17. Richard Dawkins Stumped, ID Proponent, Fooler of Kids
The URL for my book is www.Evo-illusion.com.
The above video is about my book Evo-illusion, now available at Amazon. The page begins below.
Click on the lower left arrow.
Richard Dawkins, the smartest man in the world, and author of “The Blind Watchmaker”, was asked a question about mutations or any other evolutionary process increasing information in the genome. He was stumped. He asked that the camera be turned off so he could gather his thoughts. When he came back on camera, he stumbled around explaining that if you were here millions of years ago, you would see partially evolved animals, fish growing legs, etc. But, now animals are “modern” and don’t need evolving, so we can’t view evolution in process today. We are all common ancestors of those ancient animals. What an amazing non-answer; this guy is completely full of it. NOTE: Sorry, http://www.creationontheweb.com was on the face of this very telling video, but has nothing to do with me. By the way, 100 million years from now will current species still be considered “modern”?
I responded to the video:
Well, uh, let’s see. Old animals evolved, but modern animals don’t evolve. If we could walk around a long long time ago, we would see animals in the process of evolving, but not today. Fish don’t really want to grow legs so they can get away from those pesky sharks. Do intelligent people really believe this nonsense? Unfortunately, millions do.
If you would like to see Dawkins’ embarrassing response to being stuck, this video is his explanation in front of a friendly audience of evolutionauts. Note, he never answers the question posed, and assails a video where the female questioner is replaced by a male, the question remaining the same. One would think that in front of this friendly audience, he would answer the question. He doesn’t. He demeans the asker, which is typical evo-speak. Again, click on the lower left arrow so you won’t leave this site.
In fairness to Richard, here is his explanation. You be the judge if he is a truth teller:
R. Dawkins: (My) suspicion (of the questioner) increased sharply when I was challenged to produce an example of an evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome. It is a question that nobody except a creationist would ask. (I am not a creationist, and I would ask it.)
I paused for a long time, trying to decide whether to throw them out and, I have to admit, struggling not to lose my temper. Finally, I decided that I would ask them to leave, but I would do it in a polite way, explaining to them why. I then asked them to stop the tape, which they did.
The tape having stopped, I explained to them my suspicions and asked them to leave my house. Gillian Brown pleaded with me, saying that she had flown all the way from Australia especially to interview me. She begged me not to send her home empty-handed after they had traveled such a long way. She assured me that they were not creationists, but were taking a balanced view of all sides in the debate. Like a fool, I took pity on her and agreed to continue. I remember that, having had quite an acrimonious argument with her when I finally agreed to resume the interview I made a conscious effort to be extra polite and friendly.
As it happens, my forthcoming book, Unweaving the Rainbow, has an entire chapter (`The Genetic Book of the Dead’) devoted to a much more interesting version of the idea that natural selection gathers up information from the environment, and builds it into the genome. At the time of the interview, the book was almost finished (it is to be published in November 1998). (Then why didn’t he calmly and easily go into a quick and knowledgeable answer? If evolution was a real science, it should be able to put down all challenges with ease, no matter who the asker is. The person asking should have absolutely nothing to do with the validity of the question.) That chapter would have been in the forefront of my mind, and it is therefore especially ludicrous to suggest that I would have evaded the question by talking about fish and amphibians. If I’d wanted to turn the question into more congenial channels, all I had to do was talk about `The Genetic Book of the Dead’. It is a chapter I am particularly pleased with. I’d have welcomed the opportunity to expound on it. Why on earth, when faced with such an opportunity, would I have kept totally silent? Unless, once again, I was actually thinking about something quite different while struggling to keep my temper?
The entire article can be seen at: http://www.skeptics.com.au/theskeptic/1998/3_crexpose.htm
The next video will show Richard Dawkins hoodwinking children into believing evo-illusion and becoming evolutionauts.
Evolution: An Objective Look 
Illusio said,
May 2, 2008 at 3:55 am
“I responded to the video:
Well, duh, let’s see. Old animals evolved, but modern animals don’t evolve.”
Why did you bother to respond when you had nothing of value to say? Of course modern animals evolve. What Dawkins was saying, and which is perfectly obvious to anyone with a brain, is that we do not expect modern fish to evolve into modern humans in the sense that somehow all water dwelling creatures eventually turn into humans given enough generations of gathering “information”(Stupid answer to an inane question). Modern humans evolved from ancient fish and so did modern fish. Simple as that. Same as white people in the USA and Europe are both descended from europeans. We share an ancestor, but don’t expect all europeans to evolve into americans. Some intermediate forms between land and sea creatures exist today though, Mudskippers for instance. These may well continue their evolution to become all land based, all water based or stay as they are depending on evolutionary pressure.
