Richard Dawkins stumped!

When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.

Charles Darwin did not know a thing about mutations within the Genome, because science, had not progressed that far during his time.

In todays evolutionary therory, the hope is that accidental mutations within the genome sometimes results in usefull new developements> the increase of positive genetic information, merely by chance . in a line of generation.

By this process, species evolve into higher forms.

But Richard Dawkins was unable to offer a single proven example, of this happening.

What is observed is, that mutations of the genome, result in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.

An empty thread. That's pretty funny. 😵

The famous delta 23 mutation within the CD4 co-receptor CCR5 prevents HIV infection. Quite useful. Dawkin's studied wasp behaviour (ethology) for his doctorate with Tinbergen and then became an evangelical atheist and is largely shunned by the scientific community. I have heard him called a "non-experimentalist" which is damning criticism for a scientist. Ingram's description of the amino acid mutation in haemoglobin preventing malaria infection of red blood cells (erthyrocytes) is another. I could go on but worry it would be lost on you as you seem, how can I put this, set in your ways.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

Originally posted by vishvahetu
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.

Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.

Please define "useful" information.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Please define "useful" information.

to AThousandYoung

I am not schooled in scientific jargon, but i,ll give it a shot.

Evolution theory suggest, the direction of the evolving species is one of making it more durable for survival, so usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.

I am not going to get into a scientific discussion here, because of my lack of knowing all the jargon nescessary for such a discussion.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
to AThousandYoung

I am not schooled in scientific jargon, but i,ll give it a shot.

Evolution theory suggest, the direction of the evolving species is one of making it more durable for survival, so usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be consid ...[text shortened]... n here, because of my lack of knowing all the jargon nescessary for such a discussion.

vishva

usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.

Genetic information like that is created long before the selection process occurs. There is no way to know what is useful when it is created. If you are one of those who assumes that any human interference ruins the value of scientific observations, then you are demanding something which is practically impossible. Not being able to provide such evidence is not unreasonable, nor is it evidence against evolutionary theory.

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
[b]usefull information would be that on the cellular level, the information reguired for mutation to produce a greater capacity for survival, would be considered usefull.

Genetic information like that is created long before the selection process occurs. There is no way to know what is useful when it is created. If you are one of those ...[text shortened]... le to provide such evidence is not unreasonable, nor is it evidence against evolutionary theory.[/b]

to AThousandYoung

I will get some convincing material (denouncing evolution) and post it up a bit later.

vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.

Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.

I assume you are referring to the incident described by Dawkins here:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Did you do any research at all on this?

Originally posted by LemonJello
Did you do any research at all on this?

Do bears use those modern ones in Japanese department stores with the controllable anus water jet?

Originally posted by FMF
Do bears use those modern ones in Japanese department stores with the controllable anus water jet?

I'm confused...does the department store or the bear have the controllable anus water jet? 😕

Originally posted by LemonJello
I assume you are referring to the incident described by Dawkins here:

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/articles/the-information-challenge/

Did you do any research at all on this?

To LemonJello

Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.

However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.

Vishva

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To LemonJello

Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.

However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.

Vishva

How old do you think the Universe is?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
When famed evolutionist Richard Dawkins was asked in a television interview, if there is any mutation observed in any species, that is know to have added usefull information to the genome (the set of chromosomes and genes in living cells, by which hereditary information is transmitted), Dawkins was Stumped for an anwser.

Charles Darwin did not know a t ...[text shortened]... in no useful information, but from such mutations comes freaks of nature, like the 2 headed cow.

Higher forms?
What's a higher form?

Originally posted by vishvahetu
To LemonJello

Yes it was that interveiw, but i wish not to exspand on that, as i am just a lay person.

However, the scientists who propagate the therory of evolution, have a shabby past of doctoring and manipulating evidence, in their scramble to the next Nobel Prize.

Vishva

I think, in light of the link I posted, your opening post is disingenuous.

Now, you are changing your attention toward another subject. The idea that localized instances of scientific misconduct within some field warrant your wholesale impugnment of that field, is pretty ridiculous. Back a decade or so ago, a committee of his peers demonstrated quite conclusively that Jan Hendrik Schon committed scientific misconduct on his way ostensibly toward any number of prizes and accolades in condensed matter physics, in the form of numerous instances of data substitution and outright data falsification. I guess then we ought to just throw out physics along with evolutionary theory? Please get serious. It is nearly certain that at least some instances of misconduct will exist in nearly every major field of science. Why, then, according to your own line of reasoning, are you only throwing out evolutionary theory?

There is no doubt that such instances of scientific misconduct are serious matters. It is a credit to scientific communities that many of the instances are unearthed and dealt with seriously (for instance, you can easily find online the formal committee report on Hendrik Schon's case issued by Beasley et al, and perhaps it will give you some appreciation for the care given to such matters). The inference from localized instances of misconduct to wholesale rejection of related huge bodies of scientific work is generally unwarranted. It does major injustice to the numerous scientists who do carry out their tasks responsibly. It also plays you for something of a fool, since it demonstrates your readiness to dismiss their work without even making effort to assess their work on its actual merits. (I see that, from your own admission, you are likely too ignorant on the topic to carry out such assessment anyway.)

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
How old do you think the Universe is?

To AThousandYoung

About 150 trillion years.

Vishva