ARE YOU NEW HERE? NOT LOGGED IN? PLEASE TAKE A MOMENT TO REGISTER FOR AN ACCOUNT AND LOGIN TO REMOVE THIS WINDOW
Welcome to PatsFans.com. Do you have an account? If not - please take a moment to register for our forum and experience a much smoother experience with fewer ads, along with no longer having to see this notification window. Also learn about how you can receive a free Patriots T-Shirt from the Patriots Official ProShop by CLICKING HERE. Please enjoy your stay here, and Go Pats!
The question was put to RD if he could give an example where a genome is getting "new" information through mutation or evolutionary process.
His response surprised me as I thought it would be a given that this must have been observed somewhere along the line by researchers but it appears that he just could not give that example.
Anyways, here's the link.
I'd like to hear what you guys take from this.
RECEIVE A FREE PATS T-SHIRT AND SAVE 15% OFF WHEN YOU BUY FROM THE OFFICIAL PROSHOP!
Free T-Shirt & Save 15% Off!
Like Our Site? Please help support our site and server costs by DONATING TO PATSFANS.COM and receive a FREE PATRIOTS T-SHIRT and SAVE 15% off EVERY purchase you make from PatriotsProShop.com. You'll also receive added benefits to your account including Removing All Ads During Your Experience Here At Our Forum.
NEEDED YEARLY SITE DONATIONS: 345 | CURRENT # OF SUBSCRIBED SUPPORTERS: 98
The question was put to RD if he could give an example where a genome is getting "new" information through mutation or evolutionary process.
His response surprised me as I thought it would be a given that this must have been observed somewhere along the line by researchers but it appears that he just could not give that example.
Anyways, here's the link.
I'd like to hear what you guys take from this.
He simply couldn't think of something on the spot. It's a pretty weak attempt to discredit Dawkins.
__________________
This is the year. We put our failures in the past, it's a new year, a new defense. It's time to prove to the league that the Patriots are back and aren't going anywhere and they will be the last ones standing in Feb.
Update: Well that didn't work out as I had planned. Next year baby, next year 19-0 we go. Next year.
If you're going to attack Evolution you shouldn't do it with a poorly edited video clip that's clearly been altered to depict things the way you want them to be, you should do it with some flare
__________________
Give a man a gun and he can rob a bank, give a man a bank and he can rob everyone.
If you're going to attack Evolution you shouldn't do it with a poorly edited video clip that's clearly been altered to depict things the way you want them to be, you should do it with some flare
But there was nothing edited in the long pause he took and then asked for a "cut" before he came back and still did not site an example.
I did include a response to the first video but it seemed lame, admittedly.
I just wanted to see if any members here, could give examples for the question posed to Dawkins.
I think the key to realize is that the majority of mutations ARE bad and that it's a long process. Only a tiny fraction of mutations may be even the slightest bit beneficial. Those with the bad mutations die off while those with the good mutations live on. Mutations can often have such a small impact it might not even be noticeable. You wouldn't really be able to tell (apart from DNA) the difference until after many many mutations (and many many generations).
Like all parts of evolution, it's an extremely slow, gradual process that is guided by natural selection.
__________________
This is the year. We put our failures in the past, it's a new year, a new defense. It's time to prove to the league that the Patriots are back and aren't going anywhere and they will be the last ones standing in Feb.
Update: Well that didn't work out as I had planned. Next year baby, next year 19-0 we go. Next year.
I think the key to realize is that the majority of mutations ARE bad and that it's a long process. Only a tiny fraction of mutations may be even the slightest bit beneficial. Those with the bad mutations die off while those with the good mutations live on. Mutations can often have such a small impact it might not even be noticeable. You wouldn't really be able to tell (apart from DNA) the difference until after many many mutations (and many many generations).
Like all parts of evolution, it's an extremely slow, gradual process that is guided by natural selection.
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Satchboogie.
Maybe it's an incorrect presumption that genomes need new information to cause it's (host) to evolve.
Is this what you mean?
Thank you for your thoughtful response, Satchboogie.
Maybe it's an incorrect presumption that genomes need new information to cause it's (host) to evolve.
Is this what you mean?
A genetic mutation is new "information". You have to remember that your DNA is pretty much an organism's blueprint/assembly instructions. A mutation can be actual "new" inserted information (new base pairs), but even just shifting existing code changes the "blueprint".
Imagine it as assembly instructions for a house. If you were just to swap the words "roof" and "floor" in certain areas, the assembly instructions would be completely messed up and you would build one messed up house (if it would be able to be built at all). No new information was technically added, but just switching some words made the actual instructions "new".
I think that is why Dawkin's took a while to think and then answered the way he did. The question wasn't really a question, it was a statement. A genetic mutation essentially IS new information. I think the questioner was looking for an example where 1 mutation made a new species or something and Dawkins was trying to explain how it is an extremely long process of random mutations and natural selection.
That article goes into a little greater depth and there are some great links at the bottom of the article.
If you are seriously interested in Evolution/Biology I'd highly suggest you pick up a few books ("The Origin of Species" Darwin, "The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution" Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins, "Molecular Biology of the Cell", etc etc).
__________________
This is the year. We put our failures in the past, it's a new year, a new defense. It's time to prove to the league that the Patriots are back and aren't going anywhere and they will be the last ones standing in Feb.
Update: Well that didn't work out as I had planned. Next year baby, next year 19-0 we go. Next year.
Last edited by Satchboogie3; 12-26-2009 at 10:55 PM..
I think I understand.
So through rearrangement of the same information comes a new blueprint.
That seems straight forward enough.
Thank you for the lesson, Satchboogie.
The concept of information is beyond Richard Dawkins educational level. He's a washed up biologist who's gave nothing of importance to science. He's only famous because of his militant atheism and dishonest attack on religion.
If you are seriously interested in Evolution/Biology I'd highly suggest you pick up a few books ("The Origin of Species" Darwin, "The Greatest Show on Earth: Evidence for Evolution" Dawkins, "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins, "Molecular Biology of the Cell", etc etc).
Or, even better, he could read some literature that isn't horribly dated.
Last edited by Mista Kool; 12-29-2009 at 12:17 PM..
Dawkins stumped?
Linear Mode
