satisfactory answer to this question.

[JoeEllison]

I guess I'm not the only one who sees the whole "lifelong atheist/evolutionist" thing as a fabrication?

[cyborg]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

[JoeEllison]

Well when you see that pattern of lies enough times you tend to doubt the sincerity of the one producing it.

Hmm... almost as if we were being skeptical about it?

Whodathunkit?

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!:D

[articulett]

I have never heard an actual lifelong atheist/evolutionist use that terminology.

In fact, I don't think I've heard an evolution supporter call themselves an evolutionist... it would be like those who accept gravity calling themselves a Newtonist...

I've heard Dawkins referred as an "evolutionary biologist"-- by his colleagues. But evolutionist? The vast majority of people on this forum understand and accept evolution-- have any of you ever referred to yourself as an "evolutionist"? How about "lifelong atheist"? Even if you never had a belief in god-- have you ever described yourself as a lifelong atheist? And in what context?

It reminds me of the Jonbenet ransom note that opens with "we are a small foreign faction"-- what group describes themselves as a "foreign faction"? Foreign is a term used for "others"--not groups that include yourself.

[articulett]

Wait, hold on... aren't we being awfully closed-minded, by not giving each person the benefit of the doubt, even though they are repeating the same old lie as the last hundred or so people who have started threads on this topic? I mean, for real, every time someone says that the earth is flat, we are open-minded and assume that they might be right...

...wait...

... that would be pretty stupid of us, that's why we don't do it!:D

Well, we can give them points for bravado and conviction and using some intelligent segues... but not for originality. Some people are fabulous to talk to... and some people are easier to talk about.

[sol invictus]

Well one obvious starting point is with the sequence of symbols consisting of ACGT.

Yes, that's an obvious starting point. But one might want instead to use the sequence of codons (three base-pair sequences coding for a particular amino aci