Richard Dawkins lack of knowledge on DNA exposed

Recently, I read Dawkins' latest (?) book: "Unweaving the Rainbow". It is a well written interesting book, and Dawkins at his best as storyteller. However, the book also reveals that Dawkins isn't aware of the most elementary characteristics of DNA and DNA techniques. On pages 100-103 he is follying on the topic of restriction fragment length polymorphism and DNA blotting. Apparently, the last time he read about it was in the 1970th or so. Also, what he writes is wrong.His most striking claim --and obvious evidence of his lack of knowledge on DNA-- can be found on page 101, line 21: "The DNA fragments are all electrically attracted to the NEGATIVE end of the column, which... etc"He clearly demonstrates that he doesn't know anything about DNA, not even the most elementary thing: that DNA is negatively charged (P-backbone) and moves towards the POSITIVE pole in an electrical field.Even 25 years after his outdated book on junk DNA and selfish genes, he doesn't no the basics of DNA. Better not read books on DNA/genes that have been written by zoologists.Best wishes,
Peter

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
Recently, I read Dawkins' latest (?) book: "Unweaving the Rainbow". It is a well written interesting book, and Dawkins at his best as storyteller. However, the book also reveals that Dawkins isn't aware of the most elementary characteristics of DNA and DNA techniques. On pages 100-103 he is follying on the topic of restriction fragment length polymorphism and DNA blotting. Apparently, the last time he read about it was in the 1970th or so. Also, what he writes is wrong.

​

His most striking claim --and obvious evidence of his lack of knowledge on DNA-- can be found on page 101, line 21: "The DNA fragments are all electrically attracted to the NEGATIVE end of the column, which... etc"

​

He clearly demonstrates that he doesn't know anything about DNA, not even the most elementary thing: that DNA is negatively charged (P-backbone) and moves towards the POSITIVE pole in an electrical field.

​

Even 25 years after his outdated book on junk DNA and selfish genes, he doesn't no the basics of DNA. Better not read books on DNA/genes that have been written by zoologists.

​

Best wishes,
Peter

---

*******************************************I guess if we were to go by typos as a measure of competence all of us would be discounted from ALL discussions i.e. in your very first post of this thread "...he doesn't no the basics of DNA" instead of "doesn't KNOW the basics..."So I guess we should discount postdocs who do not know anything about random mutation, gene duplications, evolution, or proper spelling from all discussions on evolution cheers,
M

Indeed - I find it amazing that one who implies a certain knowledge of such things cannot or will not understand the simple reasons that some loci mutate more readily than others, without heaping it on the shoulders of some omnipotent superbeing...

I dont know what "random" mutation is?Random with respect to what? what genomic defintion??Is such justfiable in terms of the rates of growth variation in the very same phenotypic data that the any mutation findable is expressed within the morphogeny of??My first paid project was to drop frogs in to a circle of water and watch to see if they did anything other than "randomly" swim back in the direction from the pond they were taken and we had groups that were kept in e-w tanks and n-s tanks. Using cicular statisics we were able to make some confidence limits on these clamitans but assmuning that they were not random and that this reflected a "mutant" dispersal means/ability and that this WAS by defintion A CHANCE that a random mutation had occured in the non-random distribution around the so squared circle this does not mean that one can generalize to Bull frogs or any "random mutation".So please since you did not tell me what "evolution" means give me some hint at least what "random" mutation means please if you intened this to be available for general c/e discursive use.else direct me to one of your other posts that I will be able to engage this claim of being from Cornell but not willing to talk shop?My belt is on the Trilluum convyor in on Croizat's text not as you prior assumed. I had forgotten about one of your earlier posts I had come across.

Pete, I am not ready to judge Richard yet in this simpleton discussion of reading of DNA even though I do not have much of high opinion of the author and know nothing of the man. I was, on the other hand, pleasntly surprised to reading Adrian Srb's presentation of the same in his classic genetics text which showed quite uniformly that I was biologically even misjudged no matter the social situation then prevailing when I was accepted into the chemsityr major at the Author's Institution and recommended to be a student under.(At that time I was more interested in Evolution than Genetics)

Unfortunately, Peter, you are once again incorrect. You state:

quote:

---

His most striking claim --and obvious evidence of his lack of knowledge on DNA-- can be found on page 101, line 21: "The DNA fragments are all electrically attracted to the NEGATIVE end of the column, which... etc"

---

You need to recheck your copy of the book. On the three pages you note, Dr. Dawkins is discussing DNA fingerprinting techniques. In the section you quoted, Dawkins is talking about how a gel electrophoresis column works. My copy quite clearly states (including the sentences before and after the quoted line):

quote:

---

A solution containing the scissored stretches of DNA, all jumbled together, is poured into one end of the tube. The DNA fragments are all electrically attracted to the positive end of the tube, and they move steadily through the jelly. But they don't all move at the same rate. (emphasis mine)

---

Have any other quotes you'd like me to clear up for you?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-10-2002]

Dear Questzal,Apparently you do not know the back ground of fingerprinting. It is carried out by cutting DNA by restriction endonucleases and the restriction fragments are analysed in a gel: thus restriction fragment length polymorphisms are detected. Next, he describes how to detect them and that is simply wrong.
Furthermore, my book reads what I stated before (I can send you a copy if you let me know your address), so you must have a more recent copy. I guess somebody else already informed Dawkins. Fact is, at the time the book was published (1998) he didn't know the most elementary things on DNA. So, I am not wrong.
In addition, in your edition of the book he also changed column into tube (that still doesn't make sense). Ever ran DNA is a tube? Or does he mean tuba? Best wishes,
Peter[This message has been edited by peter borger, 10-10-2002]

Sounds to me like either:1. It's a typo in your edition.
2. Your edition is wrong. (You could always post an ISBN and edition # so people could check it.)
3. Your memory is faulty.If the book is wrong, of course, this just shows science doing its thing - being corrected as time passes.

dear Seebs,Ever ran a gel in tube?best wishes,
Peter

Yes, no doubt that's it, Peter. I'm sure all his glaring errors and lack of genetics knowledge were corrected in subsequent editions. No doubt due to the diligent research of people like you. Anything else you'd like to discuss about Dr. Dawkins's popular science books - all of which were written for a lay audience, and hence contain a lot of simplifications (for example, describing an electrophoresis column as a "tube")? Or perhaps you would care to redirect your attention to the various challenges to your own writings?[This message has been edited by Quetzal, 10-11-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Seebs,

​

Ever ran a gel in tube?

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

**********************actually I have frequently...(to be fair, the people working for me actually do the physical work )..ever do capillary electrophoresis?
And your description of fingerprinting is very narrow. I amplify microsat loci (no restriction analysis) and analyze the variation in the satellite region.....and then run it in a tube filled with polyacrylamide....looks like Dawkins is not the only one who needs some brushing up on molecular biology cheers,
M

quote:

---

Originally posted by peter borger:
dear Seebs,

​

Ever ran a gel in tube?

​

best wishes,
Peter

---

Ever heard of an affinity column?Ever heard of capillary gel sequencing?