Dawkins stumped?

[363839]

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.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)

Edit: To be fair, there was a response to this video....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmJKZPpH80A&feature=related

 

[Satchboogie3]

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.

YouTube - Richard Dawkins stumped by creationists' question (RAW FTGE)

Edit: To be fair, there was a response to this video....

YouTube - Dawkins Stumped?!? Let me answer!

He simply couldn't think of something on the spot. It's a pretty weak attempt to discredit Dawkins.

 

[sdaniels7114]

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

 

[363839]

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.

 

[Satchboogie3]

There is plenty of information on genetic mutation. Here is a brief explanation (with examples) of somatic mutations: Genes and Mutations - Germinal and Somatic Mutations

Wikipedia actual does a decent job of overviewing somatic mutations (Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

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.

 

[363839]

There is plenty of information on genetic mutation. Here is a brief explanation (with examples) of somatic mutations: Genes and Mutations - Germinal and Somatic Mutations

Wikipedia actual does a decent job of overviewing somatic mutations (Mutation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia).

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?

 

[Satchboogie3]

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.

Mutation | Learn Science at Scitable

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).

 

[363839]

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.

 

[Mista Kool]

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.

 

[Mista Kool]

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.

 

[Stokes]

A great example would be the incorporation of bacterial DNA into human cells creating the structures now known as mitochondria. There are also examples of duplication of genetic material (say an activating phosphorylation site within a protein's catalytic domain) that cause an increase in activity of that protein. One example that comes to mind would be tandem duplications of a region of the epidermal growth factor receptor causing constitutive receptor activation. Other more invasive events would be transposition and/or duplication of material into a region with a more active promoter, leading to higher levels of that protein being produced. In general, the idea of duplicating regions of DNA, inserting them either in the same location or elsewhere in the genome, then accumulation of mutations of the duplicated region to make a related protein or eventually a protein with a novel function is a fundamental mechanism for generating "new" genetic information. In other species, such as many plants or even some frogs, not only are small segments of the genome duplicated, but in fact whole genomes as well.

 

[bradyforlife]

Dawkins is like an attack dog. I don't get it. Why does it matter so much to some people whether other people are religious or not?