When Richard Dawkins, a leading evolution scientist, cannot give rudimentary evidence for Darwin’s theory…?
Claim CB102.1: In an interview in 1997, Richard Dawkins was asked to “give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome.” Apparently unable to answer, he paused a long time and finally responded by changing the subject. Response: 1. According to Dawkins, he paused because the question revealed that the interviewers were creationists, that he had been duped about their motives. He paused to think about how to handle them, and the change of subject occurred due to the several minutes when he confronted them being omitted from the video (Dawkins 2003). 2. The question is equivalent to asking how complexity could evolve, which Dawkins has covered in at least four books (The Blind Watchmaker, River Out of Eden, Climbing Mount Improbable, and A Devil’s Chaplain). He has answered the question at great length. 3. The ability of a single person to answer a question is largely irrelevant. The scientific literature is rife
If you’re talking about the “increase of information” fallacy, that has been asked and answered many times. Gene doubling is a common mutation. Any alteration in either strand subsequent to the gene doubling is an increase in information in the genetic makeup of that organism. The second fallacy of the “increase of information” argument is that information must necessarily increase for evolution to occur. This is not true. In fact, humans (often incorrectly identified as some sort of “pinnacle” of evolution) have considerably LESS genetic material than “lower” organisms like amphibians. Frogs have as much as 300 times the DNA we have in each cell. This is because they have to have contingency routes for developmental progress in a wide variety of different environmental conditions, while mammals (for example) can simply have something equivalent to “cook at standard temperature for 9 months”. So the evolutionary “progression” from fish to amphibian to reptile to mammal actually involve
Oh, I remember that video. It’s been edited and taken out of context. There’s even a “Richard Dawkins ‘stumped’ hoax videos exposed” video in the Related Videos sidebar if you bothered to take a look. It’s a bit sad that your faith is so weak that you must resort to such things but you get points for trying I guess.
This video shows that the video you quoted was a hoax. I assume you made a innocent mistake in quoting it, so I’ll let it go. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDI… The thing is I get the impression that you haven’t studied the theory of evolution, when I see most creationists question it, they come up with many ignorant objections, as though they have no knowledge about it. They simply say “I wasn’t born a monkey” or something like that. If you wish to discredit it, you should really study it first.
