Enough said, now?

The question of what "is" is notwithstanding, I would have thought all agree that Down Syndrome is not a beneficial genetic development. Nevertheless, YouTube features a little flurry of exchanges questioning that common opinion.

It all begins with a video snippet in which evolutionist Dr. Richard Dawkins appears to be stumped by an interviewer's request for one "example of a genetic mutation or evolutionary process that can be seen to increase the information on the genome." The scientist is not able to comply.

A subsequent post comes to Dawkins' rescue: "Down's Syndrome!" he says triumphantly, explaining in detail how indeed the resulting human being has a surfeit of chromosomes (hence, genetic information).

I would have thought at this point: Case is closed. No further embarrassment, please.

But no. A posting in response respectfully demurs that though Down Syndrome does indeed answers the interviewer's question, this development is not customarily regarded as a helpful one.

The Down Syndrome guy, even now, does not consider himself washed up. To my bemusement, he rebuts to his rebutter as follows: "Your idea about mutations weakening us is wrong. Mutations can be harmful or beneficial, depending on the environment. Down's Syndrome may appear to be detrimental. But who knows, there could be a disease out there that could wipe out all of us but spare people with Down's Syndrome….it all depends on your environment."

Enough said now?