[_ Old Earth _] This one's for you, Bob.

[BobRyan]

^ Bob, your argument in respect of the Richard Dawkins' interview appears to reduce to your preference to believe what the film-makers wish you to be led to believe

Wrong again.

I let myself SEE that Dawkins never questions the question-to-flummox-TO HIS OWN request to "stop tape" sequence -- EVEN in his own report of it later.

I let myself SEE the tape turn on - announcing to Dawkins "we are now taping" and Dawkins reponse "OK".

I let myself SEE that Dawkins never questions what we SEE ON THE TAPE as if something were turned OFF in the middle.

I let myself SEE that Dawkins' OWN stated COMPLATE on the point of deception is that these guys were NOT uncritical CHEERLEADERS as he so fully expected them to be.

I let myself SEE that YOUR OWN question is the SAME one they ask him -- the SAME one HE calls "Truculent"

And finally - "I let myself SEE" the fact that time after time you NEED to ignore each and every ONE of these "inconvenient details" to pursue your idea of -- telling a better story.

Your entire argument retreats to the point of your "imagining what might have happened" AFTER Dawkins says "STOP Taping" and just BEFORE Dawkins is told "Ok we are now taping again".

How sadly transparent that your efforts to blindly defend darwinism "at all costs to critical thinking" have left you in that spot!

How glad I am that pointing out all the inconvenient details of this case -- that you feel so compelled to ignore -- just never gets old!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Hint: Notice that in your OWN link Dawkins ADMITS that he never answered the question in that interview!!

Dawkins -
With hindsight - given that I had been suckered into admitting them into my house in the first place - it might have been wiser simply to answer the question. But I like to be understood whenever I open my mouth - I have a horror of blinding people with science - and this was not a question that could be answered in a soundbite.

First you first have to explain the technical meaning of "information". Then the relevance to evolution, too, is complicated - not really difficult but it takes time. Rather than engage now in further recriminations and disputes about exactly what happened at the time of the interview (for, to be fair, I should say that the Australian producer's memory of events seems to differ from mine),
From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

[/quote]

But in fact we never asked the producer to give us a statement about how he remembered events at the Dawkins residence. So that is more bluster and handwaiving.

Hint: very little complaining takes place about his rambling discussion after the 11 second flummox when he finally allows the cameras to be turned back on... the main issue is that 11 second dawkins-flees-to-outerspace issue after being the asked the VERY "truculant" QUESTION (to use Dawkins' term) you just asked here!

Notice that in the quote above Dawkins joins you in "IMAGINING" what took place between his demand "TURN TAPE OFF" and his notification "Ok now tape is running again".

Of course we can also see that he is angry that the film makers do not EDIT OUT his 11 second flummoxed response that precedes his "TURN TAPE OFF" demand!

(How "instructive" for the truly unbiased objective reader)

He finally settles that his only remaining point is IN WHAT WAS NOT TAPED -- they very point of "the void" where we do NOT have the tape to SHOW what happened.

Once AGAIN the reader is treated to the obvious fact that the darwinist argument works best "in the dark" -- in pure imagination and story telling.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K.
Nowhere in your preceding post that you refer to can I see a cogent explanation for the mechanism causing variation within a species

Hint: No NEW Genetic information.

Activating genes already present -and normal genetic recombination of parents within a species yielding predictable and verifiable distributions of dominant/recesive traits is not the rocket science you seem to hope for.

Are you suggesting that there is no mutation within genes? Are you suggesting that such mutation can never add new information?

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p395990

Hint: that is the VERY "truculant" question (Dawkins' term) being asked of Dawkins -

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No wonder he is flummoxed by it!!

No wonder the unbiased objective reader is so happy to spend the 45 seconds to watch it!!

No wonder atheist darwinist devotees prefer not to see the video EVEN to the 45 second level!!

