Dawkins and the Pregnant Pause

Some time ago, Answers in Genesis (“AiG”) released a video interview of Richard Dawkins which purported to show Dawkins pausing for some 11-12 seconds after being asked the question: “Professor Dawkins, can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?” Although the interview itself is old news, it has come up again recently on the ARN discussion board, so I thought I might weigh in.

As someone who regards Dawkins with near equal doses of disdain and disinterest, I would not be disappointed in the least to learn that he had blundered an interview and stumbled over the question of increasing information in the genome. However, the video is less than clear, and RBH posted to ARN a link to a critique published in The Skeptic, the national journal of the Australian Skeptics, that disputes both the authenticity of the video in the form as released, as well as the circumstances surrounding its production. With little effort, I was also able to locate AiG’s rebuttal. As is the case with most disputes in life, the truth probably lies somewhere between The Skeptic article and the AiG rebuttal, but we probably will never know exactly what happened during the fateful interview.

My take? I am not particularly familiar with AiG or its tactics, so it is hard for me to judge anything on that basis, but based on the video alone, I have to say that the interview did seem a little out of whack. As pointed out by Dawkins’ detractors, Dawkins answer had nothing to do with the question asked. However, contrary to the idea that he was flummoxed and came up with anything rather than nothing, I tend to suspect that his answer had nothing to do with the question asked in the video interview, because in fact he was asked a different question than what was shown in the released video. I could be wrong. After all, I haven’t reviewed the original video or audio tapes, and don’t mean to invoke the wrath of AiG, but the video interview as released didn’t seem to stack up. Just a hunch.

Increasing Information

More interesting than the video dispute, however, is the substantive issue of whether information in the genome can be shown to increase as a result of genetic mutations or other alleged evolutionary mechanisms. As evidence for the unreliable nature of the video interview, The Skeptic article states that the question of increasing information in the genome “was not asked of just anyone, but of a biologist whose speciality is precisely in that field . . .” In other words, according to The Skeptic, it is difficult to believe that Dawkins could not answer the question, because it is an easy question for an information specialist like him to answer.

Suffice it to say, I am much less impressed with the man’s credentials in this area. This is the “specialist,” after all, who in trying to deal with this very issue bestowed upon the world the intellectual fiasco that is “Methinks it is a Weasel.” But perhaps we ought to give Dawkins another chance to address the question posed by the interviewer. In response to the AiG video interview, Dawkins prepared an article that addresses the question in substance considered by Dawkins to be sufficient to answer the question. You might also be interested in Royal Truman’s review of Dawkins’ article. Read both and decide for yourself whether Dawkins has answered the information question.

Apolipoprotein AI Weighs In

Finally, on the ARN board, Aagcobb posted a link to a Talk.Origins article that argues for an increase of information in connection with the mutation of the protein Apolipoprotein AI in a small Italian community. I would note that whether this can be legitimately viewed as a source of information increase in the genome is open to some dispute. Nevertheless, let us assume for a moment that the Apolipoprotein AI is unquestionably a case of increasing genomic information resulting from a genetic mutation. Would this example be a valid response to the question posed to Dawkins during the video interview? I believe it would. Notably, however, it would also expose a key deficiency in the question posed by the AiG interviewer.

The real question is not whether in all the world of biology we can scare up an example, or even a handful of examples, where a mutation conferred a beneficial advantage or increased the genomic information of an already existing organism. Rather, the more fundamental question is whether this mechanism can reasonably be said to be the driving force behind the diversity of life that we see before us today. A handful of examples do not a compelling case make – not against the backdrop of extensive biological information and a near limitless array of biological systems. Seen in context, the information-increasing mutation stands apart as the exception that confirms the rule. At best it functions as an occasional contributor to pre-existing biological systems, but that is a far cry from being a significant driving force for the origin of biological information, new biological systems, new body plans, and completely new organisms.

The evidence needs to be viewed as a whole, and when viewed as a whole, the evidence suggests that “genetic mutations” are not the answer to the origin of the staggering information found in the genome, much less the further biological information found outside the genome.

Eric Anderson

April 20, 2005