• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Has Dawkins lost credibility?

Dr Adequate said:
... via random mutation and selection, with no intelligent guidance ...
... or the stupid ravings of creationists having any kind of validity ...
Click to expand...

You are reacting so emotionally I am concerned I've offended you and your religion by merely questioning it.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Quite so. The forums are also open to people who've read pop science books and want to prophecy the future of physics based on the "impressions" that they've received "in general" from these works.

They are also open to those of us who think that this is an amusing way to behave, such as me.
Click to expand...
Well then, I'd say you behave in a particularly unfriendly manner when you are "amused".
 
So Articulett's field of expertise is genetics. Let's test that:

"You have trillions of cells in your own body -- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body -- all replicating -- you don't think something's going to be an improvement with all that replicating and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further..."

Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.

You didn't grasp the point about information. The thermodynamic definition you insist on is not relevant to genetics nor to information science. Let's prove it. You have a computer in front of you - a metal box with stuff inside, and information. In my thought experiment I just take out the stuff, and replace it with the exact same mass ofsome different stuff: genuine ******** as kicked by authentic red-neck shitkickers. Now you insist that the information needed to specify the quantum state of every particle of ******** is at least equal to the amount of information we threw away. But when you switch on, you'll find all you have is ********.

When Crick, Hoyle or Dawkins write about information, they are referring to something else, akin to language.

You've drawn a few conclusions about me from my postings and my description of myself as atheist and evolutionist (Chambers Dictionary: "One who believes in evolution as a principle in science"). Let me return the compliment. Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist. Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.

So now you needn't make excuses for not feeling bad about being a meanie. I can stick up for myself "my friend".
 
Dick--

Is hizzums having a tantrum?

I suspect you may only be making sense to yourself. I'm not the one having trouble understanding Dawkins et. al. or his reaction or why the question is misleading. I am well read on current information-- you seem sorely lacking while imagining yourself an expert. Why don't you and Von Neumann indulge in your hubris filled contentless pedantry. I prefer actual experts rather than self appointed ones. The actual experts make so much more sense... and they are funnier, clearer, and so much more humble. They actually convey useful information! Information-- that thing you and the dishonest creationist questioners (from the OP) don't have much of a clue about...
 
Last edited:
Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.
Click to expand...

Anybody who doesn't understand forum titles and makes unsupported judgements upon them has to look like an idiot.

Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_Weismann

The Weismann barrier is often confused with the Central dogma of molecular biology which is incorrectly said to be a restatement of Weismann's idea by Francis Crick. In fact the central dogma states that DNA makes DNA and RNA copies within an organism, but RNA cannot make DNA. This is now known not to be true.
Click to expand...

So far as showing you aren't a lying scumbag flying under a false flag you're making a rather poor show: 0 for 2 as far as correctly citing scientific ideas. So where is your source of this misinformation?

Would you like to take another stab?
 
Last edited:
VonNeumann said:
Of course I think we know what point Dawkins was trying to make.
Click to expand...
Then he was successful, and did not mislead you.

Since you would rather get emotional and call me names, you are the one who has humiliated himself.
Click to expand...
What an interesting daydream. I hope that you find it consoling.

If Dawkins could have achieved what he intended to, he would have illustrated natural selection with a program that might select useful theorems out of a set of randomly generated theorems, or something of that sort, where the result would be unspecified, unexpected but wonderful. ... not a mere canned output. (why can't you see this?)
Click to expand...
Many people have done such things. Dawkins was trying to make things simple for beginners. He succeeded in doing so, as witness the fact that you understand exactly what he meant.
 
Last edited:
Articulett's tiredness with arguing against creationist/ids is quite understandable he/she has won their spurs. However, I think somebody should take up the challenge rather than we are just worn down by inanity.
Dick Atkinson said:
"You have trillions of cells in your own body -- and trillions of microrgansims that are their own body too inside your body -- all replicating -- you don't think something's going to be an improvement with all that replicating and mutation going on? It only takes one to move evolution one step further..."
Click to expand...
I just have to assume you made a typo, but the general argument is rebutted by antibiotoic resistance.

Dick Atkinson said:
Seems like you've never heard of Weisman's "Central Dogma". It's pretty new stuff - about a hundred years old - and fundamental to genetics.
Click to expand...
As opposed to creationist/ids, science actually moves on, Weisman was not aware of DNA and RNA.