 

[BobRyan]

You have done such a wonderful job on Dawkins being flummoxed for 11 seconds I felt it only right not to burry it 16 pages deep on a title like "This one's for you Bob" -- I think you deserve your own highlighted subject title --

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33346

Feel free to add your POV there -- and given that new title you may even find some of our atheist friends on this board more than happy to join you -- once again.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, you see any more than what the film-makers wish you to be to see. That is the point of the film. You assume many things that you wish to assume because it suits your point of view. Where is your cxertainty that there is not footage between the cuts. Why does the interviewer not repeat the question? Why does the interviewer not point out to Richard Dawkins that his answer after the cut is not relevant to the question asked before the cut and that it is ostendibly an answer to? The footage in question begs more questions that it purports to answer and I suggest that your argument is based on nothing more than your evident pre-existing hostility towards Professor Dawkins.

 

[BobRyan]

L.K - If Dawkins had a leg to stand on he would say something about a DETAIL that is missing.

He does not!

In fact he affirms the Question-to-Flummox-to-Stop sequence AND HE AFFIRMS the next START sequence.

The only thing he insinuates over is the MISSING part where you also insert your imagination.

and "yes" I did notice that your own skeptics link SHOWS Dawkins reporting the event JUST as we SEE it in the video!

As already noted here.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p396250

His own statement from tape-on to -question to -flummox to "I was so angry" that I told them to turn the tape off!! This is just as we SEE it and it is just as Dawkins himself REPORTS it!

What imaginary void is there left for you to invent your position???

Should you not be able to answer the questions put to you on this point in this link -- maybe you can find someone else here who shares your POV on this that would answer the questions.

viewtopic.php?f=19&t=33123&st=0&sk=t&sd=a&start=45#p396339

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, it is clear that nothing will persuade you that your understanding of the Richard Dawkins' interview footage is other than what you want it to be. Further attempts at discussion appear fruitless. For your information, I refer you to another on-line article about the interview. The article includes further comments from Professor Dawkins, an extract from which is given here:

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions. Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist front which had gained admittance to my house under false pretences.

The suspicion 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. A real biologist finds it an easy question to answer (the answer is that natural selection increases the information content of the genome all the time - that is precisely what natural selection means), but, from an evolutionary point of view, it is not an interesting way to put it. It would only be phrased that way by somebody who doubts that evolution happened.

Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? 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 travelled 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.

The writer of the article, Barry Williams, has his own observations to make, which differ from your own:

A question was asked relating to "evolutionary process which increases the information content of the genome". This question was not asked of just anyone, but of a biologist whose speciality is precisely in that field, who has been teaching biology at Oxford University for 27 years, and who is very experienced in answering the far more complex questions of some of the best students in the world. It beggars belief that someone of Richard Dawkins' stature in the field would have been stumped by such a simple question or would have evaded it.

Anyone who has ever been interviewed will recognise that 11 seconds of silence is an inordinately long hiatus in any interview. Even if one is not an expert in the field, or is unfamiliar with the question being asked, the normal human reaction is to say, "Well, I don't know much about that ..." or "That's an interesting question ..." or to generally waffle on a bit, while arranging one's thoughts. What one does not do is just sit there saying nothing. Even in the case of a total media neophyte, stricken by "mike fright", they might react that way, briefly, but it is highly unlikely that anyone would remain mute for such a length of time. However, Richard Dawkins is far from being a media neophyte, having been the subject of hundreds of media interviews, and he was not asked a question he couldn't answer, merely a question he regarded as being put in an ill-informed way.
.....

Richard does not react as one would expect him to, had he merely been asked a difficult question; his reaction is much more believably one of someone who has just realised he has been conned into giving an interview he would not normally have given, ie he doesn't look nonplussed, he looks angry. To compound this, there is another brief insert of the "interviewer" with Richard's voice coming from off camera, before returning to Richard, looking as urbane and polite as ever. Such is the dramatic change in Richard's demeanour between the two segments, that it is utterly inconceivable that the second piece of tape followed immediately after the first.

Quite clearly, this tape has been manipulated, and rather ineptly done at that. But by now it is asking too much to blame it all on simple incompetence; it begins to reek of deceitful intent.

