"Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?"
And here is Dicky Dawkins totally stumped to such a degree that he has to ask for the camera to be turned off so he can "think":
What's up, Dick? Does the lens stop you thinking?
Basic question for a scientist, Dickie!
What an embarrassingly poor performance from the Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University!
He then proceeds to evade the question utterly and to talk about a "common misconception" regarding evolution - as if THAT answers the question.
Of course, it simply does not answer the question.
Dorky is stumped: "Can you just stop while I think?"In fact, there IS an answer to the question but the embarrassing part for Dawkins is that HE could not answer it.
Another bloggist/Youtuber answers for him by pointing to Downs Syndrome.
However, that is not a very brilliant contribution, either. How many people think that evolution takes place by mutations such as Downs? Most people, not least those with Downs, regard it as a disease, not a stage in the genetic evolution of Man.
One is reminded of the graffiti seen on the wall of a University Biology Department which read:
"Mutate now...and avoid the rush!"
Will somebody please take Dorky Dawkins aside and explain to him that if he goes on making such a fool of himself, even his mother will disbelieve him?
...
.jpg)
_-002.jpg/220px-Circle_of_Anton_Raphael_Mengs,_Henry_Benedict_Maria_Clement_Stuart,_Cardinal_York_(ca_1750)_-002.jpg)
12 comments:
He may have been stumped but that does not mean you have to treat him in an un-Christian, uncharitable manner, by giving him degrading names...just a thought!
Sorry US Seminarian, I can't agree.
I don't think it's unchristian to fight back at someone who is so deeply offensive to Christianity, Christians and all religion.
If you were right then most comedians, satirists and critics would have to go out of business as being "uncharitable" and "degrading".
That would be just silly.
Have a re-think.
The reason we are in danger of losing the battle to defend Christianity is because we are too wet, weak or plain lazy to fight back.
Tribunus.
Anonymous said...
see this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uz1CiDDIq4&feature=related
Dear Anonymous,
There are several such videos on Youtube claiming foul play and faking - but what do they prove?
Of those I have seen so far - nothing.
For instance, this one begins by saying how wonderful Dawkins is and why he appeared to hesitate.
We wait with bated breath.
Then there is an overlay in the left hand corner with someone - unknown, unspecified, unexplained and unidentified - who asks the same question, a little later than the original questioner.
This is supposed to expose a fraud?
Really?
In fact, faking that overlay is even easier than faking an interview.
Then, we are told the original video is a fake by "creationists".
But how?
They don't say.
They just say go to another website and you'll see.
Well, when I tried, Google could not find it.
So who, then, is the fake?
Note also, that they cut off the last of Dawkins' reply in which he asks for the interviewer to stop "so that he can just think".
That bit is cut out.
In any event, Dawkins STILL cannot answer the question - an elementary one - still pauses, still looks stumped and still cannot answer and when he is given time to come back and answer - he STILL can't answer.
Game, set and match, I think.
Sorry, Anonymous, you've been too easily fooled.
And this does show an amazing dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Dawkins' supporters. They will do anything to - even lie - to defend him, it seems.
Tribunus.
Tribunus,
Attacking the person's name, and switching it to "Dorky" or "Dumby" or whatever other name you attributed to him other than his first name does not count as "fighting back." A clean, intellectual argument and prayer counts as "fighting back!" Not your silly, middle school, nicknames you have given the Dawkins.
Nope, still don't agree.
As I said, if you were right then most comedians, satirists and critics would have to go out of business as being "uncharitable" and "degrading".
So it is you who are being silly, I'm afraid.
Satire is often the best way to unseat your opponent in a debate - particularly if he is as odious as Dawkins - and it is a perfectly legitimate debating weapon, provided it does not become obscene, obnoxious, defamatory or calumnious - and we are a long way off that here.
You are a seminarian and will have had limited experience at debating the great issues of the day.
You will doubtless take your own counsel eschewing that of others, as is perhaps sometimes not uncommon in many a self-important neophyte, but, from my experience of debating, you will be tying both your hands behind your back if you eschew all forms of satire in verbal combat with the Church's enemies.
Whilst you will doubtless consider that it is not about winning but only about how you play the game, the fact is that it is not just a game, still less just YOUR game. The result of public debates affects many more people than just the participants.
It is all too easy for clerics to comfort themselves that their disdain to fight by satire and to win is unworthy but the constant, regular loss of such battles by so many clerics unwilling to be robust, affects others, too, including those less fortunate and less able than themselves.
Failure to put up a good show in the battle can be a form of selfishness.
But, in any case, you are quite happy to call me "silly" and "middle school" which is just as ad hominem as anything I have said about Dawkins, so you are not, in fact, following your own advice.
In which case - physician heal thyself!
Tribunus.
I will say this much...
touché
...haha! Very well put! However, your assumption that I have no debating skills or am simply a neophyte because of my status as a seminarian is quite wrong; but, I understand where you are coming from.
I don't doubt that you think that but... you will pardon me if I remain sceptical.
I did not say or assume that you had no debating skills but they are certainly not beyond improvement.
But you are certainly a neophyte - as a seminarian you are one by definition, if not by any other criteria.
And it is a sad man who thinks he has nothing to learn. God spare us from such a view.
I wish you good luck and much good learning, now and in the future.
Tribunus.
Fascinating!
Thank you, sir, for your very learned observations in your paper.
Tribunus.
Dear Anonymous,
There are several such videos on Youtube claiming foul play and faking - but what do they prove?
Of those I have seen so far - nothing.
For instance, this one begins by saying how wonderful Dawkins is and why he appeared to hesitate.
We wait with bated breath.
Then there is an overlay in the left hand corner with someone - unknown, unspecified, unexplained and unidentified - who asks the same question, a little later than the original questioner.
This is supposed to expose a fraud?
Really?
In fact, faking that overlay is even easier than faking an interview.
Then, we are told the original video is a fake by "creationists".
But how?
They don't say.
They just say go to another website and you'll see.
Well, when I tried, Google could not find it.
So who, then, is the fake?
Note also, that they cut off the last of Dawkins' reply in which he asks for the interviewer to stop "so that he can just think".
That bit is cut out.
In any event, Dawkins STILL cannot answer the question - an elementary one - still pauses, still looks stumped and still cannot answer and when he is given time to come back and answer - he STILL can't answer.
Game, set and match, I think.
Sorry, Anonymous, you've been too easily fooled.
And this does show an amazing dishonesty and fraud on the part of the Dawkins' supporters. They will do anything to - even lie - to defend him, it seems.
Tribunus.
[13 April 2008 21:51 - answer moved from wrong post site]
in all modesty, the thing about downs and other trisomies might come from my observation ... which has now changed url:
http://o-x.fr/lsf and click karyogrammata
Post a Comment