“Fish don’t really want to grow legs so they can get away from those pesky sharks. Do intelligent people really believe this nonsense? Unfortunately, millions do.”
This is the most stupid comment I have ever read read about evolution. Seriously. Evolution doesn’t happen in response to what organisms *want*. Organisms don’t evolve at all. Reproduction with variation, the raw material for natural selection, happens at fertilization and the genome is fixed for the course of that single organisms life. The environment(natural selection) decides if a given organism was a viable form or not. If it died before reproduction it was bad, if it managed to reproduce it was decent and if it managed to get more offspring than the average of its kind it was an improvement. The fact that it got more offspring in itself changed the allele frequency of the species and thus the species evolved. The next generation would build on whatever modifications were performed in the previous one.
Fish evolving abilities for land locomotion/lungs can ONLY happen in environments like the mudskipper is in – fish living on the very edge of the shore. There must also be a reproductive advantage to taking short strolls. If those aspects aren’t present, having legs will make you LESS FIT as having legs undoubtably will impair your swimming ability. “Running away from sharks” – my ass. The image of a mackerel running onto land in fear of sharks is retarded even in your own obscene caricature of evolution. They’d escape the shark, sure – only to be instantly eaten by well adapted land animals. “Fish” in general do NOT want legs. This is a transition that’s clearly infinitly more likely to happen the first time, when there were no land predators. While we do have some such species today, they’re not common and for good reason.
You will not find “millions of people” who believe your fantastically retarded strawman version of evolution has anything to do with reality. In fact, your mind is probably one of the few who could even come up with such an utter misunderstanding of the core theory of biology.
What a clown.
stevebee92653 said,
May 2, 2008 at 8:03 pm
Of course, the “pesky sharks” comment was tongue in cheek. And thanks for wasting your time with your meandering inane mythical explanation. You evillusionists are such complete zealots with nothing but defensive tunnel vision. You say, “Of course modern animals evolve”. But, as always, modern evolution is invisible, just like most evolution. And still my favorite, “Sure, the 130,000,000 retinal cells making connections to the brain sounds like an absolutely awesome engineering feat – until you realize it’s all simple repetition”. These are classics; Hall of Fame for sure! And your other classic, “Simple as that” is terrific. Your, “This is the most stupid comment I have ever READ READ about evolution” describes your phrases perfectly. Absolutely nothing in nature, which is complex beyond imagination, can be described as “simple as that”, except by evillusionists. You might want to try SPELL-CHECK SPELL-CHECK before making a FOOL FOOL of yourself a third time. “Undoubtably”, “infinitly”, “americans”, and “europeans” are good ones too! Back to third grade English for you!
reluctantfundie said,
August 16, 2008 at 5:21 pm
Isn’t that the most amazing statement you’ve ever read?
bryan said,
September 20, 2008 at 4:38 am
SPELL-CHECK SPELL-CHECK before making a FOOL FOOL of yourself a third time. “Undoubtably”, “infinitly”, “americans”, and “europeans” are good ones too! Back to third grade English for you!
haha nice comeback!
noyourashill said,
April 10, 2009 at 1:12 am
Illusio,
The point was Dawkins didn’t answer the question.
The question was is there an example of a mutation increasing the info in the genome. We can reverse engineer this by changing the genome in a moth, in a lab setting, and see the resultant change.
But nature needs to provide an example of a mutation HARMONIOUSLY encoded in the genome, which dawkins couldn’t do. Without harmony, the turtle’s kid would be born with five heads, and certainly not with the new advantageous mutation his mom was supposed to give him.
There is ONE example known (that I know of) of a mutation harmoniously encoding in a genome, and that’s a specialized type. There are billions or trillions of mutations needed to go from single cell to human in a short amount of time. What deduction can you make from that? If I’m correct in my facts, then current genome/mutation theory is not correct.
halucigenia said,
May 25, 2009 at 8:31 am
Every site with a link to this obviously fake video also needs the following link where Dawkins does answer the question.:-
http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm
He also explains the circumstances of the filming of the video.
Shrunk said,
May 25, 2009 at 10:16 am
“This video is his explanation in front of a friendly audience of evolutionauts. Note, he never answers the question posed, and assails a video where the female questioner is replaced by a male, the question remaining the same. One would think that in front of this friendly audience, he would answer the question.”
Why would he answer the question? As you say yourself, he is not speaking to an audience of creationist morons. The audience already knows the answer. Click on the link that halucgenia provided above, and you will. too.
Also, if you fail to remove the “Dawkins stumped” video now that you are aware it is a well-known hoax, you are revealing nothing more than your own dishonesty.
stevebee92653 said,
May 25, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Shrunk, you have no credibility here. So go home. You lie, misrepresent, cheat. When things are said, or not said, they have meaning. I have seen Dawkins try to explain his blank out. He didn’t have an answer, and his explanations usually involved demeaning the questioner. Go home. You are an indoctrinated fool.
