Talk:Dawkins could not give an example of increasing information (Talk.Origins)

Re: "It is not explained how asking for examples of the mutations necessary for evolution reveals the questioner to be a creationist"

It doesn't, but no-one has ever claimed it did, so this comment is a red herring. It was asking about an increase in genetic information that probably tipped Dawkins off, since this is a non-issue for evolution, but frequently used by creationists. Roy 22:29, 2 Apr 2005 (GMT)


 * I consider that to be splitting hairs. The "the mutations necessary for evolution" is equivalent to the source of an "increase in genetic information", as that is what evolution requires.  As for your second point, you are correct, but that is the whole point.  Why don't evolutionists ask for evidence to support their fable?  Why is evidence a non-issue for them?  Because the idea is held by faith without evidence?  Philip J. Rayment 11:55, 8 March 2006 (GMT)

Worth mentioning?
Is it worth mentioning the following points about this debacle?


 * Gillian Brown was accused of deceptively editing the video to include a different questioner, something which is done in many documentaries.
 * Barry Williams has responded to Gillian Brown's response but has entirely ignored the second camera. No one seems to have been interested in this important factor in the dispute.
 * Dawkins is still using this incident as proof that creationists are deceptive. He has entirely changed the event in his own mind to make himself look victimised.

Fritleyfrisp 06:14, 14 May 2008 (UTC) I've gone ahead with this edit, I hope no one minds. Fritleyfrisp 17:06, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Down syndrome
What does everyone think about the answer given by other evolutionists when they noticed that Dawkins did not answer the question? Several people argued that down syndrome increased information. I don't really know a lot about this, but my immediate response would be, "So...we started with apes...and then they got more and more retarded and here we are??" Lol but I'd be interested in the scientific response to this as well. -- Shinydarkrai94 18:50, 11 February 2011 (PST)
 * Down syndrome is caused by a duplication of existing information; no new information is added. The argument is like saying that an encyclopaedia that has a printing error where one chapter has been printed twice has more information than one which was printed correctly.  The information has only increased if you are measuring that by, say, counting the number of words.  But as there the misprinting has not added anything new (no new articles, no new facts within any of those articles, etc.), there is really no increase in information at all.  Presumably Dawkins was smart enough to realise that citing Down syndrome does not answer the question.  Philip J. Rayment 22:02, 15 February 2011 (PST)