Dick Atkinson said:
You didn't grasp the point about information. The thermodynamic definition you insist on is not relevant to genetics nor to information science. Let's prove it. You have a computer in front of you - a metal box with stuff inside, and information. In my thought experiment I just take out the stuff, and replace it with the exact same mass ofsome different stuff: genuine ******** as kicked by authentic red-neck shitkickers. Now you insist that the information needed to specify the quantum state of every particle of ******** is at least equal to the amount of information we threw away. But when you switch on, you'll find all you have is ********.
Click to expand...

Illogical, ungrammatical and precisely ********.

Dick Atkinson said:
When Crick, Hoyle or Dawkins write about information, they are referring to something else, akin to language.
Click to expand...

Interesting, but I'd like to see references from all three to justify that broad statement.

Dick Atkinson said:
You've drawn a few conclusions about me from my postings and my description of myself as atheist and evolutionist (Chambers Dictionary: "One who believes in evolution as a principle in science"). Let me return the compliment. Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist. Anybody who calls himself a "philosopher" but includes pathetic ad hominem rhetoric, ad nauseam, in every argument has to be a lying bigot.

So now you needn't make excuses for not feeling bad about being a meanie. I can stick up for myself "my friend".
Click to expand...

Having read the posts, I can see that Articulett has been abrasive but nowhere near as offensive as the above. The central dogma that you refer to no longer exists, we have moved on. This is the distinction between real scientists and those who pretend to science by making false statements dressed up in pseudoscientific words and who have an agenda but no real hypothesis or theory.
 
Dick Atkinson said:
Anyone who describes himself as having "expertise" in genetics but hasn't cottoned onto the Central Dogma must be a lying fantasist.
Click to expand...
I take it, then, that you don't know that the existence of retroviruses proves that the "Central Dogma" is wrong?

Well, so much for your expertise.
 
Last edited:
Another stab? Sure. Weisman importantly stated that the germ line is independent of the somatic cells. Crick was responsible for the molecular justification for this view. And, as you correctly found from that infallible specialist source of reference, Wikipedia, Crick is responsible for the term "Central Dogma". That same wonderful source has actually screwed up somewhat, since Crick's C.D. was that DNA produced PROTEIN and not vice-versa (reference "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, Pelican edition, pp 64-5 for all this detail) but that doesn't matter. It's just the same if you talk about tRNA. If you look at the right organism you'll find that somatic cells may become reproductive cells, and that RNA can and does make DNA.

But we are talking about the human body. Every cell is replicating (not strictly true, but never mind). Does the mighty Wikipedia suggest that, a la Articulett, everyone of those cells is capable of contributing an evolutionary improvement.

But I am no expert - I came onto this site with questions, not answers. I was quite amused by the robust style of debate, but not fazed, no tizz, no defensiveness. No lying scumbag flying under false colours, either. By the way, was that another of those ad hominem whatchamacallems?

Dawkins reference requested: The Blind Watchmaker" Ch 3 (the infamous "Methinks it is like a weasel" section), and also Ch 5: "What lies at the heart of every living thing is... information, words, instructions." That's pretty clear. See also Crick ("Life Itself" Ch 4).
 
Not sure who you are arguing with, try the quote button next time
Dick Atkinson said:
Another stab? Sure. Weisman importantly stated that the germ line is independent of the somatic cells. Crick was responsible for the molecular justification for this view. And, as you correctly found from that infallible specialist source of reference, Wikipedia, Crick is responsible for the term "Central Dogma". That same wonderful source has actually screwed up somewhat, since Crick's C.D. was that DNA produced PROTEIN and not vice-versa (reference "The Theory of Evolution" by John Maynard Smith, Pelican edition, pp 64-5 for all this detail) but that doesn't matter. It's just the same if you talk about tRNA. If you look at the right organism you'll find that somatic cells may become reproductive cells, and that RNA can and does make DNA.

But we are talking about the human body. Every cell is replicating (not strictly true, but never mind). Does the mighty Wikipedia suggest that, a la Articulett, everyone of those cells is capable of contributing an evolutionary improvement.

But I am no expert - I came onto this site with questions, not answers. I was quite amused by the robust style of debate, but not fazed, no tizz, no defensiveness. No lying scumbag flying under false colours, either. By the way, was that another of those ad hominem whatchamacallems?

Dawkins reference requested: The Blind Watchmaker" Ch 3 (the infamous "Methinks it is like a weasel" section), and also Ch 5: "What lies at the heart of every living thing is... information, words, instructions." That's pretty clear. See also Crick ("Life Itself" Ch 4).
Click to expand...

Sorry I had to leave your complete post as a whole because it is best described by the central phrase 'I am no expert'. I can't claim to be either, but I can follow a logical series of arguments and yours isn't. Try, as a starter, to choose a single point to debate, otherwise you lose the force of any argument in the noise level. And by the way we were discussing the credibility of Richard Dawkins not the human body.
 