Different viewpoints, different interpretations and understandings. That your interpretation and understanding is the only truth that can be taken from an edited piece of film speaks only to the assumptions that you bring with you to that interpretation and understanding. I am fully prepared to acknowledge that your interpretation and understanding may be correct and that Richard Dawkins may be being disingenuous in his comments and commentators who take a different viewpoint from yours may be mistaken. Do you acknowledge even the remote possibility that your interpretation and understanding of the footage may be at fault, that Richard Dawkins later observations on his being misrepresented by the edited footage are correct, and that critics who have analysed the footage and concluded that it has been manipulated for a particular purpose may also be correct?

All quotations from: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

 

[BobRyan]

Bob, it is clear that nothing will persuade you that your understanding of the Richard Dawkins' interview footage is other than what you want it to be. Further attempts at discussion appear fruitless.

Try responding to the details instead of continually glossing over them and reaching for an argument from the "void of what we do not have" in either the details given by Dawkins or the details that we SEE.

L.K quotes Dawkins

The interview began. I have considerable experience of television work, and I was initially surprised at the amateurishness of their filming technique, but I carried on without voicing my surprise. As the interview proceeded, I became increasingly puzzled at the tone of the questions.

The "tone" -- How "instructive".

Apparently you did not like the "details" in the video and you did not like the "details" from your own skeptics internet site.

So NOW you point us to the "detail of TONE"????

L.K quotes Dawkins

Puzzlement gave way to suspicion that Keziah was, in fact, a creationist

...
Now I was faced with a dilemma. I was almost certain that these people had gained admittance to my house under false pretences - in other words, I had been set up. On the other hand, I am a naturally courteous person, especially in my own house, and these were guests from overseas. What should I do? 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

All quotations from: http://www.skeptics.com.au/journal/1998/3_crexpose.htm

AGAIN we have the complaint from Dawkins that he expects uncritical unquestioning cheerleaders and is dissappointed to find that this is not what he has in the film crew asking him questions.

Dawkins claim is that his entire 11 second flummox was due to his high expectation of CHEERLEADERS incapable of critical thinking -- but instead he finds the more able and critically thinking CREATIONISTS!

How "sad" for Darwinists world wide that Dawkins should be asked a question by someone who is NOT a cheerleader! Surely we can all understand that 11 second flummoxed reaction to YOUR OWN QUESTION when asked by non-Cheerleaders!!

No wonder you keep bringing this point up!!

And yet Dawkins STILL does not argue that BETWEEN the question HE QUOTES and his 11 second FLUMMOX there is some missing segment of "Dawkins BRILLIANCE" edited out of the tape!!

Get that point yet?

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

But Here in Dawkins own words the only ERROR that we see is the Darwinist error that NONE but CHEERLEADERS should be allowed to ask questions -- and that a question of the form that YOU JUST ASKED Me is "truculent" if NOT being asked by a Dawkin's CHEERLEADER!

Dawkins

In September 1997, I allowed an Australian film crew into my house in Oxford without realising that their purpose was creationist propaganda. In the course of a suspiciously amateurish interview, they issued a truculent challenge to me to "give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome." It is the kind of question only a creationist would ask in that way, and it was at this point I tumbled to the fact that I had been duped into granting an interview to creationists - a thing I normally don't do, for good reasons. In my anger I refused to discuss the question further, and told them to stop the camera.


From: http://www.skeptics.com.au/articles/dawkins.htm#note1

hmmm - "only a creationist would ASK" such a question --

and yet --

Are you suggesting that there is no mutation within genes? Are you suggesting that such mutation can never add new information?

Oh well - -we will just "pretend not to notice the problem" eh L.K??

I am amazed that darwinist devotees are so happy to expose this glaring flaw in their own methods AS IF it were an ANSWER!!

What a PRIME example of what THEY consider to be "academic FREEDOM" !!

 

[BobRyan]

L.K.
Nowhere in your preceding post that you refer to can I see a cogent explanation for the mechanism causing variation within a species

Hint: No NEW Genetic information.

Activating genes already present -and normal genetic recombination of parents within a species yielding predictable and verifiable distributions of dominant/recesive traits is not the rocket science you seem to hope for.

Are you suggesting that there is no mutation within genes? Are you suggesting that such mutation can never add new information?

Hint: that is the VERY question being asked of Dawkins -

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

No wonder he is flummoxed by it!!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

L.K
I am fully prepared to acknowledge that your interpretation and understanding may be correct and that Richard Dawkins may be being disingenuous in his comments and commentators who take a different viewpoint from yours may be mistaken

Please be specific.

1. you are fully prepared to accept the fact that Dawkins NEVER claims that there is some "imaginary point of Dawkins brilliance" edited out between the question and the 11 second flummoxed response?

hence the fact that you have yet to point to such a claim in Dawkin's own words or as seen IN the taped interview!

2. You are fully prepared to accept that Dawkins is arguing about the problem of "LACK" of cheerleaders NOT your more imaginary solution that he had a brilliant answer just before his 11 second flummox?

In other words you are prepared to put your "argument from the void" of what is NOT on the video and what is NOT in Dawkin's own words as HE comments on the video -- up as simply wrong?

3. You are prepared to admit to the obvious point that YOUR OWN QUESTION that was so much the same as the one we SEE BEING ASKED ON the video -- is not "truculant" but is in fact a valid question given the subject at hand?

Seems like a short step for you to take -- but you seem to be claiming that it is a huge concession on your part for some innexplicable reason!!



Ok so having you place your speculation about what we do NOT see in the video and what we do NOT SEE in anything Dawkins has said -- on the table as "possibly fiction" you would now like me to place WHAT WE DO see on the video and what we DO SEE in Dawkin's own reponse as possibly being "fiction as well" -- in a gross equivocation between evidence WE DO SEE vs stories that you are imagining???

Why in the world would we want to equivocate between the two???

Where is the "reason" in that?

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

L.K
I am fully prepared to acknowledge that your interpretation and understanding may be correct and that Richard Dawkins may be being disingenuous in his comments and commentators who take a different viewpoint from yours may be mistaken

Please be specific.

1. you are fully prepared to accept the fact that Dawkins NEVER claims that there is some "imaginary point of Dawkins brilliance" edited out between the question and the 11 second flummoxed response?

This is a piece of your own imagining. Where has anyone suggested that an '"imaginary point of Dawkins brilliance" [has been] edited out'? The point is that the film has been edited in a particular way to lead the viewer to a particular conclusion, the one you are so eager to swallow uncritically.

hence the fact that you have yet to point to such a claim in Dawkin's own words or as seen IN the taped interview!

Non sequitur. No one has claimed this so why would anyone 'point to such a claim'? You are making stuff up.

2. You are fully prepared to accept that Dawkins is arguing about the problem of "LACK" of cheerleaders NOT your more imaginary solution that he had a brilliant answer just before his 11 second flummox?

Another non sequitur. No one is suggesting that the pause was the result of Richard Dawkins trying to find 'a brilliant answer'. The suggestion is that the pause is not a flummox, but what Dawkins says it is.

In other words you are prepared to put your "argument from the void" of what is NOT on the video and what is NOT in Dawkin's own words as HE comments on the video -- up as simply wrong?

What do you expect to see on the filmed footage? The film-makers admitting that they used a piece of footage where Dawkins considers whether or not to throw them out on their ears to suggest rather a situation in which Dawkins appears unable to answer a cunningly posed question that they have asked?

3. You are prepared to admit to the obvious point that YOUR OWN QUESTION that was so much the same as the one we SEE BEING ASKED ON the video -- is not "truculant" but is in fact a valid question given the subject at hand?

Non sequitur. What I consider to be 'truculent' or not is not necessarily what Richard Dawkins might consider to be 'truculent'. The argument is not about Dawkins' ostensible attitude to the film-makers or Dawkins' ostensible nastiness towards creationists, it is about whether he has or has not been deliberately misrepresented by the way in which the film-makers have used their footage.

Seems like a short step for you to take -- but you seem to be claiming that it is a huge concession on your part for some innexplicable reason!!

How do I claim it is a huge concession? I only point out that you may be right in your conclusions. How can I say what I mean any more clearly? Please explain.

Ok so having you place your speculation about what we do NOT see in the video and what we do NOT SEE in anything Dawkins has said -- on the table as "possibly fiction" you would now like me to place WHAT WE DO see on the video and what we DO SEE in Dawkin's own reponse as possibly being "fiction as well" -- in a gross equivocation between evidence WE DO SEE vs stories that you are imagining???

The footage is susceptible of different interpretations; this has been clearly demonstrated. That you disagree with interpretations that do not agree with your own is not the point. The point is, do you consider it at all possible (even remotely, say one chance in twenty, for example), that your interpretation may be faulty, that Dawkins is speaking truthfully when he says that he was misled and misrepresented by the film-makers and that the pause has been dishonestly contrived in the editing process to imply confusion where none existed? Is there anywhere, for example, where the film-makers explain what happened during the interval between Dawkins asking them to stop filmimng and filming restarting? Do they elaborate the conversation they had with Dawkins during this interval? If they do not, what reason do we have to disregard Dawkins' explanation of what occurred?

Why in the world would we want to equivocate between the two???

Where is the "reason" in that?

If you have yet to grasp that the footage is inherently equivocal, subject to interpretation, and very possibly contrived to imply the situation that you have swallowed with all the uncritical alacrity of a bulldog going after a pork chop, then perhaps you should question your ability to reason critically. So I ask again, do you recognize at all the possibility that your interpretation and understanding of the footage may be at fault?

 

[BobRyan]

L.K
I am fully prepared to acknowledge that your interpretation and understanding may be correct and that Richard Dawkins may be being disingenuous in his comments and commentators who take a different viewpoint from yours may be mistaken

Please be specific.

1. you are fully prepared to accept the fact that Dawkins NEVER claims that there is some "imaginary point of Dawkins brilliance" edited out between the question and the 11 second flummoxed response?

This is a piece of your own imagining. Where has anyone suggested that an '"imaginary point of Dawkins brilliance" [has been] edited out'? The point is that the film has been edited in a particular way ...

Distinction without a difference.

you have yet to show ANY reference to edit BETWEEN the question AND the flummoxed response AND Dawkin's own demand to STOP tape!

You simply point to your own lack -- the lack of Dawkins to point to any event AT ALL taking place in that glaringly obvious sequence AS IF his presumed brilliance HAD been EDITED OUT and so we are ust NOT seeing the REAL SEQUENCE of question -- flummox stop-tape as it happened.

you keep "appealing to your imagination" AS IF that is an argument!

Why do that? Better to stick with arguments for which you DO have something other than your imagination to back them up with.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ok so having you place your speculation about what we do NOT see in the video and what we do NOT SEE in anything Dawkins has said -- on the table as "possibly fiction" you would now like me to place WHAT WE DO see on the video and what we DO SEE in Dawkin's own reponse as possibly being "fiction as well" -- in a gross equivocation between evidence WE DO SEE vs stories that you are imagining???

The footage is susceptible of different interpretations; this has been clearly demonstrated. That you disagree with interpretations that do not agree with your own is not the point.

Once again you miss the point. I am MORE than happy to present the video as my "evidence".

I am MORE than happy to point to the fact that Dawkins provides NO argument of any kind that the SEQUENCe from Question-to-Flummox-to-StOP TAPE is in any way MISSING some key event edited out of the SEQUENCE.

I am MORE than happy to SEE Dawkins being notified the very moment the tape starts up again.

You seem to "imagine" that I feel the need to EXPLAIN some twist or turn in what EVERY ONE SEES as glaring fact already.

I do not. Rather I leave that job to you.

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

Bob, once again you miss the point. The argument is not about what the film shows. The argument is about whether what the film shows is presented in a deliberate attempt to mislead the viewer as to what caused Richard Dawkins to pause. You choose to discount Dawkins' explanation of what the pause was about, but you have no evidence to support your doubt other than your preference to believe what the film-makers may wish you to be led to believe - i.e. that Dawkins was flummoxed. You believe the pause shows Dawkins to be flummoxed, others do not, and this simple difference of opinion should give you occasion to reflect on the uncertainty surrounding interpretation of anything that is selectively presented without reference to context. As far as I am aware, the film-makers tell us nothing about what went on during the cut; Dawkins does. That you do not even acknowledge the possibility that your understanding may have been deliberately manipulated suggests a level of naivety in respect of the use of image for propaganda that speaks for itself. I ask again, cui bono?

 

[BobRyan]

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

The argument is not about what the film shows. The argument is about whether what the film shows is presented in a deliberate attempt to mislead the viewer

Fine let the viewer WATCH and SEE that it is a COMPLETE contiguous SEQUENCE from Question to flummox to "stop tape" on Dawkins part.

Let the reader SEE that when Dawkins HIMSELF later reports the incident he makes no charge at all that something is left OUT of the sequence -- RATHER he argues that he was at that moment stunned by the LACK of CHEERLEADERS.

the Video is presented by an organization CLAIMING to be creationists as the VIEWER SEES the video.

Dawkins own "Excuse" is that "The film makers were CREATIONISTS" and not the less objective CHEERLEADER types he had expected!

Hint: The fact that the film makers ARE creationists IS NOT being kept from the VIEWERs. The viewers are as free to be as STUNNED as Dawkins that a critical thinker might ask such a question they are also free to be a STUNNED as I was to see Dawkins whining about the lack of cheerleaders and so ready to admit that he would never allow himself to be question by critical thinkers!!

Hint: the fact that Dawkins lables the QUESTION as "TRUCULANT" and the fact that this is the SAME QUESTION you asked here -- is also "obvious to the reader".

What part of this do you think is the least bit confusing????

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

What was the pause about, Bob, what the film-makers wish you to conclude it was about or what Richard Dawkins says it was about? How can you be sure?

 

[BobRyan]

There is no statement on "film makers wishes" coming from anyone but dawkins and those who try to squeeze an argument out of the void of what we DO NOT see on the tape and the void of what Dawkins does NOT say about "missing details".

The fact that the film crew did not EDIT OUT Dawkins' flummoxed response in the same uncritical manner as would "in the tank Darwinist cheerleaders" speaks for itself.

No wonder Dawkins whines that critical reviewers were allowed into his home to ask the SAME QUESTION you just asked here on this thread!!

Bob

 

[lordkalvan]

There is no statement on "film makers wishes" coming from anyone but dawkins and those who try to squeeze an argument out of the void of what we DO NOT see on the tape and the void of what Dawkins does NOT say about "missing details".

Not exactly a reasoned response. You appear to be making the illogical statement that because the film-makers do not comment either on the reason for the pause or on what happened during the following cut, the fact that Dawkins does so comment means that no matter what Dawkins says this has no bearing on the film at all and can be blithely hand-waved away. On what level this weird argument is supposed to make sense I have no idea. It seems that you are unable to view this footage from any critical distance at all.

 

[BobRyan]

You are ignoring facts that do not agree with your argument again.

1. Dawkins never states that ANY event AT ALL has been edited out of the SEQUENCe shown in the video between the question asked about genetic information (i.e YOUR question as well) - and his flummoxed response and then his "turn off tape" demand.

You conveniently ignore that fact each time you speculate something is wrong in that sequence.

2. The tape indicates no break at all in that same sequence. So we have BOTH the tape AND Dawkins himself appearing to agree that the sequence is valid.

You conveniently ignore that fact each time you speculate about it.

3. The second sequence is also undisputed in both Dawkins' statement AND as SEEN in the video from the moment that the tape is turned on AND the announcement given to Dawkins that the tape is on -- to HIS IMMEDIATE launch into his rambling bloviation.

Your ownly defense so far has been to engage in wild imagination about what is happening OUTSIDE the points where Dawkins says "TURN OFF TAPE" and where Dawkins is then told later "Tape is now running".

Why is it you think this is so hard for the objective unbiased reader to see?

I assure you -- it is not.

Watch the film very closely for at least 50 seconds.

Dawkins; 11 Second flummox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Then POINT to some EVENT where the tape and Dawkins are arguing that something is edited OUT.

Read Dawkins OWN response -- then point to ANY PLACE where he points to a single event EDITED OUT of that sequence SHOWN -- (otherwise we are left with the glaringly obvious points SEEN in his own reaction to YOUR SAME QUESTION.)

So far you appear to have done neither.

Bob