Shrunk said,
May 25, 2009 at 3:26 pm
So that article hallucigenia linked does nothing but “demean the questioner” ? What makes me think you didn’t even read it?
And I take it that you are going to leave that fraudulent video up, then. It seems I’m not the one with a credibility problem here.
Shrunk said,
May 25, 2009 at 4:44 pm
Another article, detailing Dawkins’ account of the circumstances behind the video.
http://www.skeptics.com.au/theskeptic/1998/3_crexpose.htm
stevebee92653 said,
May 25, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Thanks for the heads up. Now look at the page. I modified it just for you. Dawkins just looks worse and worse. He should have just shut up, or said he had a bad moment. I have a motto that I live my life by. And it has never failed me: don’t complain, don’t explain, and don’t blame. Please tell that to Poor Richard.
Shrunk said,
May 25, 2009 at 7:43 pm
That’s much better, thanks. It gives people at least the opportunity to judge the provenance of the video for themselves.
halucigenia said,
June 1, 2009 at 7:15 pm
Oh, another interesting blog about information theory might be right up your street (or lurker’s streets anyway) is:-
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2009/01/test-your-knowledge-of-information.html
Thanks to another poster on another forum for that link.
It might be informative for stevebee92653 to take that test.
Latimeria said,
June 15, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Are you going to remove the video at the top? It is a hoax. The fact that it is a hoax is well-known and has been pointed out to you. If you continue to display it as something genuine then you are dishonest.
jan said,
October 14, 2009 at 4:56 am
From any point of view, it seems that selection processes are critical in any kind of linear development of chemical particulates to living organisms………So how about a concerted effort to establish principles of selection at various stages of molecular relationships that would have been required to occurr in the developement from chemicals to life?????? You self deluded simpletons…………. YOu love the fact you feel you are part of some esoteric select few that “really understands things”……YOu really dont know shit………..although you claim you do….and the popular media is more than willing to amplify your assertions to the gullible public……(cause it sells shit) Wake up jerks,,,,, smell your own farts and know the conclusions you embrace are unbelievably unsubstantiated………………..
jan said,
October 17, 2009 at 3:51 am
Ho Hum………it’s a living……and it keeps my lifestyle funded….. and my fat ass happy….and, shit, i cant believe it, my retirement pension on this garbage will give me the ability to live as long as i like even though my contibutions to society are negligible at best and even though my life’s driven work is a pile of shit…………..
jan said,
November 1, 2009 at 4:20 am
So where are the responses from the evolutionary brain trust. Bring it on please, let there be a “scientific” discussion on the above mentioned issues. Where are you? AD Parker and PET and whoever…………(oh shit, more periods. I guess i should apologize)
jan said,
November 9, 2009 at 6:23 am
Oh, come on you, cowards. Hide behind the language being used here as an excuse to run away from the real discussions needed to give you the opportunity to “scientifically” substantiate your speculations.
If you positions are so strong, why would you run and hide like you do? Sure, there is a lot of explaining to do. And you say, well “he has just not read enough scientific papers”..
That is a bunch of crap. I have read many papers, and listen to many relevant lectures. You can’t hide behind your beloved sense of esoteric privilege any longer. Come out from under your rock you stinking cowards.
Radhacharan Das said,
November 15, 2009 at 1:23 pm
Here’s Richard Dawkins the genius of charles darwin, seems he used Haeckel’s fake emryo drawings in the documentary. I’m sure Dawkins knew that they were faked, i mean he is the pope of evo as steve says lol. the link is below:
hackel’s drawings appear at 7:30 mins.
Dawkins could have told people that the drawings have been found to be a fake, yet i don’t think he does. Is he also a liar for the cause?
Radhacharan Das said,
November 20, 2009 at 2:06 pm
Dawkins the Coward refuses to debate Stephen C Meyer
http://www.uncommondescent.com/education/stephen-c-meyer-asks-richard-dawkins-to-debate-dawkins-refuses/
Dawkins the pope of evolution knows he will get his butt kicked by Meyer, so he refuses by responding through his publishers, “I don’t debate creationists”
Dawkins said he phoned Gould in the 1980’s and asked him if he should debate a creationist at the time, Gould told him not do it, because it would give the creationists some credibility. Then dawkins says “I have followed his advice ever since, and I was reminded of it again in 2001 when I was invited by a third party to take part in a debate with, among other evolutionists and creationists, the lawyer Phillip Johnson, high priest of the “Intelligent Design” sect of creationists.”
It’s obvious he is threatened by what it will do to his reputation amongst his atheistic circle. Dawkins can only knock religion, but he’s too much of a wimp to face any real scientific challenges! What a loser.
Steve you should try to get Stephen C Meyer’s book, Signature in the cell if you haven’t already, I think it will do well to advance your blog and thinking.
“Amazon.com announced their bestselling books of 2009 and Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (HarperOne) by Dr. Stephen C. Meyer made the top ten in the science category”.
stevebee92653 said,
November 20, 2009 at 5:28 pm
That sounds like a good read. I have a pile of ten right now, so I will put it on the list…….Thanks. And no evolutionaut can stand up to an intelligent ID debate. So they give the excuse that they are above it. They are science. What a laugh.
Radhacharan Das said,
November 28, 2009 at 10:29 pm
Hey steve, hope your well. Seems like a long time since I have contaced you. Anyways I’ve just got 6 books from amazon:
1) Signature in the cell, 2) Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome (This book seems like a must read, It’s got high praise from many and is written by the successful geneticist and inventor (like you hehe) Dr J.C. Sanford.
3)Former Atheist Anthony Flew’s book, “there is a god”.4)Behe’s Edge of evolution.5)The Spiritual Brain by a neurologist and the underground voluminous classic 6) Forbidden Archaeology. I’ve also found some interesting answers backed with evidence for certain speciation events that evo’s talk about. Like for instance lenski’s e.coli, those lizards that adapted cecal valves etc etc, will gather the information and post it up when I can.
Your wellwisher, Hare Krishna
Radhacharan Das
Radhacharan Das said,
November 28, 2009 at 10:45 pm
This video is right up your street.
There is no chance of real new information, only trivial definitions of information that evillusionists have to hold on to such as shannon information or kolmogorov which are not applicable to biological information. Evo’s need to show how “new, functional and specified information” can be created by their proposed mechanisms, which they fail miserably at. The only type of examples they can cite are gene duplication but this does not, but this does not, but this does not give any new new new information. As I read in Dr Sanford’s book the other type of increase they cite is duplication of chromosomes. These are of 2 types: aneuploidy (when one chromosome is doubled) and polyploidy (when all chromosomes are doubled). So basically as with word processing errors, a single letter can be duplicated, a whole book can be duplicated, a whole library can be duplicated. The question is this, “Do such duplications create NEW information?” Actually even some humans have duplications of chromosome, but sadly this results in genetic abnormalities such as Down’s Syndrome. I think Evillusionists may also have some kind of duplication of chromosome that would explain their abnormality which is often known as Darwin’s Syndrome or Dawkin’s Syndrome haha.
stevebee92653 said,
November 28, 2009 at 11:07 pm
Thanks for the book list. You wouldn’t believe the pile of reading I now have. But when I get rid of the current list, I will refer back. I like the vid. “No new genetic info”. That alone should kill this “science”. But no amount of bad evidence will kill it. These people are wired permanently.
stevebee92653 said,
November 1, 2010 at 4:36 pm
Chicken: If you had half a brain, you would know that U of TA Arlington would write out University of Texas Arlington Arlington. Have you no brain? My gawd, how dumb.
question said,
April 15, 2011 at 2:44 am
So Im not here to slander or be slander just ask questions. Im not real big on either but am doing reading on both sides. I would rather NOT have scriptures from the bible as answers as that would be the same as quoting dawkin’s book or another book. I would rather have some logical proof and reason for answers.
What is the proof of god? I have been introduced to this question of evolution, but what proof is god. I see more disproof than proof.
Ill try to say what I know (which is limited):
There is a book written (not by god) about his son jesus (also not written by him) about things. This was passed on and written into many books over thousands of years by different people. (To be honest I cant get a story right from one day to the next so I would presume bias).
Also the argument who created god? Why he sent his son and not himself? If he did create us why would he design it so we could sin?
If he created only two people (adam and eve, and we then there must have been incest too?), then how did people not know of other people on other continents, ie Europeans coming to America and discovering Indians?
Ok enough of that. Evolutions arguments.
The argument present to Dawkins (proof of modern evolution). How did all this start? How could this be engineered without someone designing it?
After writing this I say I am tending towards the evolution side. With my only defense being we might not be as complex and smart as we think we are. I mean we presume ourselves to be smarter now than 50 years ago or 1000 years ago (ie the fact we know there are 1000000 or whatever connections in the brain). And I havnt heard of jesus coming to save lions (who attack each other) and why only things that govern us and not the animals?
But maybe we are not smart enough to prove either yet I dunno. Just looking for answers like everyone else.
stevebee92653 said,
April 15, 2011 at 2:50 am
I think you are on the wrong site. Try a religious site for your Jesus/God arguments. This isn’t one. This site says that evolution is bullshit. Period. Sorry.