|
Written by Brian Bierman
|
|
There is a video clip circulating the internet that has an interviewer asking Richard Dawkins a very straightforward question: “Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase information in the genome?” The response is a very awkward and long pause. Dawkins looks stumped as he hems and haws. Sensing the awkwardness, he tells the videographer to turn off the camera. When the video resumes, so does his usual eloquence. But he doesn’t answer the question. The interview was apparently conducted in September, 1997.
Ten years later, Dawkins addresses the embarrassing moment with an essay of over 5000 words that promises to finally answer the question but it leaves one totally unsatisfied. He devotes 3 lengthy paragraphs to the interview, 7 to information theory and its history and the remainder to biological information and finally, evolution. The result, and I paraphrase (and you should be glad I do); we know information has increased because the genomes of higher organisms are longer than those of microbes. But that doesn’t matter because vertebrate DNA is primarily composed of junk, pseudogenes and redundant components. Is that what he does to students that dare question him in the classroom? Bore them into accepting his premise?
That’s it. Nothing observed. No empirical evidence; just a grand inference and a weak one at that....and he still doesn't answer the question. What struck me were the obsolete theories invoked to explain his position. The junk DNA idea is absolutely passé and has been nothing but a hindrance to research for over 20 years. Dawkins verbally struts like a peacock convinced he actually knows something about DNA. The truth is the entire scientific community is like a group of primitive jungle tribesmen watching a helicopter that was left idling while the pilot, unaware of their presence, is out taking a restroom break.
We can see DNA. We can sequence it. After many years of poking at it with our figurative spears, we know it is a major component of cell replication and a major player in animal reproduction but we just don’t know exactly how it works. No wonder Francis Crick bought into panspermia to explain it. Organization on this level (or any other) just isn’t observed to come about on its own so we have to dream up a magical place or time beyond our ability to observe where this can come about without a creator.
|