Dr Adequate said:
Then he was successful, and did not mislead you.
...
Dawkins was trying to make things simple for beginners. He succeeded in doing so, as witness the fact that you understand exactly what he meant.
Click to expand...
Yes, I understood exactly of what he meant to try to convince his naive audience (perhaps he himself is naive?). It is as if one built a contraption with a motor, a generator and a battery and claimed it as a demonstration of the principle of "perpetual motion". Then he starts it up and it runs for a while and then it stops, the battery depleted.

It would be easy to understand that:
1. the person claimed he was demonstrating perpetual motion.
2. that the person did not demonstrate perpetual motion.
3. that the person demonstrated, in fact, what is typical of the kind of naivety w.r.t. perpetual motion is typical among "true believers" of perpetual motion.

What would be arguable is whether the person was being fraudulent, or whether he himself falls into the class of person who is a wishful thinker or "true believer".

I can only gather that you are also a true believer in getting something for nothing. I wish it were true, but I don't believe in the tooth fairy.
 
VonNeumann said:
Does your hub know what you are doing when you are typing madly away with that mean smile on your face till 3AM?
Click to expand...

We are clearly on different time zones. And I'm widowed (no, I didn't kill him.) I am, however, as always a free agent, and only hang out with people who find my mean smile winsome.
:angelica:
 
Acleron said:
Put very simply, the random nature of mutation and recombination, strikes out in all directions. Natural selection is the guiding force. The random part of mutation follows classical statistical randomness, no further explanation is required. The randomness induced by recombination of genes is, however, very complex and Dawkins, and others, have studied this to considerable depths, but again, as yet the position of the crossover appears to be classically random unless interfered with by other well understood effects. It is the main point of being an evolutionary biologist. He is now the Simonyi Professor for the Public Understanding of Science and he's pretty good at that too, I suggest you read some of his biology books to see the depth and breadth of his understanding of the subject of evolution.
Click to expand...
I was hoping you were going to clarify how you could say that evolution is not about progressive advancement. If life started out as something simpler than uni-cellular and progressed to self-aware organisms, in a mere span of ~10^9 years, then is that not "progressive advancement"? And if that is progressive advancement, why do you not attribute it to what we call "evolution"? I don't think it is typical that someone who takes stock in evolution, would emasculate it to the point it becomes merely about adaptation.

About the re-shuffle of big chunks of DNA, I don't take issue with how new species might emerge from that sort of thing. It is very complex. We don't even know to what extent that there are biological processes that reorganize the data on purpose. That is...some of the recombination of DNA goes by some built in mechanism. I'll wait and see what more we learn about all that. So I don't know how much of that can really be considered random. At least it is not on the same scale of randomness as bootstrapping the first DNA strands from whatever there was before.

In other words, if I took a novel and started snipping it into paragraphs and reshuffling it to come up with a new story, the result would appear more than likely insane, but would not be jibberish. But before we ever had a novel, before we ever had paragraphs to shuffle around, the random strings of letters to produce words and then sentences would be full of jibberish. It is at this level of random mutation that is the hardest, at least for me, to feel like a billion years is enough time. Of course, Darwin only addressed "origin of species" and that presumably begins with a huge myriad of DNA information to start with. He didn't theorize on what seeded the world with a beginning library of Terabytes of useful DNA. That question is merely out of scope, and from a scientific view, still is.

That's really where my mind was when I made mention of randomness and how we attribute the appearance of all the things leading up to primordial life: matter, physical laws, even space-time itself. We have to invoke some kind of mental object that we call "randomness". We have something to talk about when we talk about rolling dice or the likelihood of a codon changing from an A to a G in a certain span of time. But we have no clue what mechanism lies at the basis of the timing of an emission of a subatomic particle. Surely there exists some cause of it. All we know is that it statistically produces a distribution or otherwise we could not assign a half-life value to it. It is not scientific, not in our current paradigm, to ask what kind of mechanism could give such perfect random timing. And why can we not detect the mechanism. So we ignore the hole in our knowledge and we pretend that it "just happens". BUT... it is on that huge vacancy in our understanding that the magic of where stuff comes from, stands.

When it comes to origins, we are all just guessing. It is out of scope for science to answer.
 
CFLarsen said:
There are people from all over the world on this forum.
Click to expand...
Obviously. For all you know, I'm in Sri Lanka or Madagascar. If you go back and look at her posts over the last year, she has occasionally posted in the wee hours, USA Mountain Time which is her admitted location. I am very conscious of time zones and I notice things like that.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom